> these data also gel with victimization surveys > this violent crime rate disparity exists even when controlling for SES That's exactly the kind of additiona

> 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.