|
Click to enter
________________
________________
________________
|
The Color of Crime Race,
Crime, and Violence in _______________________________________________________________ Source: The New Century Foundation Summary The Color of Crime, a New Century Foundation study
based on federal crime reports, has found significant differences in violent
crime rates for different racial and ethnic groups. Blacks, for example, are
many times more likely to commit crimes of violence against whites than vice
versa. Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial violent crimes involving
blacks and whites reported every year, blacks commit 90 percent and whites
commit only ten percent. Blacks are therefore more than 50 times more likely
than whites to commit interracial crimes of violence. The differences are
even greater for multiple-offender interracial crimes, with blacks 100 to 250
times more likely to be involved in gang attacks on whites than the reverse. Some people may argue that blacks attack whites
because they expect them to be carrying cash or valuables. However, fewer
than 20 percent of black attacks on whites are robberies; rape and assault do
not usually have economic motives. There is more black-on-white violent crime than
black-on-black violent crime. When blacks commit violence they attack whites
50 to 55 percent of the time. When whites commit violence they attack blacks
only two to three percent of the time.
Hispanics are considered a victim category for hate
crimes but not a perpetrator category. A Mexican who is attacked because of
ethnicity is recorded as Hispanic, but if the same Mexican attacks a black or
white for racial reasons he is considered white. This inflates the figures
for “white” hate crime perpetrators, and gives the impression that Hispanics
commit no hate crimes. For virtually all crimes, there are consistent and
pronounced differences in arrest rates for violent crime by race and
ethnicity. Blacks are five to ten times more likely to be arrested than
whites, Hispanics are approximately three times more likely, American Indians
are about twice as likely, and Asians are only one half to two-thirds as
likely to be arrested for violent crimes as whites. The very high rates for
blacks means that the single best independent predictor of crime rates for an
area is the percentage of the population that is black. Blacks are as much more likely to be arrested for
violent crimes as men are more likely to be arrested than women. To the
extent that arrest rates are a good indication of actual criminal behavior–
and there is very strong evidence that they are– blacks are as much more
dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women. If people feel
more threatened by unknown men than by unknown women and are justified in
taking additional precautions against them, from a statistical point of view
they are equally justified in making the same distinctions between blacks and
whites. On June 7, 1998, white supremacists hitched James
Byrd of Jasper, Most Americans probably believe that whites commit
most interracial crimes, and that blacks are the most frequent victims. The
reverse is true: In approximately 90 percent of the interracial crimes of
violence involving blacks and whites, blacks are perpetrators and whites are
victims. In terms of crime rates (calculated as the number of crimes per
100,000 population), blacks are more than 50 times more likely to attack
whites than the reverse. To use the common short-hand expression, interracial
crime is overwhelmingly “black-on-white.” Because statistics of this kind are
surprising to most people, it is worth explaining them in some detail. Every year since 1972, the U.S. Department of
Justice has carried out what is called the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) to determine the frequency of certain kinds of crimes. The NCVS survey
sample is very large–approximately 100,000 people in some 50,000
households–and is carefully selected on the basis of census data to make it
as representative as possible of the nation as a whole. The NCVS is an
invaluable record of criminal victimization as reported directly by
Americans, and it is the only significant nationwide measure of interracial
crime. Two pages from the NCVS are included as Appendix A
of this report.(1) The first page, Table 42, lists various categories of
single-offender interracial violent crimes for 1994 (the NCVS is carried out
annually, but the Department of Justice does not issue full reports every
year; 1994 is the most recent year for this data). The group of numbers at the top of the page
represents totals calculated for single-offender violent crimes reported for
that year. They are extrapolated from the actual crimes reported by the
survey sample. We find that in 1994 6,830,360 whites were victims of violent
crimes, and that 16.7 percent (1,140,670) reported that the perpetrator was
black. Blacks were victims of 1,100,490 violent crimes, of which 12.3 percent
(135,360) were committed by whites. Adding these figures for interracial
crime together (1,140,670 and 135,360) we get a total of 1,276,030
interracial crimes, of which 1,140,670 or 89 percent were committed by
blacks. To get the rates at which blacks and whites commit
interracial crime we divide the number of crimes by the population to get
crimes per 100,000 population. The Census Bureau reports that the 1994 white
and black populations were 216,413,000 and 32,653,000 respectively. Whites
therefore committed acts of interracial violence at a rate of 62.55 per
100,000 while the black rate was 3,493.63 per 100,000, a figure that is no
less than 55.85 times the white rate. Put in the most easily understood
terms, the average black was therefore 56 times more likely to commit
criminal violence against a white than was a white to commit criminal
violence against a black. Similar calculations show that the black rate for
interracial robbery, or “mugging,” was 103 times the white rate. These two
rates are illustrated in the graph on the next page, and it is important to
understand what these figures mean. The multiple of 56 does not mean that
blacks commit 56 times as much interracial violence as whites. What it means
is that if whites commit interracial violence at a rate of 10 crimes per
100,000 whites, the rate for blacks is 560 per 100,000, or 56 times the white
rate. This is the kind of calculation that is represented in most of the
graphs in this report. The figures from Table 42 of the NCVS show other
facts about interracial violence. If we once Interracial Crime again
concentrate on the group of figures at the top of the table we can calculate
the total number of crimes committed by perpetrators of each race, and the
percentage that is committed against the other race. We find that the
1,140,670 acts of violence committed by blacks against whites constitute 56.3
percent of all violent crimes committed by blacks. That is to say that when
blacks commit violent crimes they target whites more than half the time or,
put differently, there is more black-on-white than black-on-black crime. Similar
calculations for whites show that of the 5,114,692 acts of criminal violence
committed by whites, only 2.6 percent were directed at blacks. (Although
homicide is a violent crime, the NCVS does not include it because victims
cannot be interviewed. The number of interracial murders is small and does
not affect the percentages and ratios presented here.) Some may argue that blacks commit violence against
whites because whites are more likely to have money and are therefore more
promising robbery targets. However, of the 1,140,670 black-on-white acts of
violence reported in 1994, only 173,374 were robberies. The remaining 84.8
percent were aggravated assaults, rapes, and simple assaults, which
presumably were not motivated by profit. Rape, in particular, has nothing to
do with the presumed wealth of the victim. More than 30,000 white women were
raped by black men in 1994, and about 5,400 black women were raped by white
men. The black interracial rape rate was 38 times the white rate. The second page of Appendix A of this report is
another page from the NCVS. Table 48 shows interracial crime data for acts of
violence committed by multiple offenders. By doing the same calculations as
before, we can determine how much group or “gang” violence (not in the sense
of organized gangs) is interracial, and how much is committed by blacks and
by whites. Of the total of 490,266 acts of multiple-offender interracial
violence, no fewer than 93.9 percent were committed by blacks against whites.
Robbery, for which there is a monetary motive, accounted for fewer than one
third of these crimes. The rest were gang assaults, including rapes,
presumably for motives other than profit. Rates of group violence for each race can be
calculated as before, and the difference between the races is stark. The
black rate of overall interracial gang violence is 101.75 times the white
rate; for robbery it is 277.31 times the white rate. Differences as great as
this are seldom found in comparative studies of group behavior, and they cry
out for study and explanation. It is probably safe to say that if the races
were reversed, and gangs of whites were attacking blacks at merely four or
five times the rate at which blacks were attacking whites the country would
consider this a national crisis that required urgent attention. Hate
Crimes in Perspective Ever since passage of the Hate Crime Statistics Act
of 1990, the FBI has been charged with collecting national statistics on
criminal acts “motivated, in whole or in part, by bias.” The law does not
compel local law enforcement agencies to supply the FBI with this information
but most do. (2) In 1997, the most recent year for which data are available,
the FBI received hate crime information from 11,211 local agencies serving
more than 83 percent of the In that year, there were a total of 9,861 offenses,
of which 6,981 represented bias crimes based on race or ethnic origin. The
remainders were for reasons of religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The FBI reports 8,474 suspected offenders whose
race was known. Of that number, 5,344 were white and 1,629 were black. Their
offenses–which included all categories of hate crime, not just racial
bias–can, in turn, be divided into violent and non-violent offenses, and by
calculating the rate of offense by race we find that blacks were 1.99 times
more likely than whites to commit hate crimes in general and 2.24 times more
likely to commit violent hate crimes. As for cases of racial bias, there were 718 blacks
charged with anti-white (as opposed to anti-homo-sexual, anti-Semitic, etc.)
crimes and 2,336 whites charged with anti-black hate crimes. Although the
number of white offenders was larger, the black rate per 100,000 was twice as
high. A larger number of whites commit these crimes, but blacks are 2.0 times
more likely to commit them. This overrepresentation of blacks in hate crimes,
not just in race bias cases but in all categories, runs counter to the common
impression that whites are the virtually exclusive perpetrators of hate
crimes and are certainly more likely to commit them than blacks. But perhaps of even greater significance is the
relatively small number of bias crimes to begin with. Of the 6,981 offenses
based on race or ethnicity, only 4,105 were violent, involving murder, rape,
robbery, or assault. The rest included such offenses as vandalism and
intimidation. These numbers are almost insignificant compared to the
1,766,000 interracial crimes of violence (combining both single-and
multiple-offender offences) reported in the NCVS. Needless to say, part of this huge disparity in
numbers is explained by the fact that the NCVS covers all crimes–whether
reported to police or not– whereas for a crime to be included in the FBI’s hate
crime statistics it must first be reported to police and then officially
classified as a hate crime. No doubt there is some number of crimes never
reported to the police that authorities would consider hate crimes if they
knew about them. However, how important is the distinction between
interracial crimes that are officially designated as hate crimes and those
that are not? For a crime to be considered a hate crime, the perpetrator must
make his motive clear, usually by using racial slurs. It is not hard to
imagine that of the 1,766,000 interracial crimes committed in 1994,
some–perhaps even a great many–were “motivated, in whole or in part, by bias”
but the perpetrators did not express their motives. Given the realities of race in the Many states have passed laws that increase
penalties for people convicted of hate crimes. These laws recognize the harm
done to society when people are attacked because of race or other
characteristics. However, one might ask which does more damage to society:
the few thousand violent acts officially labeled as hate crimes or the vastly
more numerous interracial crimes of violence that go virtually unnoticed? Hate
Crimes Committed by Hispanics The government’s treatment of hate crimes is
misleading in another, even more obvious way, in that the FBI reports hate
crimes against Hispanics but not by Hispanics. Appendix B is the FBI’s “Hate
Crime Incident Report,” which is used to record bias crimes. Although
Hispanics are clearly indicated as a victim category in the “Bias Motivation”
section, they are not a perpetrator category in “Suspected Race of Offender.”
The FBI therefore forces local law enforcement agencies to categorize most
Hispanic offenders as “white” (see “Measuring Hispanic Crime Rates,” below)
and the figures for 1997 reflect this. The total number of hate crimes for
that year–9,861–includes 636 crimes of anti-Hispanic bias, but not one of the
8,474 known offenders is “Hispanic” because the FBI’s data collection method
does not permit such a designation. If a Mexican is assaulted for reasons of ethnicity
he is officially recorded as Hispanic. However, he becomes white if he
commits a hate crime against a black. Even more absurdly, if a Mexican
commits a hate crime against a white, both the victim and the perpetrator are
reported as white. And, in fact, the 1997 FBI figures duly record 214 “white”
offenders who committed anti-white hate crimes.(3) The offenders were
probably Hispanic, but if that is the case the report should say so. If some
of the “whites” who are reported to have committed crimes against blacks are
also Hispanic, the report should indicate that, too. An examination of specific crimes shows that official
reports can be misleading. Murder is the most serious and shocking of all
hate crimes, and the FBI lists five cases of racially-motivated murder for
1997–three “anti-black” and two “anti-white.” The FBI report does not provide
details about the perpetrators or the circumstances of the killings, but the
local police departments that reported the crimes to the FBI have this
information. Two of the anti-black killings took place in the
same town, a largely Hispanic suburb of The third anti-black killing took place in The remaining two killings were classified as
anti-white, but only one fits the usual conception of such crimes. Four white
men were walking on a street in These five racially-motivated murders reported for
1997 do not fit the popular image of hate crimes, namely, of whites
brutalizing non-whites. In fact, only one perpetrator was “white” in the
usually accepted sense. What was the nature of the thousands of other
officially-reported hate crimes? Without examining all 9,861 of them it is
impossible to say. It is clear, however, that the FBI report gives a
false impression. It inflates the number of hate crimes committed by “whites”
by calling Hispanics white. At the same time it gives the impression that Hispanics
never commit hate crimes. The reason for gathering these data is to arrive at
a better understanding of the extent of racial friction and violence in the The Color
of Crime Different racial groups in the The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), published annually
by the FBI, is the standard reference work for crime and crime rates in the For example, in the 1997 NCVS Americans say they
suffered a total of 1,883,000 cases of aggravated assault, but according to
the UCR, only 1,022,000 were reported to the police.(8) During that same
year, there were only 535,000 arrests for aggravated assault. (9) Racial data
enter the UCR figures only when an arrest is made, so it can be argued that
racial comparisons should not be based on UCR data. Different racial groups
may report crime to the police at different rates, some groups may be more
successful at escaping arrest, and the police may discriminate between racial
groups in their arrest efforts. However, there is a great advantage in using
UCR data because its racial categories are more detailed. Unlike the NCVS,
which reports only on “black,” “white,” and “other,” the UCR compiles arrest
data on “black,” “white,” “American Indian/Eskimo,” and “Asian/Pacific
Islander.” These are the only national crime data that make these
distinctions. Also, as we will see later, UCR arrest data can be compared to
other data in ways that make it possible to treat Hispanics as a separate
ethnic category. Another good reason to use UCR data is that
although the racial proportions vary somewhat between the NCVS survey data
(race of perpetrator as reported by victims) and the UCR arrest data (race of
persons arrested), they are not that different. For example, according to the
UCR, 57 percent of people arrested for robbery in 1997 were black, as were 37
percent of those arrested for aggravated assault. (10) According to NCVS data
on single-offender crimes, 51 percent of robbers were reported by their
victims to be black as were 30 percent of those who committed aggravated
assault (once again, using 1994 data). (11) Since there is a greater
overrepresentation by blacks in NCVS-reported multiple-offender crimes,
combining the two sets of figures brings the racial proportions in the NCVS
figures extremely close to the racial proportions in UCR arrest figures. (12)
Put differently, police are arresting criminals of different races in very
close to the same proportions as Americans say they are victimized by people
of those races. By this measure, who is committing crime in The data show a very consistent pattern: Blacks are
arrested at dramatically higher rates than other racial groups. American
Indians and Eskimos (hereinafter “Indians”) are arrested at slightly higher
rates than whites, and Asians are arrested at consistently lower rates. The
popular conception of crime in It is for this reason that the single best
independent indicator of a jurisdiction’s crime rate is the percentage of its
population that is black. The scatter chart to the right plots homicide rate
and black percentage of population for all the states and for the It is worth noting that murder rates are a
different kind of data from both NCVS reports and UCR arrest data. They are
not based on victim reports nor can they be distorted by differences in
arrest rates by racial group that could reflect possible police bias. Pure
homicide rates tell us nothing about the race of either the killer or the
victim. They are simply an expression of the level of homicidal violence in a
community, and that level increases as the percentage of blacks increases. Nevertheless, to return to the view that arrest
data reflect police bias rather than genuine group differences in crime
rates, police actually have very little discretion in whom they arrest for
violent crimes. Except for murder victims, most people can tell the police
the race of an assailant. If a victim says he was mugged by a white man, the
police cannot very well arrest a black man even if they want to. For this reason, many people accept that police
have little discretion in whom to arrest for violent crime, but still believe
drug laws are enforced un-fairly against minorities. Drug offenses are beyond
the scope of this report but here, too, there is independent evidence that
arrest rates reflect differences in criminal behavior, not selective law
enforcement. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services keeps records
by race of drug-related emergency room admissions. It reports that blacks are
admitted at 6.67 times the non-Hispanic white rate for heroin and morphine,
and no less than 10.49 times the non-Hispanic white rate for cocaine. (Rates
for Hispanics are 2.82 and 2.35 times the white rates; information is not
reported on American Indians or Asians).(14) There is only one plausible
explanation for these rates: Blacks are much more likely to be using drugs in
the first place. Finally, if racist white police were unfairly
arresting non-whites we would expect arrest rates for Asians to be higher than
for those for whites. Instead, they are lower for almost every kind of crime. Measuring
Hispanic Crime Rates Any study of group crime rates in The treatment of Hispanics can make for odd
results. For example, according to the 1990 census, the 3,485,000 people of What does this mean for crime statistics? Because
the UCR figures do not treat Hispanics as a separate category, almost all the
Hispanics arrested in the If violent crime rates for Hispanics are
substantially different from those of non-Hispanic whites, putting Hispanics
in the “white” category distorts the results. This is not as serious as in
the case of hate crimes, in which the crime itself has to do with the very
personal characteristics that are being omitted from the records, but there
is no reason not to make ethnic or racial comparisons as accurate as
possible. The UCR tabulates separate data on American Indians and Eskimos–who
are less than one percent of the population–but it ignores His-panics, who
are 12 percent of the population. Some data-gathering agencies do treat Hispanics and
non-Hispanic whites separately. The California Department of Justice, which
records all arrests within the state, consistently makes this distinction
(though it lumps Asians and American Indians into the “other” category). Some
of these The different rates at which Hispanics and
non-Hispanic whites are held in prisons and jails are another indicator of
the differences in crime rates between the two groups. Although the UCR does
not treat Hispanics as a separate category for arrest purposes, some
government reports on the prison population do consider them separately. For
example, the Department of Justice has calculated 1996 incarceration rates
per 100,000 population for non-Hispanic whites (193), Hispanics (688), and
non-Hispanic blacks (1,571).(15) Expressed as multiples of the white rate,
the Hispanic rate is 3.56 and the black rate is 8.14. These multiples are
close to those from the If we make this assumption, we can use the
following formula to incorporate this differential into the UCR racial data
on white arrests so as to calculate more accurate arrest rates for
non-Hispanic whites: R (Number of non-Hispanic whites) + 3R(Number of
white Hispanics) = Actual Number of Arrests Here, R is the arrest rate for non-Hispanic whites
and 3R is the arrest rate for Hispanics who are categorized as white when
they are arrested. Calculations of this kind show that if Hispanics are
broken out as a separate ethnic category with an arrest rate assumed to be
three times the non-Hispanic rate, the rate for non-Hispanic whites decreases
by 19.5 percent. The graph below shows arrest rates (as multiples of the
white arrest rate) adjusted for this reduction. For lack of more precise
information, the multiple for Hispanics is set at three times the white rate
for all crimes even though there is certain to be some variation in the
multiples for different types of crimes. The unadjusted arrest rate chart is
also reproduced next to it for purposes of comparison. Because the evidence
from national incarceration rates and It should be noted here that the NCVS survey data
on interracial crime referred to at the beginning of this report also
includes Hispanics in the “white” category. It is therefore impossible to
know how many of the “whites” who committed violent crimes against blacks
were actually Hispanic or how many of the “whites” against whom blacks
committed violent crimes were Hispanic. If Hispanics commit violent crimes
against blacks at a higher rate than whites–and judging from their higher
ar-rest and incarceration rates for other offenses this seems likely–the NCVS
report also inflates the crime rates of non-Hispanic whites. Men vs.
Women Many people resist the idea that different racial
groups can have significantly different rates of violent crime. However,
there are several group differences in crime rates that virtually everyone
understands and takes for granted. Men in their 20s, for example, are much
more prone to violence than men in their 50s, and when they are arrested more
frequently for it, no one doubts that it is because they commit more crime.
Likewise, virtually no one disputes the reason for higher arrest rates for
men than for women: Men commit more crime than women. This is the case for
racial groups as well: Asians are arrested at lower rates than whites because
they commit fewer crimes; blacks and Hispanics are arrested at higher rates
because they commit more crimes. When it comes to violent crime, blacks are
approximately as much more likely to be arrested than whites, as men are more
likely to be arrested than women. The multiples of black vs. white arrest
rates are very close to the multiples of male vs. female arrest rates,
suggesting that blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
dangerous than women. The first graph on this page shows arrest rates for
men as multiples of arrest rates for women for the same crimes. (16) The
differentials are roughly similar to those between blacks and whites. The
next two graphs compare arrest rates for murder and robbery, and demonstrate
that the black/white arrest multiple is almost as great as the male/female
multiple. The last graph makes the same comparison for arrest rates for all
violent crimes. (These figures have not been adjusted for the fact that
Hispanics are included with whites. As we have seen, this adjustment lowers
the white arrest rate by nearly 20 percent, and would make the black/white
multiples greater than the male/female multiples.) What does this mean? Although most people have no
idea what the arrest rate multiples may be, they have an intuitive
understanding that men are more violent and dangerous than women. If some-one
in unfamiliar circumstances is approached by a group of strange men he feels
more uneasy than if he is approached by an otherwise similar group of strange
women. No one would suggest that this uneasiness is “prejudice.” It is common
sense, born out by the objective reality that men are more dangerous than
women. In fact, it is just as reasonable to feel more
uneasy when approached by blacks than by otherwise similar whites; the
difference in danger as reflected by arrest rates is virtually the same. It
is rational to fear blacks more than whites, just as it is rational to fear
men more than women. Whatever additional precautions a person would feel are
justified because a potential assailant was male rather than female are, from
a statistical point of view, equally justified if a potential assailant is
black rather than white. Likewise, there is now much controversy about
so-called “racial profiling,” by the police, that is, the practice of
questioning blacks in disproportionate numbers in the expectation that they
are more likely than people of other races to be criminals. This is just as
rational and productive as “age” or “sex profiling.” Police would be wasting
their time if they stopped and questioned as many old ladies as they do young
men. It is the job of the police to catch criminals, and they know from experience
who is likely to be an offender. Americans who do not question the wisdom of
police officers who notice a possible suspect’s age or sex should not be
surprised to learn that officers also notice race. Conclusions Two things can be said about most of the
information in this report: It is easily discovered but little known. Every
year, the FBI issues its report on hate crimes, and distributes thousands of
copies to scholars and the media. Why does no one find it odd that hundreds
of whites are reportedly committing hate crimes against whites? And why does
no one question the wisdom of calling someone white when he is a perpetrator
but Hispanic when he is a victim? (An FBI spokesman refused to discuss the
reasons for this by telephone and insisted on an exchange of letters. His
reply is provided below.(17) ) For some years there has been an extended national
discussion about the prevalence of black-on-black crime–and for good reason.
Blacks suffer from violent crime at rates considerably greater than do
Americans of other races. And yet, amid this national outcry over the extent
of black-on-black crime, there appears to be little concern about the fact
that there is actually more black-on-white crime. Nor does there seem to be
much interest in the fact that blacks are 50 to 200 times more likely than
whites to commit interracial crimes of violence. Everyone knows that young people are more dangerous
than old people and that men are more dangerous than women. We adjust our
behavior accordingly and do not apologize for doing so. Why must we then
pretend that blacks are no more dangerous than whites or Asians? And, of
course, it is no more than pretense. Everyone knows that blacks are
dangerous, and everyone–black or white–takes greater precautions in black
neighborhoods or even avoids such neighborhoods entirely. The answer to these questions lies in the current
intellectual climate. Americans are extremely hesitant to “perpetuate
stereotypes,” and generally take care not to draw or publicize conclusions that
may reflect badly on racial minorities. This is understandable, but has
reached the point that certain subjects can no longer be investigated without
bringing down charges of “racism.” Needless to say, research that reflects
badly on the majority population is not constrained by the same fears.
However, our willingness to ignore sensibilities should not be selective.
Violent crime and interracial violence are important, agonizing concerns in
this country, and we cannot begin to formulate solutions unless we understand
the problems. References:
2. 3. ibid,
p. 12. 4. Ron Russel and Victor Mejia, City of 5. Patty Sullivan, 6. Offense Report, Case No. 97123655, 7. Gloria Padilla, Murder Trial Defendant 8. 9. 10. Arrest information by race is from Crime in the
11. Criminal
Victimization in the 12. According to the UCR, blacks are arrested for
violent crimes at 4.72 times the rate at which whites are arrested. This
multiple is shown on the graph on page 10. How does this figure compare with
the number of blacks who are reported to be commit-ting crimes in the NCVS?
In order to make a comparison we must make certain assumptions about the NCVS
figures. Since police concentrate their efforts on making arrests in cases of
completed rather than threatened or attempted violence, it makes sense to use
the NCVS numbers for completed violence. At the same time, NCVS figures pose
a problem in that they do not report the number of offenders in
multiple-offender crimes (see Appendix A, page 2.) In comparing UCR arrest
figures to NCVS reported offenses, we are comparing the racial proportions of
persons arrested with the racial proportions of people reported by the public
to be committing crimes. It is therefore necessary to make an assumption
about the average number of assailants in multiple-offender crimes. Since the
black disproportions in NCVS-reported violent crimes are even greater in
multiple-offender crimes, a high estimate for the number of offenders in such
crimes increases the number of black offenders as compared to white. All
multiple-offender crimes have at least two perpetrators, and an estimate of
three participants in each such crime is probably conservative, and keeps the
black disproportion lower than a higher estimate would. Using this figure of
three, and using NCVS-reported data for completed crimes of violence, we find
that blacks are reported by the public to be committing such crimes at 4.77
times the white rate (the reader can make this calculation himself, using the
data in Appendix A.). This figure is extremely close to the 4.72 multiple of the
white rate at which blacks are arrested. It would be hard to find stronger
support for the view that police are not racially biased in their arrests but
are simply arresting people of different races in essentially the same
proportions as people of those races are reported by the public to be
committing crimes of violence. 13. Glayde Whitney, Ideology and Censorship in
Behavior Genetics, Mankind Quarterly, Summer,1995, p. 338. 14. 15. ibid,
p. 494. 16. Crime in the 17. “First, you ask why “Hispanics are a distinct
victim category but are not a distinct perpetrator category?” The answer to
your question is that under the current Hate Crime Data Collection Program we
do not collect information concerning ethnicity for either the victim or the
offender. The primary focus of the hate crime program is on the type of
offense and the bias motivation. Ethnicity is of interest only as it relates
to the bias motivation for a particular criminal offense. The fact that an
anti-Hispanic hate crime was reported does not necessarily imply that the
victim was of Hispanic origin. Only the offender’s perception or bias
motivation is being reported. [David R. Loesch, Deputy Assistant Director
(FBI), letter dated March 30, 1999.]
|
