bill bennett shoots self in foot

[RandFan]

I've played this game numerous times on this forum. I provide evidence, and then no one responds to it, or acknowledges it in any way.[/b]

What evidence? I'm sorry but could you repost it? I only remember an explanation of why Blacks might be arrested and convicted in greater numbers. This is NOT evidence. It IS a theory.

So what good will that do either of us? As Gallagher says, "I've played buffet before."

Well first I think you will have to post the evidence.

But I've checked the DOJ link you provide. It contains a false correlation. Numbers of people arrested for crime does not prove criminality;

It's a pretty good indication. Do you have evidence that our judicial system is out to convict innocent people?

it only proves that these people were arrested.

And convicted!

Since the innocent often get arrested, and even convicted...

Evidence please?

...the data is flawed. There's a disconnect between the question asked and the proof cited. It's simple:

If the question is "How many people in a given race commit crime?" then in order to get an accurate figure, you have to count everyone who's committed a crime but hasn't been caught, along with those who have been caught and are actually guilty. And this is impossible, or nearly so, since those who haven't been caught can't be counted, and since some of those arrested are innocent but can't prove it.

This a common fallacy concerning statistics. By your logic, statistical data is meaningless.

But if the question is "How many people in a given race are convicted of commiting crime?" then you need only count case files, which do not prove guilt or innocence, but only who was found guilty. Now by sheer law of averages, there are some innocent people in that number. But you have no way of determining that number, since all were found guilty. Therefore, this data cannot be used to prove criminality in a population.

You assume there are no valid scientific means to look at and corroborate the data and conclusions including other factors that I have enumerated that you simply choose to ignore.

"Exact same amount of crime?" That isn't my point. My point is that blacks are disproportionately arrested, for various reasons, including racial profiling, misidentification, and other factors. Whites or other races may very well commit more crimes, but if they aren't arrested, how can we know?

But this is simply a claim and contrary to the evidence. You need to support that claim.

What would happen to the numbers if all the members of other races who have committed a crime were actually caught? I can't answer that with numbers, since it's basically proving a negative.

Unsubstantiated claim. Can you demonstrate that other races are more likely to evade conviction and to what degree? For the record I believe they are more likely but I don't think there is any evidence to show that it is 100%

You also fail to see the correlation in your own premises. Wht is the correlation between minority populations and poverty? Is it not possible that being a minority means your socio-economic conditions may have some base in institutionalized/systemic racism?

You need to rephrase the question. It is not valid as is. You ask two questions and the latter doesn't follow from the former. Don't get me wrong. There IS a point for you to make here but you are missing it. Please think about it and try again.

The data shows, however, that African Americans are more likely than others to be arrested and convicted.

Yes! This IS THE reason this thread is here in the first place. But why?

What do all of these findings suggest? For starters, we cannot conclude how many African Americans or black males are actually guilty of committing crimes. We can only obtain data on the number of black males who are arrested for and convicted of a crime. While arrest rates are highly subjective, one could argue that a conviction is a guilty sentence in the eyes of the law.

I told you would need to do additional research. The claim is simply stated in this article and not demonstrated. You can't simply CLAIM that something is so. You need to demonstrate it.

One has to wonder if you read your own source? Seeing as how the statements made are supportive of my point, that is. Did you mean to do that, I wonder? Because it looks as if you provided this source to help me make my point.

Duh! Look, I have pointed out time and again I'm willing to consider counter arguments. I'm looking for them myself and when I find them and think that they are interesting or worthy of consideration I will post them. I'm not invested in this argument. If I'm wrong I will be perfectly happy to concede the point. If I can help you make the case I will do that. Please don't assume things about me that are not justified.

I had hoped however that you would provide the data to support the conclusions which is why I asked you to do more research.

That's so convoluted it almost makes sense. Almost.

The statement is both coherent and cogent.

Economic circumstances and factors like slavery and racism are evidence of systemic racism in American society.

Ok, and?

See? Racism is evidence of racism. Tautology.

No it is NOT a Tautology. The operant word here is "suggest". Look at it again. "To even suggest that there are economic circumstances and other factors like slavery and racism that contributes to higher statistics is defacto racism to you."


I'm saying that I cannot suggest that racism has led to socio-economic conditions which in turn has led to higher crime rates because ANY suggestion that links blacks and crime IS defacto racism. That is NOT a tautology.

Please, do more than suggest this, will you? Proclaim it loudly every chance you get, because it is exactly my point. Nice try, though.

I've not a clue what this means.

Nice little ad hom. And actually, I do hear what the others are saying, and I see a mixture of enlightened perspectives and unconscious racism in the statements. It's the unconscious part I'm trying to bring to consciousness.

I'll withdraw the claim of your emotions. My apology. However, You ARE missing logical arguments.

And you are correct. Most of the so-called difference is imposed on blacks and other races from the outside. This must be accounted for!

But at the end of the day it doesn't change the facts at hand. This helps us understand why crime is higher in a community.

Yes, which is exactly my point. Your own phrasing suggests that it's not a problem created by the black population, but from outside that population. Thanks for the support.

Please don't construe my words to mean something that they don't. Blacks are NOT better or worse than any other group of people. There is NO argument as to that fact. Blacks are humans with no statistical DNA difference than any other group of humans. Further, when Blacks achieve higher financial status the rate of crime plummets which suggests that the crime has is a result of socio-economics than the color of ones skin. The problems in the Black community are social and NOT genetic. And yes, by social I mean "external" pressures chiefly being economic. And no, those external pressures are NOT simply that whites are out to get blacks.


That fact however doesn't prove that Blacks are being targeted for arrest and conviction. It only proves that their condition contributes to their actions. I WILL grant however that a percentage of the increase is due to attitudes of police, juries and judges. The question is how much? When we consider other factors we see that it simply cannot be 100% and in fact is far less.

Your phrasing does nothing but beg the question. A hypothetical mass abortion of any race, any demographic, is going to result in a decrease in everything!

No, this is logically invalid.

You can't simply isolate one factor and call that significant

I'm not isolating one factor. I'm saying we CAN look at the hard data and consider ALL factors.

...and to do so is dangerously close to predictive logic. How does anyone know what will happen in the future? How do you test that hypothesis?

Only if we stick our heads in the sand and refuse to consider all factors. I for one refuse to do so. I have invited discussion of this issue and I would gladly look at any argument and any data. What I won't do is dismiss the demonstrable evidence at hand because it doesn't square with our sensibilities.


1.) Because of their socio-economic conditions Blacks commit more *crime. (when a person is poor that person is more likely to commit crime).


2.) Blacks are more likely to be convicted as a result of misconceptions, ignorance and racist attitudes on the part of police, judges, prosecutors and juries.

*Whites are far more likely to commit white collar crime than are blacks.

 

[slingblade]

The evidence of greater violence in the American black populations is overwhelming and almost entirely undisputed. I would have said entirely undisputed if I hadn't seen your post.

So, is it my turn now to make a plea for "evidence, please?" You are aware that using a premise like "gee whiz, everybody knows that" is sloppy logic, aren't you?

Murder rates in black sections of cities are often several times higher than white sections (check out Washington DC murder statistics for some insight into this). Nearly all black Gary, Indiana has often had the highest murder rate of any American city.

And it is possible you attribute certains statistics to the wrong source or cause, and thus arrive at an erroneous conclusion, which I'm saying most Americans do.

Hmmm. What would the murder rate in Gary, Indiana be if it were nearly all white? It might be lower, I'll grant the possibility. But I don't necessarily believe this is merely because blacks commit more murder than whites do, and I can't believe it based on only the one factor. What other factors come into play in Gary, Indiana? I'm not yet going to agree or disagree with this particular statement, because I don't have enough information. And instead of asking you to prove your premise, I'll volunteer to go get the info I want, myself. (Wikipedia cites a high rate of unemployment and "major economic problems" in Gary. Now, there's another factor that comes into play and affects the statistics. See how this works?)

Is it possible that your desire for the world to fit your pleasant liberal notions prevents you from seeing the world the way it is? Is it possible that a head in the sand approach to the problem of high black crime and violence rates for the sake of political correctness is damaging because it impedes dealing with a serious problem by pretending it doesn't exist?

"Liberal" means, among other things, progressive and open-minded. So you'll pardon me if I don't take that as the insult you meant it to be, but rather as a compliment. Thank you.

I in no way advocate ignoring this problem. I'm advocating a shift in perspective so that the problem can be properly identified and corrected.
The focus is on the wrong things, and that's a large part of why racism still affects us all.

 

[Ohmer]

Perhaps he should have have said "... you could abort every male baby in this country ... ". It would have made his point with much better statistical support and it would have included himself. I'm sure it would have greatly reduced the outrage without changing his argument at all.

Then again, we don't know for sure that men commit more crime, we just know that more men are arrested/convicted.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps he should have have said "... you could abort every male baby in this country ... ". It would have made his point with much better statistical support and it would have included himself.

Oh, you are so correct. Of course I suspect he thought the reference to blacks would engender a certain perspective that it certainly did not. So we can safely conclude that he failed misserably.

I'm sure it would have greatly reduced the outrage without changing his argument at all.

Agreed.

Then again, we don't know for sure that men commit more crime, we just know that more men are arrested/convicted.

Agreed and very good. A bit too subtle for some I'm afraid.

Then again, we don't know for sure that men commit more crime, we just know that more men are arrested/convicted.

In which case we don't know anything for sure.

 

[slingblade]

What evidence? I'm sorry but could you repost it? I only remember an explanation of why Blacks might be arrested and convicted in greater numbers. This is NOT evidence. It IS a theory.

Well first I think you will have to post the evidence.

It's a pretty good indication. Do you have evidence that our judicial system is out to convict innocent people?

And convicted!

Evidence please?

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/30convicting.html

Incredibly, the government, which collects and disseminates crime statistics "by the gigabyte and the shelf-full," as Actual Innocence notes, fails to include any information about convictions of the innocent, or about exonerations of the wrongfully convicted, in its official crime statistics. Insofar as government crime statistics are concerned, it would appear that no innocent person was ever convicted in the United States of America. "The innocent neither count nor are they counted.... Not one number is assigned to represent the distinct matter of the innocent person. No one has the job of figuring out what went wrong, or who did wrong. No account is taken of the innocent person, wrongly convicted, ultimately exonerated.... America keeps virtually no records when a conviction is vacated based on new evidence of innocence. The only place to study innocence is through accounts carried in newspapers and by broadcast news, a most haphazard net."

[. . .]

Convictions of the innocent in this country, Actual Innocence tells us, usually are not fortuitous. Wrongful convictions are a recurring problem because of defects in our criminal justice system, defects which the criminal justice establishment--especially the law enforcement establishment--steadfastly refuses to correct. In 64 recent cases of DNA exoneration examined by the Innocence Project, mistaken eyewitness identification by the victim or a witness was a contributing factor to the erroneous conviction in 84% of the cases. Other contributing factors included police misconduct (50%), prosecutorial misconduct (42%), inept defense counsel (27%), false or fabricated confessions (24%), and misconduct by jailhouse snitches (21%). A third of the 64 cases involved tainted or fraudulent scientific evidence purporting to show the defendant was guilty. Some of this false evidence came from police crime labs. Racism is also an important consideration. Of the 64 exonerated defendants, 57% were black and 11% were Latino, whereas 29% were white

One would think you live under a rock and have never heard of even one case of DNA evidence being used to prove innocence.

http://truthinjustice.org/exoneration-study.htm
This entire article is relevant and so is too long to cite. Please read it.

(Note, I am now providing you with the evidence you demand. If you do not read it and comment on it, then once again I have played the game of Utter Futility.)

This a common fallacy concerning statistics. By your logic, statistical data is meaningless.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Stats are only as good as their focii and relevance. I maintain the stats which you, I might point out, have not provided, are flawed in focus and correlation. Yes, your numbers exist. They don't prove what you maintain they prove.

You assume there are no valid scientific means to look at and corroborate the data and conclusions including other factors that I have enumerated that you simply choose to ignore.

No. I maintain the focus is wrong, and the correlations erroneous. There are valid scientific means to corroborate the data. And when you begin using them, you'll see my point clearly.

Unsubstantiated claim. Can you demonstrate that other races are more likely to evade conviction and to what degree? For the record I believe they are more likely but I don't think there is any evidence to show that it is 100%

Is 100% (of what? This is unclear, please clarify) necessary to prove the point?

1.) Because of their socio-economic conditions Blacks commit more *crime. (when a person is poor that person is more likely to commit crime).

Evidence? Bear in mind, in order to prove this statement, you must include the numbers of those who have commited crimes but have not been caught.

Proving "who commits the act" and "who is convicted of the act" are two different things because you can be convicted of committing an act you did not perform. So you have to give me the actual numbers of commission of crimes, including those no one even knows about, or for which no one has been caught. Also bear in mind that if an innocent person was wrongly convicted, then the actual criminal is still out there, and uncounted.

2.) Blacks are more likely to be convicted as a result of misconceptions, ignorance and racist attitudes on the part of police, judges, prosecutors and juries.

yes, so it doesn't then follow that blacks commit more crime, but only that they are more often convicted of it, in some cases, wrongly so.

*Whites are far more likely to commit white collar crime than are blacks.

And that couldn't possibly be because whites have far more access to white collar crime opportunities than blacks do? What are you saying here, exactly?

"Whites are more prone to white collar crime than blacks,"
or "Whites have more opportunity to commit white collar crime than blacks?"

Because if blacks had similar opportunity, do you then believe they would commit proportionately more white collar crime than whites?

 

[RandFan]

One would think you live under a rock and have never heard of even one case of DNA evidence being used to prove innocence.

This is a non sequitur. I never claimed that innocent people were not convicted. Your "evidence" proves nothing except that innocent people are at times arrested and convicted. How does this prove your premise?

This entire article is relevant and so is too long to cite. Please read it.

You could always cite a relevant portion, no? Sorry but the article suggests that there is good reason to suppose that there is reason to believe that blacks are more likely to be arrested and convicted than whites. It does not demonstrate that Blacks do not commit more crime. Further the study is hardly conclusive. From your link:

Prosecutors, however, have questioned some of the methodology used in the study, which was prepared at the University of Michigan and supervised by a law professor there, Samuel R. Gross. They say that the number of exonerations is quite small when compared with the number of convictions during the 15-year period. About 2 million people are in American prisons and jails.

Critics of the Michigan study questioned its methodology, saying it overstated the number of authentically innocent people. The study calls every nullification of a conviction by a governor, court or prosecutor declaring a person not guilty of a crime an exoneration.
In Astoria, Ore., Joshua Marquis, the district attorney for Clatsop County, said that many of the people exonerated under the study's definition may nonetheless have committed the crimes in question, though the evidence may have become too weak to prove that beyond a reasonably doubt.
"The real number of people on death row exonerated in the sense of being actually innocent in the modern era of the death penalty is about 25 to 30," Mr. Marquis said. The Michigan study put the number at 73.
He added that even the error rate suggested by the study was tolerable given the American prison population.

"We all agree that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted," Mr. Marquis said. "Is it better for 100,000 guilty men to walk free rather than have one innocent man convicted? The cost-benefit policy answer is no."

(Note, I am now providing you with the evidence you demand. If you do not read it and comment on it, then once again I have played the game of Utter Futility.)

No, you have not. The article does not even attempt to prove your premise. At best it suggests that Blacks are more likely to be arrested and convicted. A point that I have already conceded.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Stats are only as good as their focii and relevance.

I have already stipulated to this point.

I maintain the stats which you, I might point out, have not provided...

Are you kidding? I sure did. Do you just ignore my links? Please see my first post. Criminal Offenders Statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

...are flawed in focus and correlation.

This is a claim. Can you demonstrate your claim?

Yes, your numbers exist.

Oh, so you say I didn't post the statistics which I clearly did and then you say that they do indeed exist. I

They don't prove what you maintain they prove.

This is just gain saying.

No. I maintain the focus is wrong, and the correlations erroneous. There are valid scientific means to corroborate the data. And when you begin using them, you'll see my point clearly.

What valid scientific means? I AM using valid scientific means. Crime rates are higher in black communities. Either whites are sneaking into black communities and committing crime or the people who are being arrested for those crimes are committing them.

Is 100% (of what? This is unclear, please clarify) necessary to prove the point?

1.) It is agreed that racist attitudes contribute to the disparity of arrest and convictions in the Black community.

2.) Those factors are not the only factors to contribute to that disparity.

Evidence? Bear in mind, in order to prove this statement, you must include the numbers of those who have committed crimes but have not been caught.

Fallacy.

Proving "who commits the act" and "who is convicted of the act" are two different things because you can be convicted of committing an act you did not perform.

But WHAT is the likelihood of innocent people getting convicted. The devil is in the details and that detail is critical to your thesis.

So you have to give me the actual numbers of commission of crimes, including those no one even knows about, or for which no one has been caught. Also bear in mind that if an innocent person was wrongly convicted, then the actual criminal is still out there, and uncounted.

Logically invalid. By this logic no theory based on statistics can be considered.

And that couldn't possibly be because whites have far more access to white collar crime opportunities than blacks do?

Of course. Absolutely. Damn straight.

What are you saying here, exactly?

That whites commit more white collar crime.

"Whites are more prone to white collar crime than blacks,"
or "Whites have more opportunity to commit white collar crime than blacks?"

I'm saying that whites commit more white collar crime. I have said OVER AND OVER that blacks and whites are NOT inherently different. Can you infer my answer? Why are you asking the question? The answer could not be more clear.

Because if blacks had similar opportunity, do you then believe they would commit proportionately more white collar crime than whites?

Jeez, how many times have I said "if the roles were reversed"? OF COURSE!

I will say it one more time. There is no difference between blacks and whites except; socio-economic conditions of the, ignorance and racist attitudes on the part of whites directed towards blacks.

 

[punchdrunk]

Ok, given that argument wouldn't abortion in the African-American community reduce even more crime? Given that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime then the argument stands to reason.

While the percentages are disproportianate, whites account for 75% of the US population, which equals roughly 211 million white Americans. Blacks make up 12% of the US population, which is 33.7 million black Americans, and Hispanics equal roughly the same. Now let's look at this statistic, pulled from the aforementioned BOJ article:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for -- blacks (18.6%) and Hispanics (10%) than for whites (3.4%)

Using those projections, the numbers equal 7.18 white Americans (.034*211mil), 6.44 million black Americans (.186*33.7mil), and 3.53 million hispanic Americans (.10*35.3mil).

Please check my numbers; I'm not a statistician and maybe I'm missing something. But under Bennett's hypothesis, it would be more effective to abort white babies first, then black, and then hispanic. This is probably overly simple, but my point is, you shouldn't use the percentages but the actual numbers.

I accept Bennett's explanation that he was trying to make a point about championing abortion as a way to reduce crime. But by misusing the statistics and calling out blacks, he has only perpuated the ignorance surrounding American race issues.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'll second that. Also if memory serves the correlation between race and crime largely disappears if we correct for social class, which is strong evidence that it's not causes by racial profiling, however wonderfully politically correct the notion may be.

Seems to me this is the point that Benett is jumping over : abort the babies of the poor and crime rates will be lower at some future point than they would otherwise have been. Proportionately, more blacks than whites are poor, so blacks can be portrayed as more criminally-minded. Racial profiling follows that.

 

[RandFan]

While the percentages are disproportianate, whites account for 75% of the US population, which equals roughly 211 million white Americans. Blacks make up 12% of the US population, which is 33.7 million black Americans, and Hispanics equal roughly the same. Now let's look at this statistic, pulled from the aforementioned BOJ article:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm



Using those projections, the numbers equal 7.18 [million] white Americans (.034*211mil), 6.44 million black Americans (.186*33.7mil), and 3.53 million hispanic Americans (.10*35.3mil).

Please check my numbers; I'm not a statistician and maybe I'm missing something. But under Bennett's hypothesis, it would be more effective to abort white babies first, then black, and then hispanic. This is probably overly simple, but my point is, you shouldn't use the percentages but the actual numbers.

This was rolling around the back of my head. I would think to myself "but what are the actual vs percentage?" I didn't take the time to flesh it out however. Thanks.

I think you found a flaw in Bennett's logic (I'm sorry I missed it). If we aborted every black baby the rate would not decrease.

I accept Bennett's explanation that he was trying to make a point about championing abortion as a way to reduce crime. But by misusing the statistics and calling out blacks, he has only perpuated the ignorance surrounding American race issues.

Agreed.

 

[Kerberos]

While the percentages are disproportianate, whites account for 75% of the US population, which equals roughly 211 million white Americans. Blacks make up 12% of the US population, which is 33.7 million black Americans, and Hispanics equal roughly the same. Now let's look at this statistic, pulled from the aforementioned BOJ article:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm



Using those projections, the numbers equal 7.18 white Americans (.034*211mil), 6.44 million black Americans (.186*33.7mil), and 3.53 million hispanic Americans (.10*35.3mil).

Please check my numbers; I'm not a statistician and maybe I'm missing something. But under Bennett's hypothesis, it would be more effective to abort white babies first, then black, and then hispanic. This is probably overly simple, but my point is, you shouldn't use the percentages but the actual numbers.

Yeah, but crime rates are always counted as incidents/100.000 people (or some similar measure) to avoid the obvios absurdities that would resault from using absolute numbers (small states would always be considered peacefull and big states always violent). I think it's reasonable to asume that Bennett refered to the standard measure.

 

[punchdrunk]

Yeah, but crime rates are always counted as incidents/100.000 people (or some similar measure) to avoid the obvios absurdities that would resault from using absolute numbers (small states would always be considered peacefull and big states always violent). I think it's reasonable to asume that Bennett refered to the standard measure.

Could you explain this further? I don't understand how this applies to my post.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Are you kidding? I sure did. Do you just ignore my links? Please see my first post. Criminal Offenders Statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

This is a claim. Can you demonstrate your claim?

The claim is the statistics, not the questioning of them. The methodology of your statistics does not control for racial profiling. Therefore, they do not constitute legitimate means to come to a conclusion on the crime rate in the black population. There is nothing to prove in this observation. If anything, it puts greater burden on you, because you now must find statistics which you can show to be untainted by racial profiling. The simple fact that your claim is explicated in the format of demography does not exonerate it from its requirement to show that it accounts for all of the variables pertinent to the questions it is trying to answer.

I would also ask you to read through this book, a scientific study on racial profiling from the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[CapelDodger]

The claim is the statistics, not the questioning of them. The methodology of your statistics does not control for racial profiling. Therefore, they do not constitute legitimate means to come to a conclusion on the crime rate in the black population.

Further to your point, highly credible studies in the UK have demonstrated that :

Black youths are more likely to be prosecuted rather than receive a police caution than equivalent white youths (matched by offence, criminal record and social background).

Black youths, when convicted, are more likely than white youths to receive custodial sentences.

Black youths are given longer sentences than equivalent white youths.

Black boys are more likely to be excluded from school than equivalent white boys (exlusion strongly correlates with criminality).

Black men are more likely to be stopped and searched for "behaving suspiciously" than white men, and thus are more likely to enter the criminal justice system in the first place. The same applies to car-stops.

(No links, I'm afraid, I'll see if I can hunt some up.)

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps Bennett's wandered onto a moral magnetic pole and disrupted his moral compass.

I'm wondering, in all the talk about numbers of criminals of various ethnicities, whether anyone counts the ethnicities of the victims. If you abort all babies of a given race, you will remove future criminals, but you will also be removing their victims. The net gain to society is not a generation who are free of crime because the criminals that would have gotten them aren't around, since the potential victims also don't exist. The net result would appear to be nil, as the criminals and the victims cancel each other out. However, unless the ethnicity in question produces criminals than it does noncriminals, society is actually losing out by not acquiring decent citizens in the new generation. There may or may not be disparity in the crime rates between races, but no single race produces more criminals than it does law-abiding citizens.

 

[RandFan]

The claim is the statistics, not the questioning of them.

Then we disagree. Sure the statistics deserve analysis and justification but throwing up any objection is not proof of anything.

The methodology of your statistics does not control for racial profiling.

Your statement makes presumptions that you want me to just accept. I don't think it is wise to take any claim about the statistics on face value. One could throw any number of objections at any number of studies. Whether those objections are relevant is a point of contention.

Therefore, they do not constitute legitimate means to come to a conclusion on the crime rate in the black population. There is nothing to prove in this observation. If anything, it puts greater burden on you, because you now must find statistics which you can show to be untainted by racial profiling.

First we must determine IF racial profiling is a component and if so how much. You accept it as fact without offering any evidence other than an assurance that it is. Do you really expect me to just accept your word for it?

The simple fact that your claim is explicated in the format of demography does not exonerate it from its requirement to show that it accounts for all of the variables pertinent to the questions it is trying to answer.

No argument but is racial profiling a pertinent variable. I concede that it could be but it has not been established here.

I would also ask you to read through this book, a scientific study on racial profiling from the National Academy of Sciences.

Sounds interesting but is this supposed to be an argument? Is the fact that this book exists and covers certain topics proof of something?

 

[Skeptic]

I think the argument between Slingblade and Randfan is missing the point. It is undeniable that blacks commit more crimes than whites, for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons are poverty and lack of education. It is therefore (very probably) true to say both that "if we abort more black babies the crime rate would go down" and "if we give more blacks a chance of college the crime rate would go down".

But saying the former insinuates that one's preferred method of reducing black crime is aborting black fetuses, while saying the latter insinuates that one's preferred method of reducing black crime is increasing the number of black college graduates. This implies a very different attitude by the sayer towards the black community, and it is this which people are concerned about.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think the argument between Slingblade and Randfan is missing the point. It is undeniable that blacks commit more crimes than whites, for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons are poverty and lack of education. It is therefore (very probably) true to say both that "if we abort more black babies the crime rate would go down" and "if we give more blacks a chance of college the crime rate would go down".

The second option should, IMO, be generalised to "give everybody equal opportunities". That means equal access to capital, as well as education and health-care. And it means an attack on inheritance.

But saying the former insinuates that one's preferred method of reducing black crime is aborting black fetuses, while saying the latter insinuates that one's preferred method of reducing black crime is increasing the number of black college graduates. This implies a very different attitude by the sayer towards the black community, and it is this which people are concerned about.

I think Bennett is being outrageous, which is his job in a way, but not advocating method A. His problem is the argument that freely available abortion has social benefits, and that's understandable. I have a problem with utilitarianism myself. His comment does reveal something about his mind-set, though. Those who make the argument refer to the under-privileged, but Bennett automatically thinks about blacks.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm wondering, in all the talk about numbers of criminals of various ethnicities, whether anyone counts the ethnicities of the victims. If you abort all babies of a given race, you will remove future criminals, but you will also be removing their victims. The net gain to society is not a generation who are free of crime because the criminals that would have gotten them aren't around, since the potential victims also don't exist. The net result would appear to be nil, as the criminals and the victims cancel each other out. However, unless the ethnicity in question produces criminals than it does noncriminals, society is actually losing out by not acquiring decent citizens in the new generation. There may or may not be disparity in the crime rates between races, but no single race produces more criminals than it does law-abiding citizens.

Cute thinking, but it misses out some parameters. Most crime is carried out by poor people on other poor people. Reduce (cull ) the poor segment of the population, and you're left with a lower criminality and victim proportion overall. Until a new poor class emerges. Constant vigilance is obviously required.

One reason poor communities have more crime is that they're not as well policed as prosperous communities. Police time is spent keeping a lid on things, so gangsterism - "self-policing" - is accomodated. It's preferable to chaos. As long as turf-wars happen on that sort of turf, it doesn't hit the headlines.

Of course, take out the poor and you still have police and justice system to justify themselves. And the prison business. The bar just gets raised. Compared to Georgian London (gin instead of crack), we all live in a haven of peace and harmony.

 

[Batman Jr.]

It is undeniable that blacks commit more crimes than whites...

Is it?

First we must determine IF racial profiling is a component and if so how much. You accept it as fact without offering any evidence other than an assurance that it is. Do you really expect me to just accept your word for it?

No argument but is racial profiling a pertinent variable. I concede that it could be but it has not been established here.

By its nature, we know that racial profiling, if extant in the criminal justice system, would skew demographic measurements of the prison population and the population of those arrested in a way that would make them no longer reflective of the demography of actual offenders, so I don't think a contention of the questionableness of the relevance of racial profiling really holds water. On the other hand, an argument about the prevalence of racial profiling is a different subject entirely. Nonetheless, your expression of your ignorance on the issue shows that you have not accounted for the variable the issue creates, so resultantly, the claim reliant upon the value of that variable cannot be considered viable as of now.

Sounds interesting but is this supposed to be an argument? Is the fact that this book exists and covers certain topics proof of something?

The book, written by a panel of acknowledged experts, is a review of numerous different studies on racial profiling and their implications. The standards for accuracy of the National Academy of Science are rigorous; anything that comes out of them shouldn't be taken lightly. The book has also received glowing endorsements from the AMA and other prestigious scientific organizations. It's important for you to understand the current scientific consensus on the matters surrounding racial profiling if you want to better discuss the black crime rate.

 

[hammegk]

Too bad Bennett didn't say, "If we abort all babies of unwed mothers -- who live in housing projects at gov't expense -- crime would be reduced".