Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Not serving bologna here

The data, methods, and estimations utilized in the previous posts on white and black homicide rates by state suggest a national black offender homicide rate of 20.6 and a national white (including most Hispanics) offender homicide rate of 3.1. The FBI reports a black rate of 26.5 and a white rate of 3.5, both from 2005. Take that as you will, but I read it as a pretty good vindication of the methodology employed here.

A few plausible reasons my estimates come in a little lower than the FBI's do:

- My estimates excluded negligent homicide but the FBI figures do not. According to the UCR, about 1.2% of homicides are negligent. Consequently, my estimates are marginally understated, but presumably uniformly so across states.

- The data I used only included the "first" (primary?) offender in a homicide. In the case of multiple offenders being charged, my data only included the first of them while the FBI's national figure presumably included multiple offenders.

- Florida--a state with a homicide rate above the national average--isn't included in my data but I assume it is in the FBI's national numbers.


Anonymous said...

Not "negligible" homicide. Negligent. No homicide is negligible. That is all.

Audacious Epigone said...

Wow, thanks, fixed it. I'll make it a point to slow down and proofread everything from now on so that it doesn't look like English is a second language for me.

Anonymous said...

Violent crime is primarily an urban rather than a rural phenomenon. In any state it will be the urban population centers that drive the violent crime rate. I would suggest, as you allude to in the final paragraph of your January 13 post, that violent crime (or homicide) rates be examined at the city level rather than the state level.

As an example, a website called “24/7 Wall Street” looked at the ten cities with the highest violent crime rates according to this criteria described in the online article dated June 11, 2012: “Based on the FBI’s uniform Crime Report, 24/7 Wall St. identified the 10 U.S. cities with populations of 100,000 or more with the highest rates of violent crime per 1,000 residents.

The article included relevant data points for each of the 10 cities such as median income and unemployment rates. Unsurprisingly, data points for “that which cannot be mentioned’ were not included in the article. So, I went to the Wikipedia page for each of these ten cities and looked up the demographics of each city to get racial percentages for each city. The results are below listed (VCR= violent crime rate/1,000):

10. Stockton, CA; VCR= 14.1; black =12.2%, white= 37%, hispanic= 40.3%
9. Baltimore, MD; VCR= 14.2; black = 63.7%, white= 29.6%, hispanic= 4.2%
8. Atlanta, GA; VCR= 14.3; black= 54%, white= 38%, hispanic= 5.2%
7. Birmingham, ALA; VCR= 14.8; black= 73.4%,white= 22.7%, hispanic= 3.6%
6. Little Rock, ARK; VCR= 14.9; black= 55.1%, white= 40.4%, hispanic= 2.7%
5. Memphis, TN; VCR=15.8; black= 62.6%, white= 31,7%, hispanic= 5.6%
4. Oakland, CA; VCR= 16.8; black= 28%, white= 34.5%, hispanic= 25.4%
3. St. Louis, MO; VCR=18.6; black= 49.2%, white= 43.9%, hispanic= 3.5%
2. Detroit, MI; VCR= 21.4; black= 82.7%, white= 10.6%, hispanic= 6.8%
1. Flint, MI; VCR= 23.4; black= 56.6%, white= 37.4%, hispanic= 3.9%

Steve Sailer said...

Stockton -- that's pretty bad. I guess that Stockton is an exurb of Oakland, which has always been scary. It was the home of the Black Panthers.

Steve Sailer said...

I suspect the number of homicide offenders per homicide victim is higher for blacks than for whites. A lot of white homicides are domestic, while a larger proportion of black homicides are tied into robberies, drug deals, drive-bys, and so forth where the cops stick everybody involved (e.g., the driver, the other robber of the 7-11, the guy who supplied the gun) with homicide charges and hope the less guilty rat out the triggerman in return for reduced sentences.

Anonymous said...

Hi Steve - Same anon who posted above. In regards to your post immediately above re: homicide victim per offender. January 7, 2013 NPR morning edition had a segment on Chicago homicide. They played a piece of an interview with a criminologist named David Kennedy from John Jay College. He states: "City homicide are not really about cities, they are about neighborhoods within cities. And even in the most dangerous of hot spots, nearly everone who lives there will not carry a gun, will not use a gun, is not a gang member. Homicide comes down to very, very small numbers of very singular people."

The idea of multiple vitims per homicde offender comes through inthis quote. The local nature, geographically speaking, of the crime comes through in this quote as well. I've been a regular reader of your blog for about 6 months now (I aaplaud your work) and I've noticed that you have been examining homicide at the state level. While that may be the easiest approach since data at that level is easily found via the internet, its probably not providing an accurate picure. The more localized the picture one can get of crime rates the more accurate that picture will be I believe. The city level will be more accurate than the state, and the level of neighborhood in a city will be more accurate than the city taken as a whole.

This logic fits what everyone already knows (but the PC-crowd doesn't like to talk about): even in cities with very high homicide rates like Detroit or Baltimore, there are areas which most would feel fairly safe walking around in; while there are other areas that are commonly referred to as "no-go zones".

Anonymous said...

Steve - same anon, posting re: the comments about black vs white homicide offenders and their motivations for the crime. I'm pretty sure I saw this statistic on an FBI uniform crime report table, but looking for it now I can't locate it. The data I'm thinking of showed that the majority of both homicide offenders and homicide victims had previous criminal records. This was true whether it was black on black homicide, black on white, white on white, or white on black. Basically, most homicides are one criminal killing another criminal.

Anonymous said...

The data I'm thinking of showed that the majority of both homicide offenders and homicide victims had previous criminal records.

Oooh, that is interesting.

How many black males aged 15-35 with a criminal record live in Chicago? And how many black males aged 15-35 with criminal record were murdered in Chicago? A huge fraction of the victims were black males. So, an index of sorts could be constructed based on age, race and proportion of the population that would render hazard ratios for various groups. So, the young black male with a record may have a hazard ratio that is potentially far worse even than the extremely bad ratio all blacks in Chicago.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

How many black males aged 15-35 with a criminal record live in Chicago?

I don't have a specific number for Chicago but on average one out of every three black men will end up spending time in prison.

Anonymous said...

I used to hear the statistic being that 1 in 4 black men in America were in the legal system in some way - jail, prison, parole or probation. First heard that something like 15 years. Lately though, I have been seeing the 1 in 3 stat. Apparently the percent has been going up over the years.

Interesting to take the idea that homicide is mostly one criminal killing another criminal and then consider why blacks are both homicide offenders and homicide victims at a rate much higher than their proportion of the population.

The 1 in 3 statistic clearly demonstrates that many black men are criminals. If homicide is one criminal killing another criminal, and a high percent of blacks are criminals, then the explanation for why there is a disproportionatly high number of black homicde offenders and victims may be something as simple as this:

More blacks are criminals.
Since homicide is one criminal killing another then it follows that more blacks are both homicide offenders and homicde victims.

Of course this then begs the question: why are so many blacks criminals?

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Apparently the percent has been going up over the years.

The percent rose because of tougher penalties are have been imposed against criminals since 1990.

Of course this then begs the question: why are so many blacks criminals?

All mental and behavioral traits are heritable - although heredity does not explain 100% of any behavioral characteristics. If all behavioral traits are heritable and blacks are more likely to commit crimes than any other race then we conclude blacks are on average psychologically hardwired towards criminality and violence.

As a corollary, culture is not severable from race because the different races evolved their psychological adaptations for different social environments just as their physical traits are evolved to suit different physical environments.

Because culture rests on the evolved characteristics of a population the West should only allow whites to immigrate to their countries and institute pro-white demographic policies because white immigrants are most compatible with Western civilization.

Jasper said...

If heritable behavioral characteristics are a factor its going to be more along the line of things like impulse control, aggression, intelligence. There is likely not a "crime gene" which can be inherited that makes one more have greater tendancy to commit crime. But there may be inherited genes that make a person more aggresive, or decreases their ability to control their impulses.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

But there may be inherited genes that make a person more aggresive, or decreases their ability to control their impulses.

Of course we aren't talking about a handful of genes but, rather, interacting cognitive traits that make one more or less likely to engage in criminality. But those individual traits and how they interact with one another are heritable and different races vary in how prone they are, on average, to crime just as they vary on physical traits.