2 ms·

> but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', because law enforcement is discretionary and also/therefore racist > This is why homicide rates are useful.

by hansvm 6y ago

> but I smell a weasel in the phrase 'crime rate', because law enforcement is discretionary and also/therefore racist > This is why homicide rates are useful. For most cases, it is pretty obvious a crime of some sort occurred. Tldr; homicide conviction rates are subject to other artifacts and can't support either side very well without additional data. Law enforcement is discretionary not just in deciding what counts as a crime but in who they decide to investigate and other tactics employed. Not that this hugely affects any relative statistics, but the murder false imprisonment rate is estimated at 4-11%, and false imprisonment (as far as we can tell from subsequent DNA exhoneration and whatnot -- this might not be representative of all murders) disproportionately affects black people. Not that this necessarily says anything about broad crime racial statistics, but it could throw any direct comparisons off. More importantly though, 30-40% of murders go unsolved, and it's probably not reasonable to assume that distribution to reflect the distribution of successfully convicted murders (if for no other reason than the race<->income correlation). That's such a huge monkey wrench in any comparative statistics that murder conviction rates without any additional information don't strongly support either side of things.

throwaway894345 6y ago
Criminologists consider homicides to be reliable because it's difficult for police to ignore homicides. Moreover, these data also gel with victimization surveys--victims also report disproportionate black offenders, especially in violent crimes. Further, this violent crime rate disparity exists even when controlling for SES (socioeconomic status) differences between the races (contra your "race<->income correlation" remark). There's probably some error, but all sources suggest that crime rates are considerably higher among blacks than whites. Note again that virtually no one is arguing that blacks are inherently criminal, but that these disparities are a vestige of centuries of severe institutional racism--it would be shocking if no disparities remained only 60 years after the formal end of Jim Crow.
- hansvm 6y ago
  > these data also gel with victimization surveys > this violent crime rate disparity exists even when controlling for SES That's exactly the kind of additional data I was asking for. I just didn't think murder conviction rates by themselves were sufficient evidence to support the claims they were being thrown against. > Criminologists consider homicides to be reliable because it's difficult for police to ignore homicides. That side-steps my point a bit doesn't it (in hindsight I should have been more clear)? Being difficult to ignore makes homicides generally reliable for some kinds of comparisons (e.g. comparing violent crime between countries), but that reliability doesn't transfer well. E.g., when a plausible suspect is thrown in jail the spotlight is removed from everyone involved. I gave specific examples where despite a high reliability in overall murder rates, piggybacking on that reliability to lend credibility to the racial distribution of conviction rates isn't justified (without additional information). The rest of your comment notwithstanding (I did appreciate it and do generally agree with you), rebutting by reaffirming points I already agree with and pulling in criminologists as experts in the vaguest way possible isn't satisfactory. > Note again that virtually no one is arguing that blacks are inherently criminal, but that these disparities are a vestige of centuries of severe institutional racism--it would be shocking if no disparities remained only 60 years after the formal end of Jim Crow. No argument here. I tend to agree with the claim, but the evidence (based on murder conviction rates) was suspect.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Yeah, it sounds like I was reading too far into your point. I think we agree.

by hansvm 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago

Criminologists consider homicides to be reliable because it's difficult for police to ignore homicides. Moreover, these data also gel with victimization surveys--victims also report disproportionate black offenders, especially in violent crimes. Further, this violent crime rate disparity exists even when controlling for SES (socioeconomic status) differences between the races (contra your "race<->income correlation" remark). There's probably some error, but all sources suggest that crime rates are considerably higher among blacks than whites. Note again that virtually no one is arguing that blacks are inherently criminal, but that these disparities are a vestige of centuries of severe institutional racism--it would be shocking if no disparities remained only 60 years after the formal end of Jim Crow.

hansvm 6y ago
> these data also gel with victimization surveys > this violent crime rate disparity exists even when controlling for SES That's exactly the kind of additional data I was asking for. I just didn't think murder conviction rates by themselves were sufficient evidence to support the claims they were being thrown against. > Criminologists consider homicides to be reliable because it's difficult for police to ignore homicides. That side-steps my point a bit doesn't it (in hindsight I should have been more clear)? Being difficult to ignore makes homicides generally reliable for some kinds of comparisons (e.g. comparing violent crime between countries), but that reliability doesn't transfer well. E.g., when a plausible suspect is thrown in jail the spotlight is removed from everyone involved. I gave specific examples where despite a high reliability in overall murder rates, piggybacking on that reliability to lend credibility to the racial distribution of conviction rates isn't justified (without additional information). The rest of your comment notwithstanding (I did appreciate it and do generally agree with you), rebutting by reaffirming points I already agree with and pulling in criminologists as experts in the vaguest way possible isn't satisfactory. > Note again that virtually no one is arguing that blacks are inherently criminal, but that these disparities are a vestige of centuries of severe institutional racism--it would be shocking if no disparities remained only 60 years after the formal end of Jim Crow. No argument here. I tend to agree with the claim, but the evidence (based on murder conviction rates) was suspect.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Yeah, it sounds like I was reading too far into your point. I think we agree.