Friday, November 13, 2009

Why do Americans murder?

A New Yorker book review by Jill Lepore explores the question "Why is American history so murderous?" Fascinating stuff. Here's her comparison (based on information in several books reviewed together) of US homicide rates with European nations:
In Europe, homicide rates, conventionally represented as the number of murder victims per hundred thousand people in the population per year, have been falling for centuries. Spierenburg attributes this long decline to what the German sociologist Norbert Elias called the “civilizing process” (shorthand for a whole class of behaviors requiring physical restraint and self-control, right down to using a fork instead of eating with your hands or stabbing at your food with a knife), and to the growing power of the centralizing state to disarm civilians, control violence, enforce law and order, and, broadly, to hold a monopoly on the use of force. (Anthropologists sometimes talk about a related process, the replacement of a culture of honor with a culture of dignity.) In feuding medieval Europe, the murder rate hovered around thirty-five. Duels replaced feuds. Duels are more mannered; they also have a lower body count. By 1500, the murder rate in Western Europe had fallen to about twenty. Courts had replaced duels. By 1700, the murder rate had dropped to five. Today, that rate is generally well below two, where it has held steady, with minor fluctuations, for the past century.

In the United States, the picture could hardly be more different. The American homicide rate has been higher than Europe’s from the start, and higher at just about every stage since. It has also fluctuated, sometimes wildly. During the Colonial period, the homicide rate fell, but in the nineteenth century, while Europe’s kept sinking, the U.S. rate went up and up. In the twentieth century, the rate in the United States dropped to about five during the years following the Second World War, but then rose, reaching about eleven in 1991. It has since fallen once again, to just above five, a rate that is, nevertheless, twice that of any other affluent democracy.

That puts a bit of a different spin on the debate of whether and how much the death penalty acts as a deterrent, doesn't it, when nations that have abolished capital punishment deter murder with greater success?

Lepore also provides an able overview of the antebellum use of capital punishment and three-strikes laws in the United States, including history I hadn't seen before:

Capital punishment has been on the books in Connecticut since 1642. Three strikes has been tried before, too. In Colonial America, many crimes, including murder, were punishable by death and, for lesser crimes, Connecticut, like many colonies, mandated the death penalty for third-time offenders. That began to change on September 7, 1768, when a burglar named Isaac Frasier was hanged in Fairfield. Frasier had shown early evidence of a “thievish Disposition.” “Men go from one degree of wickedness to another,” the town’s minister said in a sermon at the gallows titled “Excessive Wickedness, the Way to an untimely Death.” Convicted of burglary in New Haven, Frasier was whipped and branded and had his ears cropped. Caught again in Fairfield in 1766, he received the same punishment “and was solemnly warned . . . that death would be his punishment on a third Conviction.” When Frasier robbed another house, he was sentenced to death. “The Government of Connecticut have always been remarkably tender of putting persons to Death,” one observer noted. But when Frasier applied to the legislature for clemency, he was denied. Said the pastor at the gallows, “Justice requires that you should suffer.”

An outcry followed. Two weeks after Frasier’s death, a Hartford newspaper published an essay called “An Answer to a very important Question, viz. Whether any community has a right to punish any species of theft with death?” The writer’s answer—an emphatic no—borrowed extensively from Cesare Beccaria’s treatise “On Crimes and Punishments,” published in 1764. Beccaria, an Italian nobleman, argued against capital punishment—which was, at the time, widespread in Europe, too—on two grounds: first, in a republic men do not forfeit their lives to the government; and, second, capital punishment does not deter crime. Beccaria argued (and Kleiman has merely revisited that argument) that punishments, to be effective, must be swift and certain but not necessarily severe. Punishments, he insisted, should be proportionate to crimes, whose dangerousness could be measured, in “degrees,” by their injury to society. For the crime of murder, Beccaria considered life in prison to be both more just and a more effective deterrent than execution.

The first American edition of Beccaria’s treatise was published in 1777, and it reached a wide audience in Connecticut beginning in 1786, when it was serialized in a New Haven newspaper. “If we glance at the pages of history, we will find that laws, which surely are, or ought to be, compacts of free men, have been, for the most part, a mere tool for the passions of some,” Beccaria wrote. This argument held particular appeal for a people who had just finished waging a war against the passions of King George; adopting Beccaria’s recommendations came to seem, in a fundamental sense, American, as if the United States had a special role to play, as a republic, in the abolition of capital punishment. In 1784, the Yale senior class debated whether the death penalty was “too severe & rigorous in the United States for the present Stage of Society.”

In the seventeen-nineties, five states abolished the death penalty for all crimes except murder. By the eighteen-twenties, all Northern states reserved capital punishment for first-degree murder. When incarceration replaced all corporal and most capital punishment, Americans built prisons, and sentenced criminals to jail time. In 1846, Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty.

Most of the arguments offered for WHY the United States has higher murder rates seem a little half-baked (a prevalent European theory holds that Americans gained political freedom before we were civilized), but the higher rates are a long-term reality and it's an interesting question why Americans kill each other more often? Go read the whole piece for a taste of the variety of theories offered by different authors to explain the question. Certainly IMO there's a cultural element to it - a distinctly American preference for "honor" over "dignity," as Lepore put it. She also suggests that the wider availability of guns in America contributes. But none of these theories either a) are verifiable or b) completely explain the long-term data, even if true.

Why do you think Americans kill each other more often than citizens of other affluent democracies?

82 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem is that alot of legal analysis is attemped totally seperate from the important economic analysis. Both the United States and Europe practice free market economics, but ONE of these two forms of economics is predicated much more on the use of domination... I'll leave it to you to ponder which is which.

Pirate Rothbard said...

Just curious Grits, do these statistics include the Holocaust as part of the murder rate? I bet they don't. So America's homicide rate could be lower if you add those 11 million victims in.

I believe gun control could bring street crime murder rate down, but I oppose gun control because it is quite possible that something like the Holocaust could have been prevented if the people had guns.

I also think victims of murder are disproportionately criminals and users of the welfare state, so it’s sick, but there are some benefits to it.

One final thing: I just think Americans may be dumber and have less self control than Europe. We are a nation largely built on Europe's throwaways, remember.

Anonymous said...

Why do we kill? Off the top of my head I would toss out several reasons.

1.The influence of the beliefs and attitudes of our Puritan colonists still runs strongly through this country. If the State may be allowed to kill for retribution of a crime, why not the individual? As the article points out, the early colonists were pretty free handed with the death penalty. Indentured servants, slaves, freely used death penalty, life was very cheap.

2.When the state, with it's complicated legal system cares less for actual guilt or innocence and more for technicalities of the law when dealing with trials and appeals what does it tell us besides the life of the accused is worth little in comparison to the rule of law and it matters little that a man is innocent and his life ruined as long as the rule is upheld. And let's not overlook a couple of hundred years of the rich and influential controlling the courts for private gain and using police to control the general public. Life is still cheap.

3.A long time ago we stopped teaching our children about self respect and dignity no matter where one stood on the economic and social level. It's become all about the cash and things one can acquire, life has become cheaper than ever and it's not about killing for survival, it's about killing for a pair of shoes, a handful of cash, an offending word or a personal slight or infidelity. Life...still pretty cheap.

4.We imprison children for life in non murder cases, we imprison people for life in a third strike or minor parole violation, we attempt to implement the death penalty for more and more offenses, we ignore issues such as mental incapacity, questionable evidence and court corruption while legislating longer sentences, upping crimes to felony status and don't get me started on the issues involved in the registry and it's many constitutional abuses. How can we say life is anything but even cheaper when we have an entire class of citizens that range from 12 to 85 listed on a registry for everything from streaking to assault and have become out new class of pariahs or lepers, to be forced out of jobs, family contacts, hunted like animals and forced to live under bridges like the trolls in fairy tales no matter what the level of their crime or that they have paid their debt to society, for the rest of their lives. Life has become even cheaper.

5.Let's not forget a segment of our society that will kill to further their fight to protect life in the womb with not a care in the world for what becomes of that life once it enters the world. I guess the ultimate irony is that while life is in the womb it is precious, but once one is born and as one grows, it becomes worth less and less.

Despite our protests to the contrary, Americans consider life cheap.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Thanks for the thoughtful response, 9:21.

PR, Should we then add in the American Indian population wiped out, blacks who died prematurely under slavery? The US Civil War? How about the killing of capital murderers who receive a state-sanctioned death penalty?

I don't know for sure, but strongly suspect that killings by armies employed by nation states are not included in "murder" statistics for Europe, just as US soldiers aren't counted as "murderers" who may have killed civilian non-combatants in Iraq. And they shouldn't be. It's not really an apples to apples comparison when talking about day-to-day crime.

Anonymous said...

Because some folks just deserve killin.

Anonymous said...

If you had it good in Europe there was no reason to leave. The people who came to America were the lower class outcasts and religious retards, not the gentlemen. We are their progeny.

sunray's wench said...

"Why do you think Americans kill each other more often than citizens of other affluent democracies?"

OK, here's a theory: perhaps it has something to do with the Wild West mentality and the glorification of violence by the movie industry which is synonymous with America?

Europe never had a Wild West. Most European countries have lived in an unsteady state of invasion and war for centuries. Perhaps Europeans have learned that to fight each other is a waste of effort, when they could stand together and fight the invaders?

Europeans are also outward-looking, and Americans are generally inward-looking. Europeans travel, explore, learn about and merge with other cultures and people. Americans rarely have passports, rarely leave America unless it is as military personnel, and often never leave their own state. When you send your younger generation overseas with the idea that they will probably have to kill someone, you are not really encouraging a tollerant approach to international relations.

And perhaps it really is caused by having little Federal oversight. If it is a culture of every man for himself, is it any wonder that killing one's neighbour becomes a real possibility?

Pirate Rothbard said...

"Europeans are also outward-looking, and Americans are generally inward-looking."

And Europeans are also wusses too. No just kidding.

But it is true right?

Old Cop said...

It's them damn guns don't you know...when only governments have 'em and not the people, see how the murder rates go up. Millions yes?

Anonymous said...

I agree with the first commenter and the person that suggested that an 'every man for himself' attitude contributes to our higher murder rate. I haven't read the theories linked in the blog yet, but plan to and couldn't help but put my two cents in first. It has been my belief for a while that our murder rate is the unfortunate side effect of capitalism and the very American cultural attitude of individual independence and the reluctance to embrace and depend on others for help. When you are indoctrinated your entire life into the mindset that you can be and do anything you want, its not such a stretch for most people to add the line 'at any cost'. In addition to this, the disillusionment of persons who realize that they cannot attain a great wealth no matter what they do legally, for one circumstance or another, leads to a higher rate of all sorts of crimes, in my opinion. We are taught, as Americans, a great sense of entitlement, of productive selfishness. I wonder if Rand ever pondered the murder rate.

Anonymous said...

It would seem that the United States is actually on a quicker pace to reduce the rate of violence than other countries, after all we are at 5 already and have only been around for just over a couple hundred years...Additionally, the settlement of this country, in some areas, has only occurred in the past 100 years.

Add to that a lack of equality in rights and racism and you continue to have a culture of violence.

Add an overabundance of immigration and competition for control of resources and you have violence. Include the immigration of thugs from other countries (e.g. English in California) and you add violence.

Add to that easy access to firearms and you have violence.

Crusty said...

If you took away all of the murders from illicit drug deals (or at least reduced them to the same rate as murders from sales of alcohol gone bad), I bet our rate would be much closer to Europe. And those fluctuations... Let's see, what was the murder rate during alcohol prohibition? What was it after we ended prohibition?

This is your country. This is your country on vice prohibition. See the difference.

Anonymous said...

The easy availability of firearms + the absence of readily available free mental health care and adequate social services = disaster.

We know that many mentally ill people are in the criminal justice system, we know that many of the people on death row are mentally ill and/or mentally retarded, but the legislature will not appropriate sufficient money to provide the services and treatment that might help prevent further crimes being committed. And the judiciary are doing a horrible job of filtering out the mentally ill/retarded defendants and diverting them from the criminal justice system. But heaven forbid that that nasty European socialized medicine practice might catch on here, or that the judiciary would actually learn something about mental health and the law ...

sunray's wench said...

@ Crusty ~ I'm sure we have drug-related murders here too.

@ Pirate ~ when I am over in Texas, I rarely get to see National or international news coverage. I rarely see films or television shows there with anything other than a US accent (we have US, Australian, Asian and Canadian shows here and have done for years). Even a straw poll of people I know online will show that for most Europeans they have a wide range of countries represented on any online friends list, whereas Americans have almost exclusively other Americans.

I think it is partly the concept that many Americans seem to have, that any move to embrace an aspect of a different culture somehow undermines the essence of America. From the outside, that is very confusing and somewhat hypocritical, seeing as modern America was built by people from a multitude of different races and cultures.

Anonymous said...

Speculating over coffee:

I think the key factor is an inclination, a tendency, toward instant gratification, instant retribution, or instant justice if you will. We may be a "nation of laws" as is often said, but we have also been a nation impatient with due process - as Bush/Cheney have reminded us recently.

Any historical argument I try to make will sound half-baked and will short change the experiences of peoples of Indian, European, and African descent, but I think an argument could be made (and has been made, including by Lepore herself in her excellent historical work. Think also of historians like Richard Slotkin in "Gunfighter Nation").

I think the availability of firearms is a product rather than a cause of this cultural tendency. Too often critics reduce the whole problem of violence and murder in the US to guns.

Thanks for indulging me thinking out loud.

Bill Bush

Anonymous said...

It's hard to generalize about peoples who came to the Americas of their own free will during the colonial period b/c then you have to account for the differences between the US and Canada, Mexico, Latin America (where does a city like Juarez fit in to this?).

BB

Grandmom said...

The media glamorizes murder: Movies, TV ... Revenge and guns are an important component of American life. "Make my Day" It's the macho thing to do.

Anonymous said...

Few Americans appreciate that over 70 percent of American murders take place in just 3.5 percent of counties. Most of the country experiences European rates of homicide.

Maine, Wyoming, Vermont, and Idaho have homicide rates on par with Europe despite their strong gun culture, relatively easy access to firearms by citizens, and shall-issue concealed carry laws.

Atlanta, Baltimore, District of Columbia, New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, And St. Louis all have homicide rates on par with Jamaica and South Africa despite the fact that some of those cities have gun laws as strict as or even stricter than Europe.

These are, to borrow a term from Steve Sailor, "hate facts." The fact is that blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder. What's up with that?

Our country is so drenched in this totalitarian ideology known as "political correctness" that there is simply no way to have an honest discussion about homicide in America without being accused "racism." Just about every academician sidesteps the issue, and it appears from the review in The New Yorker that Roth, Spierenburg, and Monkkonen likewise hew the politically correct line.

Regards,

Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

What a relief to learn from KK that rural, majority white areas don't have serious problems with homicide.

The most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics data does indeed show that blacks are 7x more likely to commit murder than whites (no mention of "other races" - whoops, am I violating PC rules? I am an academic after all).

But most dreaded "liberal academics" who study this subject have no problem discussing this frankly. Where KK and I likely disagree is in diagnosing the causes and solutions to that problem.

Having said that, a look at the decidedly un-liberal FBI crime reports shows that in terms of overall numbers, black and white murder offenses are both substantial. I guess some white people do shoot other white people every now and then.

Murder in the US is not solely a black, inner-city problem. That, along with KK's gratuitious comparison to majority black countries, and the invocation of a known spokesperson for innate racial deficiencies, strongly suggests an argument that the author isn't comfortable making plain.

Undoubtedly due to totalitarian intimidation by goose-stepping PC brigades, argument by coded insinuation is the only way the libertarian underground can get its message of freedom out to the benighted readers of this corner of the blogosphere.

We thank you for your service.

BB

Anonymous said...

BB wrote:
>What a relief to learn from KK that rural, majority white areas don't have serious problems with homicide.

What’s that? I never said or even implied such a thing.

>I guess some white people do shoot other white people every now and then.

Nobody claimed they didn’t.

>Murder in the US is not solely a black, inner-city problem.

Nobody said it was.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Or do you just enjoy setting up strawmen?

>The most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics data does [sic]

The word “data” is plural, Mr. Academic, and thus takes the plural form of the verb. Ordinarily I don’t criticize the grammar and spelling mistakes of people online, but given the insufferable arrogance that drips that from your every word, I’ll make an exception this time.

Now that you mention it, the FBI data show that violent crime rates in urban areas are almost four times higher than in rural areas. (Crime and Violence in Rural Communities, Joseph F. Donnermeyer, 1994).

Rural white areas and small towns of the US have remarkably low rates of violent crime despite easy access to firearms, the “American cowboy mentality,” high unemployment, low education, or whatever other pseudo-scientific excuses for American violent crime cooked up by sociologists these days.

>The most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics data does indeed show that blacks are 7x more likely to commit murder than whites (no mention of "other races" - whoops, am I violating PC rules? I am an academic after all).

The precise number is actually not so easy to determine since the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), which is the basis of the FBI’s national tabulation of arrests, puts most Hispanics in the "white" category. Blacks are considerably more likely than any other group to commit crimes of virtually all kinds, while Asians are least likely. Whites and Hispanics have intermediate crime rates. There can be debate about the exact extent of the differences — the data do not make these calculations easy — but differences are a fact.

>black and white murder offenses are both substantial.

In 1997 Vermont’s homicide rate was 1.4. (Switzerland’s was 1.2.)
That same year in Washington, D.C., it was 57.

Calling them both "substantial" is like saying that both the Boy Scouts and Atilla the Hun enjoyed "active outdoor lifestyles."

In the District of Columbia, where Americans murder each other more briskly than in any other American city, residents in 1988 and 1989 were more likely to be killed than were people living in Northern Ireland, the Punjab, or even Lebanon. DC, of course, has the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Instead of glossing over the difference by stating that in your opinion both black and white murder rates are "substantial," why don’t you go run the numbers? I did a few years ago. Factor out the blacks and America has a homicide rate between Germany’s and Belgium.

--Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

>But most dreaded "liberal academics"

I never used the term "liberal academics," so who are you quoting? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

>who study this subject have no problem discussing this frankly.

Oh really? I spent several years at two universities in the 1980s and never once heard an honest discussion on the subject of crime or racial differences by academics, "liberal" or otherwise. American universities have become notorious for squelching un-PC views. Just ask Prof. Walter Block.

So when I pick up the books by Roth, Spierenburg, and Monkkonen, I’ll find a “frank discussion” of the black-white violent crime differential? Well you sure wouldn’t know it by the review in The New Yorker, and I somehow doubt it.

>That, along with KK's gratuitious [sic] comparison to majority black countries,

The international comparison of homicide rates was made in the fifth paragraph in The New Yorker’s review. I simply made my own comparisons to other countries based on this data.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=699
Between Jamaica and South Africa is where the data I cited tended to fit. I’m not making any of this up. If the data upset your leftwing sensibilities, that’s your problem, not mine.

>and the invocation of a known spokesperson for innate racial deficiencies, strongly suggests an argument that the author isn't comfortable making plain.

First, there are innate racial differences. See Michael Levin’s excellent treatment in his book, Why Race Matters (2005).

Second, my argument was not at all hidden. Since you apparently have a reading comprehension problem, I shall cut and paste it here.
“There is simply no way to have an honest discussion about homicide in America without being accused of racism.” I did not even begin to answer the question of why the US violent crime rate is higher than Europe’s. (That's a separate question, and I don't hide from that discussion at all.)

Your response, with its straw man fallacies and sarcasm, proves my point.

Suggested reading: The Color of Crime. http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html

--Karl Ketzer

sunray's wench said...

Now that puts an interesting spin on things as to where in the US the rates are higher and lower, BB and Karl. But my response is similar to that which I gave Crusty: I am sure the statistics would show that in Europe, there is a racial bias in murders and probably crime in general, in many countries. I wont say all countries (just as I suppose we should not say all US States when we refer to America) because there are some countries in Europe with a very small minority of non-white residents. However, there must be some other social aspects at work, as the BeNeLux countries do have a reasonably high portion of non-whites yet their crime rates are traditionally some of the lowest in Europe.

Perhaps it is not helpful to compare Europe and America. Perhaps it would be better to compare murder rates in different US States, to avoid trying to compare apples with oranges?

RAS said...

"Saudi Arabia, Iran and China execute more people" but they are applauded for having fewer prisons? Why are we comparing our homicide rate to Western Europe and not Mexico, Nigeria or Somalia? Why didn't any of these researchers quote the per capita murder rates in the US by race? I don't have any irrefutable facts to explain differences and probably no one else does either but I'm sure it should be factored into the discussion The lack of trust in our gov't is possible but I wonder if Europeans have too much faith in their gov't, considering how much power they have to control all aspects of their citizens lives. Also as a classic redneck point of view maybe we have more people that need killing.

sunray's wench said...

RAS ~ perhaps Europeans have more faith / trust in their governments because of the way they are elected?

Anonymous said...

"Political correctness" is the ultimate straw man argument, usually whined forth by people who enforce their own brand of it, often by making a big show of their own imagined victimization.

Not sure how KK didn't imply a rural-urban comparison in your original post, which references four rural states vs cities well known as national murder capitals over the past several decades.

Also not sure how I was "glossing over" the point about massive overrepresentation of blacks in murder offenses given that I agreed with KK's 7x stat, and I would even allow that counting Latinos as white exacerbates the difference. Apparently there are reading comprehension problems all over the place. Maybe it is like H1N1 and we just need a good vaccine.

But let's blow all that off shall we and go to the main event, which really has nothing to do with statistics or the proper use of the word "data."

This is the question of innate racial differences, not in and of themselves, but as key explicators for the differences in rates of crime, homicide, educational achievement, employment, etc.

KK so far has avoided rehashing any of the endlessly recycled racialist arguments that have resurfaced about every 15-20 years since the late 19th century. Indeed, he hasn't explained which differences he is talking about.

Thus we are left to speculate based on the names he has dropped so far: Sailer and Levin. Pardon me if I'm not bowled over by the latest trendy practitioners of psuedo-science, or by the reference to dated academic quarrels of the 1980s - another form of straw man argumentation.

So, which differences matter most?

BB

Anonymous said...

>"Political correctness" is the ultimate straw man argument,

Political correctness protected and enabled Major Nidal Hasan. As Mark Steyn observed, "He'd spent most of the last half-decade walking around with a big neon sign on his head saying 'JIHADIST. STAND WELL BACK'."

The people around him believed that reporting Dr. Jihad or taking action against him would get them tagged as racist (apparently Islam is now “race”)- an accusation which can easily end one's military career. After all, "diversity is our strength," as the PC Orwellian slogan tells us. Political correctness has infected our military.

>Not sure how KK didn't imply a rural-urban comparison, which references four rural states vs cities well known as national murder capitals over the past several decades.

I'm sorry that I was not clear.

Compare the homicide rates of mostly white American cities with those of majority-black American cities. Let's pick the year 1996. Needless to say, big cities with large black populations had the highest murder rates. New Orleans came in first with 72 per 100,000, followed by Atlanta (47), Baltimore (46), St. Louis (44), Detroit (43) and Birmingham (42). By contrast, Seattle – mostly white – had a homicide rate of 7. Boise, Idaho – whose population is over 92% white - had a homicide rate of 0.7 per 100,000 – lower than Switzerland’s.
It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area’s violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix. The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic. This is a better indicator than income, lack of education, or unemployment.
I have noticed that when criminologists compare American rates of violent crime with European rates of violent crime, there’s an unspoken assumption that since we’re all “Western, industrialized democracies,” the homicide rates should be pretty close. So then they search for those things which set us apart from Europe. Often the difference is attributed to our Second Amendment, the “cowboy mentality,” and “America’s love affair with guns.” I used to live in Europe, and I often heard this line of reasoning from smug, ignorant European intellectuals. (I have to admit, though, that the “faith in government” hypothesis is a new one for me.)

Anonymous said...

Why compare the overall American homicide rate to Europe’s? The parts of America populated by people whose ancestors emigrated from Scandinavia tend to have Scandinavian rates of violent crime. Why should this surprise anyone? Instead of comparing the US to Europe, scholars should compare America with itself. But that leads into the taboo area of racial differences. Speaking honestly about race in America today is like speaking honestly about sex in Victorian England. When I pick up the two books reviewed by The New Yorker, I will check to see whether the striking differences in crime rates within America are even discussed, but I’m not holding my breath.
No one is surprised that different breeds of dogs have on average different temperaments, and that genes play a role. To state that pit bulls tend to be aggressive and that Shetland Sheepdogs tend to be smart is merely declaring the obvious. No one gets angrily accused of being a "breedist," and then blacklisted by the ADL or $PLC, publicly shouted down or assaulted, denied tenure, fired or placed under investigation by the thought police for possible hate crime.
And yet when the focus of inquiry turns to us talking primates, it's somehow not OK to state that genes influence who we are not only below the neck, but also above the neck.
Many people on the religious Right reject evolution. (44% of the American people reject outright the theory of evolution - which puts us right down there with Turkey. Europe laughs at us, and here I can scarcely blame them.) Many people on the political Left apparently think that evolution stopped 200,000 years ago, and that "we're all the same."
We’re not.
Regarding the science of racial differences, I can only recommend that you read and educate yourself. In addition to Sailor and Levin, you may want to read Arthur R. Jensen, Jared Taylor, J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Richard J. Herrnstein, Tatu Vanhanan, Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, E. O. Wilson, Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele.

And that's it. I'm done talking to you.

--Karl Ketzer

TDCJ EX said...

I can't resit . Does Karl Ketzers middle intial begin with K That would be fitting as in K K K .

His ideaology fits right in with that line of thinking .

Vermont Maine and Wyoming and Idaho are sparsly populated states with small cities .

He noticabley left out New Hampshire the boarders both main and Vermont. It has what are among the least resticitve gun laws in the nation and a higher homicide and violent crime rate than ME and VT . It is primarly a rural state . With overwhelimigly white population .

There is a correlation between increased ice cream sales and homicide and violent crime rates . Obviosly ice cream has nothng to do with homicide and violent crime .

K K apparently does not know what a multiple anlysis of varaiance is .

Anonymous said...

I applaud Karl for giving us a thoughtful discussion on such a sensitive issue.

This kind of discussion is not allowed to occur in the broader media. I know my wife, a woman of color, is not ready for this discussion. This is one reason I'll remain anonymous.

I think part of the problem is that anyone making the arguments like KK made is accused of being in line with the Klan. This just doesn't follow. Arguing that there are real differences among groups doesn't mean you endorse a terrorist organization like the Klan.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Because some folks just deserve killin.

11/13/2009 10:51:00 AM


"He needed killin, your honor".
Used to be a valid Texas defense.
IMHO, it should still be a valid defense.

Anonymous said...

Just because there are racial differences in murder STATISTICS, does not mean they are caused by race. I'd like to see some predictive science to support that claim. Correlational data cannot determine causal relationships.

There are so many other factors that play into the situation. Like how many murders committed by white people are lowered to lesser charges as compared to minorities? Certainly minority crime in America is a major problem, but how many white men have sex with children as compared to minority me? Hmmm, murderer or pedophile which race would you rather be?

Also, statistics from the early 90's are way out of date as violent crime in America has plummeted.

Anonymous said...

No, arguing that there are "real differences" between racial groups provides the basis for eugenics, much worse than terrorism of the KKK.

Anonymous said...

the murder rate among minority populations in the US is due more to drug and immigration policy than race.

RAS said...

Recognizing differences in murder rates is easy, explaining them may be impossible. The murder rate in some African countries is extremely high but I'm fairly certain that the murder rate among Australian Aborigines was extremely low. Perhaps the problem with African Blacks is they come from a land where surviving depended on killing and death was a frequent occurence. Comparing homicide rates between American Blacks and European Blacks might be helpful to judge the effect of 200 years of slavery here.

Anonymous said...

>I can't resit [sic] . Does Karl Ketzers [sic] middle intial [sic] begin with K That would be fitting as in K K K . His ideaology [sic] fits right in with that line of thinking .
Karl is my name in real life. Ketzer means “heretic,” which fits my general outlook. It never occurred to me that someone would associate my name with the Klan. Had I known, I would have picked some other nom de plume. Sometimes I’m just na├»ve like that.

>Vermont Maine and Wyoming and Idaho are sparsly [sic]populated states with small cities .
That’s why I included comparisons with Boise (population 185,787) and Seattle (population 3,344,813).
But it doesn’t really matter. Compare it state by state, city by city, or zip code by zip code. The data pattern is unmistakable.

>He noticabley [sic] left out New Hampshire the boarders [sic] both main [sic] and Vermont. It has what are among the least resticitve [sic] gun laws in the nation and a higher homicide and violent crime rate than ME and VT . It is primarly[sic] a rural state . With overwhelimigly [sic]white population .
In 2008 New Hampshire had a homicide rate of 1.0 per 100,000. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nhcrime.htm
That puts it on par with Denmark.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Now let’s take a look at the demographics of New Hampshire.
NH is 98% white. According to Wikipedia, the largest ancestry groups in New Hampshire are
• 26.6% French (French or French Canadian)
• 21.1% Irish
• 20.1% English
• 10.4% Italian
• 10.3% German
• 7.8% Scottish or Scots-Irish
A people of northwest European ancestry experience NW European levels of violent crime. Wow, whoda thunk it.
Your claim that NE has a “higher homicide and violent crime rate than ME and VT” is demonstrably false.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mecrime.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm

>K K apparently does not know what a multiple anlysis [sic] of varaiance [sic] is .
Actually when I was at university I took plenty of math courses, including statistics. Not only do I know what a multiple analysis of variance is, I even know how to spell it.

Sincerely,

Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

>"He needed killin, your honor".

Used to be a valid Texas defense. IMHO, it should still be a valid defense.

Actually, I think it still is in many (most?) parts of Texas. It’s why Joe Horn is a free man today even after he shot two burglars in the back as they were running away from a neighbor’s house. What he did surely didn’t fall under the category of self-defense or defense of his property.

>I think part of the problem is that anyone making the arguments like KK made is accused of being in line with the Klan.

Exactly. Most academic treatments of the subject of homicide in America which I have read tend to avoid the glaring differences. It is uncontroversial that men on average have a far higher propensity for violence than women, or that younger men on average have a far higher propensity for violence than older men. In fact, this average group propensity for violence, and the differential between two different populations, can be quantified.

Men *on average* are nine times as violent as women. I stress the words “on average.” It doesn’t mean that every man is more prone to violence than every women. Likewise, in terms of their likelihood to commit violent crime, blacks are as much more dangerous as men are more dangerous than women.

Jesse Jackson stated that when he walks down the street, hears footsteps behind him, starts thinking about robbery, and then turns around and sees a white person, he is relieved. US News & World Report (10 March 1996) Can you imagine any politician stating such an obvious truism and not immediately being drummed out of public life for such racial heresy?

--Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

>>Just because there are racial differences in murder STATISTICS, does not mean they are caused by race. I'd like to see some predictive science to support that claim.

I never claimed that difference in murder statistics "are caused by race." I merely recited the facts. What explains it? That's a lengthy discussion for another day.

I did provide a list of scholars who are unafraid to discuss racial differences, including the differential in average group proclivity for crime. It should keep you busy for a long time. Perhaps the first scholar you will want to examine is Michael Levin, professor of philosophy at City University of New York.

Get his book, _Why Race Matters_.

http://store.amren.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=2110&category_id=95

>Like how many murders committed by white people are lowered to lesser charges as compared to minorities?

Which, if true, would suggest a racial bias in the criminal justice system against blacks. Racial bias at this stage could make a big difference in who goes to jail,but here, too, bias is hard to find. Marvin D. Free, Jr., a University of Wisconsin criminologist, reviewed 24 studies on prosecutor decisions, published between 1979 and 2001. Twelve used data collected in 1980 and after; all of them controlled for offense seriousness and prior record. Of these 12 studies, eight found no racial bias. Two found bias against non-whites, but two found bias against whites. Scholarship therefore leaves little basis for claims of unfair treatment. (Marvin D. Free, Jr., “Race and Presentencing Decisions in the United States: A Summary and Critique of the Current Research,” Criminal Justice Review 27:2 (2002), pp. 210-14)


It has been asserted that black-white crime differential is actually the result of racially biased police. This issue is discussed in The Color of Crime published by the New Century Foundation. http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html

The best test of police bias is to compare an independent and objective count of the percentage of criminals who are black with the percentage of arrested suspects who are black. If they are about the same—if, for example, we can determine that half the robbers are black, and we find that about half the robbers the police arrest are black—it is good evidence police are not targeting blacks unfairly. We can compare data from the National crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to that from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The data lend no support to the charge that police arrest innocent blacks, or at least pursue them with excessive zeal. For the years 2001 – 2003, for example, 55 percent of offenders in all robberies were black, 55.4 percent of robbers in robberies reported to police were black, and 54.1 percent of arrested robbers were black.

--Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

>but how many white men have sex with children as compared to minority me[n]?

I don’t have the crime stats at my fingertips for sex crimes committed specifically against children. Do you? I did use google and found a DOJ report which suggests that 48% of violent offenders against children in state prison are black. For whites, it's 46%. http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_12_3/page2.html

Regarding rape generally, blacks are three times more likely than white to commit it, according to US DOJ figures. Nationwide about 40% of the suspects arrested and incarcerated for rape are black.

>Also, statistics from the early 90's are way out of date as violent crime in America has plummeted.

First, cross-racial crime comparisons are not hampered by using data from previous decades.

Second, crime data from previous decades is useful for analyzing trends.

Use lasts year’s crime data if you wish; the same black-white violent crime differential will still be observed.

>No, arguing that there are "real differences" between racial groups provides the basis for eugenics, much worse than terrorism of the KKK.

Are you really arguing that we're better off ignoring the data on scientific differences? Did you know that forensic pathologists can identify the race of a suspect from a single drop of blood? That difference racial groups have difference susceptibilities to disease? That they respond differently to certain medicines?

I value truth over ignorance any day of the weak. Gaining an accurate assessment of the world around us is the first explodes cherished fallacies, and so if threatening to some people.

But you think that we’re better off ignoring the science on racial differences out of worries of how someone somewhere might misuse it? Should we not study genetics since - after all - someone somewhere will clone a human being?
“There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.” – Thomas Jefferson

--Karl Ketzer

TDCJ EX said...

Ketzer Give Up. You are arguing for eugenings .Just like Murray and Jensen of the Notorious Bell Curve fame were arguing for eugenics .

Maybe Pickng that nom de plum was "fruedain slip ".

You are arguing for eugenics period . You are a racsit it is clear .

You conviently leave out any data that does not suport you ignorant and out darted thinking more in with line Nazi Germany in fact simalar arguments were used just substitute the words Black and Hispanic for Jew

Every so called "scholar" you metion has been discreditied not becuase of "poltical correctness" but for arguing for eugenics which is what you are doing . It is 2009 almost 2010 not 1933 or so .

That is someting that very few if any one on Death Row come close too . Maybe you should think on publicly implying genocide and eugenics are good ideas as thst is what can easliy be infered from your hate filled nauseating drivle

Try looking at all the data not just what suits your racsit agenda .

You can start with poverty , lack of education chronic, unemployment , racsim, lack of adequet health care both physical and menatal . The failed drug war . mass incaceration over criminalzation and that is just a start . you ignore all that to forward a warped sick ideaology that led to genocide 70 years ago . You and your ilk are relics of history About 70 years ago to be exact . If only you would stay there . Mr KKK

OH yeah a person making a typo does not make you right . It does show you are losing .

BTW Correlation does not equal causality

You would look good in white . But I bet you do not get that .

Anonymous said...

It's pretty clear Karl's arguments are strong, those who oppose him resort to name calling. Why? Because they view the truth as threatening to their worldview.

From Wikipedia: "Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species."

Until Karl advocates this, I see no reason to apply this label to him.

We as a society need to have a mature attitude towards these things. We can acknowledge the data out there and still respect different ethnic groups and cultures. We all have prejudices but we can admire the human potential in everyone.

RAS said...

TDCJ, I'll agree that the failed drug war is a huge factor in the murder rates and also in the other issues you listed; poverty, lack of education, domestic violence which creates another generation that resorts to violence more than the norm. Racism too; racism by whites creates a festering resentment that explodes occasionally, racism against white authority that enables criminal activity. What causes increased violence by blacks isn't as importent as what reduces it. Parents that make a point of not infecting their kids with their animosity toward authority, that condemn drug use and gangbangers and nonmarital chidbirth. I know these aren't problems isolated to blacks, they are increasing among all races as far as I know.

Anonymous said...

All this talk of race avoids the "elephant in the room" - geographical analysis of homicide pattern consistently reveal that when neighborhood social and environmental conditions are controlled (i.e., held constant) the effects of race are largely washed out. That is race and ethnicity are largely spurious (false) correlations related to other factors associated with both race and homicide - namely multiple deprivations (20, 30, 40, 100 layers) of adverse social and environmental conditions concentrated in the geographical spaces that where people of limited means are largely force to reside because they cannot afford to live in better area.

This pattern is observed in nearly every major city where geographical patterns of violence have been studied. In short, concentrated poverty and all the ancillary disadvantages associated with it increases the risks of those living in the area to become involved in or be victimized by violence.

Anonymous said...

TDCJ EX apparently think I am arguing for eugenics, which shows merely that the brother's reading comprehension and command of the English language match only his command of the subject matter. In other words, he obviously has no idea what he is talking about. All he knows is that the facts I provide undermine the egalitarian fairy tales he was fed. His resort to ad hominem perfectly illustrates the argument I made in my first post. Our country is so drenched in this totalitarian ideology known as "political correctness" that there is simply no way to have an honest discussion about homicide in America without being accused "racism."

Let's have a word about "poverty" driving the murder rate. From 1900 to 1929, the nation's murder rate rose from 1.2 per 1 00,000 of the population to 8.4. High homicide rates during the 1920s are tied directly to prohibition. (Once again, the current generation has forgotten the hard lessons learned by our grandparents here in the United States of Amnesia.)

During the 1930s, when the unemployment rate stood at 37 percent, the murder rate had fallen to 6.3 per 100,000 and to 4.7 per 100,000 by 1960.

Even National Public Radio got this right.
During the Great Depression there was very little crime. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97234406.

After 1960, violent crime rates shot up, and this was during an era of rising prosperity and civil rights legislation.

By 1993, the murder rate was 9.5 per 100,000, falling to 8.2 in 1995.

Even today, West Virginia is overwhelmingly white and even with its poverty, its homicide rate is 3.3 - below the US national rate and slightly above Portugal's.

During the 1960s, one neighborhood in San Francisco had the highest unemployment rate, lowest income, least educational achievement, and the highest proportion of substandard housing. That neighborhood was called Chinatown. Yet, in 1965, there were only five person of Chinese ancestry committed to prison in the entire state of California. Source: James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein, _Crime and Human Nature_ (Simon & Schuster: 1986).

Suggested reading: America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible (Touchstone 1999, Simon & Schuster 1997) by Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/critical_acclaim-america_in_bl.htm

When I hear someone blame black crime on white "racism," I hear someone making excuses, and giving aid and comfort to criminals. Whites are not responsible for black dysfunction.

--Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

Anonymous claims that "when neighborhood social and environmental conditions are controlled (i.e., held constant) the effects of race are largely washed out."

That's simply not true. Read _The Color of Crime_ (New Century Foundation: 2005).
"The graph with the steepest trend line and highest correlation, Figure 14, compares violent crime rates to the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic. The other graphs show that there are relationships between violent crime and other social factors, but the correlations are much weaker.

In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure:lack of education. Furthermore, even controllingfor all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman’s terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area’s violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."

--Karl Ketzer

sunray's wench said...

Karl ~ the fact that NH inhabitants have European heritage only goes so far: they are still living in an American society.

I don't think much can be gained by comparing Europe and America, the comparison should be between different US states, and perhaps Canada.

TDCJ EX said...

KKK .
One you assume I am black , by cal ling me a “brother” Your racism and ignorance is telling . You do not know anything about my education or my reading skills .
You make assumptions based on your intolerant ignorant racist beliefs . By citing the Authors of the very racist Bell Curve a bunch of neo nazi drivel and pseudo science used to show blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites who in the authors book are the superior race . IE Master Race

Your whole lengthy diatribe is based on Eugenics it is painfully obvious you are a racist of the worst sort one who hides behind pseudo academics to spout hate .
you are aware then your nonsense was in fact used in slightly different terms in Nazi Germany and IQ test were used to “prove” Non Whites are less intelligent criminally predisposed and all your racist hate filled rantings .

Eugenics is more than the nice euphemism of selective breeding . What nation tried that about 70 years ago that is where this sickening though ends in genocide and mass murder . Yes KKK is arguing Eugenics . Yes It also means elimination of other “races” . viewing them as less than human .makes it easier , it is a repulsive ideology .

You are just a racist plain and simple The reason your fellow “scholars “ got tossed out of universities is because they taught Eugenics . the same thinfs yopu are spouting now,. It is disturbing that you are given any plat from to spout this out dated racist garbage from

You last sentence and I quote

“When I hear someone blame black crime on white "racism," I hear someone making excuses, and giving aid and comfort to criminals. Whites are not responsible for black dysfunction. “
Clearly spells out your racist Klan like views . No one is giving aid or comfort to any one they are explaining. Yes things such as racism do increase crime as does overcriminalization . The fact some laws were made simply to make the behavior of a racial or ethnic group illegal .
Crime and what causes it are not some simple matter nor are they inherently genetic you whole hate filed drivel is tall but saying blacks are genetically inclined to commit crimes . that is a ignorant and stupid line of thinking . Seeing where it comes from though is all to clear . A man clinging to the past and terrified of a changing nation and demographics time to move into the 21 first century

Society is responsible for society it creates We all live in in it and we are not islands despite the persistent myth .

That you are a racist is painfully clear KKK

BTW you do not know why I might make typos even using spell check . . You just make your ignorant assumptions based on your racist outdated and intolerant ideology .
Yes you would look good in white and you would have lots of fun wearing white Where I read a great deal of books of all sorts . Holding your views Maybe you will end up in a similar place that would be the best teacher of all .

RAS that was a the Short version . The long version would take a longtime and citing a mountain of research on the causes of crime ther are many and a lot of differing theories on it . Eugenics as advocated By KKK a have long been discredited . But make for good rabble rousing among a few still stuck in the “good ole days “

OH I made typos so I am wrong KKK that is your whole argument ? It might work for hate TV and radio but not in reality AKA Faux Noise . But not real life .

Anonymous said...

TDCJ EX wrote
>The reason your fellow “scholars “ got tossed out of universities

None of the scholars I mentioned have been "tossed out of universities."

Arthur Jensen is Professor Emeritus of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.

John Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, Canada.

Richard Lynn is a British Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster.

Charles Murray obtained a B.A. in history from Harvard in 1965 and a Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1974.

Richard Herrnstein was Edgar Pierce Professor of psychology at Harvard University and one of the founders of quantitative analysis of behavior.

Tatu Vanhanen is Emeritus Professor of Political Science of the University of Tampere, Finland.

Gregory M. Cochran is a physicist and professor of anthropology at the University of Utah.

Vincent M. Sarich is a professor of anthropology at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Henry C. Harpending is an anthropologist and population geneticist at the University of Utah, where he is a distinguished professor.

E. O. Wilson is a professor of biology at Harvard.

Stephan Thernstrom is the Winthrop Research Professor of History at Harvard University.

To the best of my knowledge, none of these scholars have taught or advocated eugenics.

And you? An illiterate buffoon who obviously has not bothered to read anything substantial on the subject, who makes it up as he goes along, and who is so threatened by the science that his only card is to scream "racism" and throw a temper tantrum.

If you and I were having this discussion in person, you'd be shouting and getting in my face, and I'd end up having to taze you.

>One you assume I am black , by cal ling me a “brother”

Of course it doesn't really matter, but my guess was clearly correct, wasn't it.

Listen, ex-prison guard, my conversation with you is over.

>Karl ~ the fact that NH inhabitants have European heritage only goes so far: they are still living in an American society.

True, although I'm not sure what your point is. Personally, I think it's interesting that so many of these states have low rates of violent crimes and high gun ownership/strong gun culture. In fact, states with restrictive "gun control" laws tend to have higher rates of violent crime than states which honor the Second Amendment. It completely jerks the rug out from under the arguments proffered by the Brady Campaign and the Violence policy Center.

>I don't think much can be gained by comparing Europe and America,

Oh really? Why not? I find it interesting to compare America's crime statistics - both nationwide as well as broken down by region - with those of other countries.

Have you ever read _The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies_ by Dave Koppel?

>the comparison should be between different US states, and perhaps Canada.

Why specifically Canada, as opposed to, say, Japan or Estonia or Liberia? What do you mean when you use the word "should" in your sentence? Because Michael Moore says so?

But OK, let's compare.

The national Canadian homicide rate for 2006 is 1.9 per 100,000. America's was 5.7.

Now let's look at the homicide rate in a few states which border Canada.

Maine 1.7
New Hampshire 1.0
Vermont 2.7
North Dakota 0.5
Montana 2.4
Idaho 1.5

--Karl Ketzer

sunray's wench said...

Karl ~ my point is, there are large cultural differences between America and Europe, and trying to pin something like the reasons for murder down between the two is only going to throw up the same arguments that we have seen on this thread. There are too many subtle cultural differences at play here to make any analysis worthwhile beyond a simple look at figures. I believe that because both the UK and America speak English, people assume we have more similarities than we actually do.

Also, this really has little to do with the gun laws. Murders do not always take place with the use of a gun. I would suggest that most murders in Europe are by other means.

Why compare America with Canada? Because they are culturally far more similar.

What has Michale Moore got to do with anything? I'm quite capable of drawing my own conclusions without his input. If you are so keen to compare America with Europe, I would hope you have spent a portion of your life in a European country (and I dont mean on a US military base) so that you would fully understand the cultural differences.

Anonymous said...

Sunray,
OK, so it sounds like you're saying that it's not really the comparison that's objectionable, but the attempt to offer pat answers to explain the differences.

And I agree that it actually has very little to do with gun laws (or the incidence of gun ownership, IMHO). Switzerland has a population of six million. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million. Switzerland's homicide rate is 1.2 per 100,000. Why? Maybe the answer is simply because they're Swiss, and that's just the way they are. It's a peaceful, orderly, clean, efficient country. Things work, the trains run on time, and neighbors actually look out for each other.

>If you are so keen to compare America with Europe, I would hope you have spent a portion of your life in a European country (and I dont mean on a US military base) so that you would fully understand the cultural differences.

Actually, I used to live in Europe, I have traveled around Europe, and am fluent in two European languages in addition to English. However, I don't think that that is a precondition for comparing American crime rates with European crime rates.

You know why our violent crime rate is higher than Europe's and Canada's? Our demographics are different. Blacks make up 12% of the population but commit some 40% of the rapes, half the murders, and 62% of the robberies. (Figures are from the US DoJ, and fluctuate slightly, but not significantly.) For some reason (political correctness), it's considered rude to point this out in public.

Liberals who insist that there's a genetic component to homosexuality shudder in horror when you suggest that there is a genetic component for other lifestyles.

--Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

"Listen, ex-prison guard, my conversation with you is over."

I should hope so. It is obvious that he is getting really emotional about this and has no counter arguments. By the way, is he an former prison guard or inmate? I never got that.

Anonymous said...

>By the way, is he an former prison guard or inmate? I never got that.

Hey, you're right. I had just assumed that no one would want to go around wearing his conviction as some kind of badge of honor, so I assumed he was an ex-guard. Sometimes I am so naive.

I bet he's a convict. No wonder he wants to blame "racism" and "poverty" for the moral failings of criminals. This would allow him to exonerate himself in his own eyes, and to see himself as a victim of society. After all, if the white man is the devil, and the devil made him do it...

Makes perfect sense.

sunray's wench said...

"However, I don't think that that is a precondition for comparing American crime rates with European crime rates. "

Karl ~ I didnt say it was a precondition. I just wanted to make the point that it helps to have experience of both cultures (and Europe has a whole host of different cultures as well). many Americans make generalised assumptions about Europe and its imhabitants without ever having been there. I have a foot in both continents too, btw.

Sometimes to have credibility, it is acceptible to say what you have experienced and where from. If TDCJ-EX was an inmate or a guard, they have the experience to speak from.

Anonymous said...

Karl, No one is ignoring scientific differences in race, you just don't have legitimate data to support differences. None of the data you quote can be considered to be useful in comparisons which identify differences. They only observe relationships which are easily, and easily argued to be, influenced by variables. Your geographical arguments of cities near canada cannot be used to support racial arguments. socioeconomics are clearly an issue.

I am not against a discussion of racial differences in murder, it is the inference of genetics which is problematic. The more legitimate argument concerning racial differences in those who commit murder is that the social influences of generations of slavery, racism, and hate are manifested in murder rates. Lets have an honest discussion about that and what we are doing to continue to solve the real issues of poverty, racism, drug policy, and immigration policy.

Master Sheikh said...

According to the most recent research, 5 out of the top 10 "murderous" countries are in Europe, ending the idea that wherever White people live, there is instant happiness and peace.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Why does Russia have such a high murder rate? Is it the Blacks and Mexicans there or Latvia? Or Belarus? Estonia? Ukraine?

Common sense has to take precedent over racism here. In those countries, you have ghettos, and when you have urban areas where thousands of poor live on top of each other, you have murder. Simple as that. The crime rate is inherently lower for rural and suburban areas, which is where White people in America live, because poor people don't live on top of each other, but when they lived in the ghettos of Detroit, New York, and Philadelphia, that violent period gave us Al Capone, The Genovese, The 40 Thieves, Dead Rabbits, and the Mafia in America, which were as murderous as anybody, so I don't want to here about White people not being that violent in America.

It's just that after World War II, Whites and European immigrants were shuttled from the ghettos and cities into suburbs and Blacks and Latinos, who were coming up north during "The Great Migration" were shuttled into those ghettos with redlining and redistricting, which has trapped minorities in those ghettos ever since, not allowing them the same opportunities to move out, through racist housing and employment opportunities. Thus creating a permanent "criminal" class.

Also, technology allowed the more guns and cars to be available during the second half of the 20th century, allowing more people to be killed. Of course more people get killed in American ghettos today. . . It's easier to kill people. Killing used to be something that used to involve the okay of crime syndicates that dominated the American cities historically. You had to plan a hit, now, just like anything else, the tools needed to kill en mass are pretty easy to come by for any 12 year old. Ask the Columbine kids.

Also, The break up of the Mafia, allowed a vaccum to be filled with modern street gangs and petty hustlers with NO strict rules whatsoever. Laugh if you want, but the Mafia had strict rules about who to kill and who not to kill. Not out of benevolence, but because killing was bad for business. This cannot be overlooked seeing that black markets without "strongmen" often descend into chaos. It's "everyman for themselves" literally in American ghettos, since the breakup of the Mafia, which has led said large city ghettos to descend into chaos.

The introduction of crack cocaine by the Medellin Cartel, during the 1980's also cannot be ignored. Crack was the first vice that was not controlled by a the big "cartels". The fact that crack was so cheap to make, but profitable enough to make millionaires out of drug dealers created an "everyman for himself" culture, often allowing 12 year olds to be out on the street with AK-47's and Mack 10s with infinite killing capabilities.

Master Sheikh said...

We love to have our biases. And NO "race" is not more of an indicator of murder than anything else. If that was the case, then friends of Oprah, Barack Obama, and Bill Cosby should watch out, because they might snap one day.

As always, poor people who live in urban ghettos, will always be the "criminal class" in America and Poland and Russia and everywhere else that has high murder rates.

The difference between us and those countries is that we have people who inherently benefit from having a "criminal class". Private companies in America benefit from prisons being full, they even bribed judges to keep the prisons full, which creates a culture where we're constantly sending people to prison, even for non-violent offences, where they'll be radicalized, then turned back on the streets as violent criminals, which ensures that they'll radicalize the next generation of criminals with what they learned in prison and so on and so on.

What we can learn is that murder went down every year between 1992 and 2005. During most of that period, the wealth gap closed, and the economy was at it's most prosperous in American history. Crime started to go back up in 2006, when the effects of the wealth gap widening again started to take effect.

You can reach a conclusion from that.

TDCJ EX said...

Sunray , I prefer ex convict or Ex Offender .Inmate is a perjorative term guard is far too kind of a word for many bosses in TDCJ . The most fitting words are ignorant Sick insecure sadistic A holes . to begin with .

Maybe Grits can write about hte abuses in TDCJ as routine quai offical policly .

Most bosses do not deserve any respect what so ever many should be in white them selves.


A whole different topic . though in way realted bosses learn to dehumanize offenders as a way to make abuse of another human easier psycholigically . TDCJ rarely gives out any repprts of bossses who have had psychological truoble while workng Death Row . at least 2 bosses havetaken thier own lifes by shooting themselves in Polunsky's parking lot another who was on the tie down team quit when he began ot see faces of the offeders whoes exections he took part in .

Once you see ofenrd / convicts as the human beings they are it becomes much more difficult to abuseand torture them .

KKKs ideaology is a way to dehumanize offenders/ convicts so it is easier to abuse and torture and in some cases kill his fellow man .

If a race or ethnic gruop is dehumanzied it is easer to go down the path of eugenics and gewnocide .
This is nothing new . Demonizing and dehumanizing a racial or ethnic gruop or "enmemy " has a long and bloody history .

A look at propaganda thought history of the human race shows this .

The Irony of KKK s thinking is that it inevitbly leads to crimes against humanity , mass murder and genocide . He might not like yo hear that but that is wher histwisted thinking leads . That is a historiocal fact .

Humans have killed each other for the repulsive thinking KKK embraces and advoctes for since ther have been humans as in millions of years

Sorry for any typos in advance

And begore some "Tuff on Crime" wingnut says Offenders are all wild eyed monsters who raped and killed children and are all predators

Here are the USc DOJ stats .

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


Sunray you know me from elsewhere .

TDCJ EX said...

OH KKK I'm not black you are truely a ignorant rascist POS .

Of course people get upset over KKK 's neo nazi thinking . It is repsulsive.

A No it is not soem "liberal" plot to shut you up . That is just stupid or paraniod .

NO most convicts dop not exonerate themsleves . You do notknow what a ex convict or any human for that ammmet thinks KKK .

No body knows exaclty waht another person thinks . Especailly if the only interaction you have is a internet post . You are a racsit neo nazi plain and simple . it isvery clear .
Now your just mad becuase a ex con got the better of you . You and your sock puppets are pathtic and repuslive .

Anonymous said...

>The more legitimate argument concerning racial differences in those who commit murder is that the social influences of generations of slavery, racism, and hate

Legitimate only in the sense that it’s certainly more politically correct. What you’ve offered are mere excuses, not explanations.

--Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

>Master Sheikh said... According to the most recent research, 5 out of the top 10 "murderous" countries are in Europe,

That website lists only 65 countries. There are in fact 194 countries in the world (unless you don’t want to count Taiwan), so the list is woefully incomplete. Liberia, Iran, and Cambodia, for example, aren’t on the list.

>ending the idea that wherever White people live, there is instant happiness and peace.

No one here ever claimed that “wherever White people live, there is instant happiness and peace.” Certainly no race has a monopoly on virtue.

The closest that I came was merely observing that regions of America populated by people of northwest European ancestry tend to have rates of crime with northwest Europe. Within America, 70% of the homicides take place in 3.5% of the counties.

>when you have urban areas where thousands of poor live on top of each other, you have murder. Simple as that.

What we do know is that people with money move out of crime-ridden neighborhoods, and that people with poor values, no self-discipline, short time horizons, low IQ, lack of respect for the rights and property of others, a sense of entitlement (“society owes me!”) and an inability to delay gratification tend to be materially poor, can’t hold well-paying jobs, live in ugly, low-rent neighborhoods, and gravitate towards an instant-gratification of lifestyle of fast easy money, bling, and “hoes.” Hell, just listen to the music that they produce.

But you think it’s all whitey’s fault, right?

--Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

>The crime rate is inherently lower for rural and suburban areas, which is where White people in America live,

White people in America don’t live in cities?

Surely you’re familiar with Boise, Idaho, population 193,414. According to the US census, it’s 92% white. According to the FBI, in 2003 there were three homicides, giving it a homicide rate of 1.5, which is about one-fifth the national average for that year. That puts it between Australia and Iceland.

Portland Oregon, has a population of 551,226, of which 77% are white. It’s homicide rate in 2006 was 3.7.

>so I don't want to here [sic] about White people not being that violent in America.

Of course you don’t want to hear it, but facts are facts. The truth is that even when you hold all other things (poverty, unemployment, lack of education) constant, majority white cities are not as violent as majority black cities.

From _The Color of Crime_.
“In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime
rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and
unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman’s terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged
as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single
best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.”

>which has trapped minorities in those ghettos ever since,

Utter nonsense. This is America, there are no ghettos, and blacks are free to live in whichever neighborhoods they can afford. Housing discrimination has been illegal since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Discrimination in employment has been illegal since 1964. In fact, the federal government regularly practices racism in that lesser qualified non-whites are given preference over better qualified whites in education and employment.

>Also, technology allowed the more guns and cars to be available during the second half of the 20th century, allowing more people to be killed.

How does that affect the stark difference between the black and white violent crime rate?

>What we can learn is that murder went down every year between 1992 and 2005. During most of that period, the wealth gap closed,

The wealth gap closed between 1992 and 2005? You might want to research that claim.
Wealth Gap Is Increasing, Study Shows
ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2007) — The rich really are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, a new University of Michigan study shows.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070807171936.htm


>TDCJ EX said... Sunray , I prefer ex convict or Ex Offender .Inmate is a perjorative term

Oh really? That’s the term that Ray Hill uses on his show, The Prison program.

--Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I see your point, just because we can see racial differences in crime does not prove what causes these differences. I just think the genetic hypothesis clearly makes a lot of sense.

That is what we are having a discussion about. Now Karl has given us statistics showing that race is a more powerful predictor than poverty. Can you give any evidence to support your claim?

sunray's wench said...

">TDCJ EX said... Sunray , I prefer ex convict or Ex Offender .Inmate is a perjorative term

Oh really? That’s the term that Ray Hill uses on his show, The Prison program. "

Which proves what, exactly, Karl? The term used to describe someone who is or has been incarcerated different from individual to individual, and from country to country. In the UK, "offender" is the general term, and we have no distinction between a jail and a prison. I am aware that there are a variety of terms used in the US, but until an individual states their preference, there isn't much I can do about it.

Anyway....

If poverty is a causal factor in why people comit murder in the US, do you think it could also be a factor in Europe too? But wait, what about women who comit murder - surely we have all been talking about men up to now, seeing as we are dealing in stereotypes, and when one thinks of someone in prison, it is almost always a male someone. From the cases I have looked at, women seem just as likely to kill whether they are black or white (or any other colour), and no matter if they are rich or poor.

Your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

>Which proves what, exactly, Karl?

Ray Hill, himself a convict, is a prison reform activist and advocate for the rights of inmates. "Inmate" is the term he routinely uses. I'm surprised that a convict might bristle at the term "inmate." To my ears it's neutral and non-pejorative.

>If poverty is a causal factor in why people comit murder in the US, do you think it could also be a factor in Europe too?

I don't think that "poverty" is a causal factor in why people commit homicide. I think that both "poverty" and a propensity towards violence stem from the same underlying psychological traits. Psychopathic personality is an extreme manifestation of a continuously distributed personality trait. And it's more prevalent among American blacks than among American whites. Professor Richard Lynn has studied the question extensively.

>women seem just as likely to kill whether they are black or white (or any other colour), and no matter if they are rich or poor.

I have seen no studies to support this claim.

Suggested reading: _Race and the American Prospect: Essays on the Racial Realities of our Nation and our Time_ edited by Sam Francis and _A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century_ edited by George McDaniel.

--Karl Ketzer

TDCJ EX said...

KKK It isclear you doi not have the slightes clue as to what you are talking abiut . Ido not know why Ray hill uses theword inmate . Iam not able to read his mind .
Unlie you woh infer yvia your increasing deranged neo nazi rantings that you know what other peopel think, Thier race or ethncity . You prably can't guess mine .
You do not know what kind of edcuation I have or why i make typos .even ifI use spellcheck . Tough it is a varqailbel in crimerateds. Infact KKK you do not kow what I was convicted of or if i won any appeals . I did .

Ray Hill, Michaele Moore are entertainers . Not anything else . Whiel Mooe uses humor to make his point one imight or might not agreewith . it is entertainment .

Richard Lynn is a well known rascist too .

Yoir socalledstas have all ben disproven many time . KKK Yopur poibty hood realy is wraped to tight .

OPoverty and Psycho pathy are caused by the samething . you real are not playing with a full deck .

There is not a known cuase of psycopathy . Some psychopaths happen tob every wealthy. We cal them CEO's COOs CFO's govenors presidents congressmen lobbyists Judges prosecutors cops ect .

Poverty has many cuae psycoppathy is not among the reasons .

Pyschopathy and povery arev not in any way correltated.
Now oyuare just not makingany senseata al and are compleatly irrational .

Most victms of homcied are themselves invloved with crime usualy illegal drugs . If drugs were legal crime rates woold drop dramtically . That does not make it right it explains it . You do not see alcohol or tobbaco comapaines hooting at each other .

It has long been know that dnesepopilations and pvery are highly correltaed and a cuasual factor in somedrimes.
Tou conviently leave out White collar crimes . It is ok for a company to kill thousands in the name of profit ?

Most ofthowe kilers are wealthy white men . KKK .

KK youare on sick man. Who is probably very closto going 0na shooting rampage .

You already threatend mesyingyou wouild "taze me " that is a criminal threat KKK It wacals hat based on the false assumption am black and would assualt you . No I would let you rant and rave .All you would do is draw attention of law enforcemnmet to yourself. As you have done any ways . Not the kind of attention you might want .

Don't worry be happy it is the internet . Iwonder who is read9ing your radiclahate speach ? HMMMMM

I state I did time so people know where I am coming from I have nothing to hide I paid my debt and then some .Unlike you who does not say you are a klansman ansd neo nazi

TDCJ EX said...

OH i intentionaly leave typos now
Ther is a reason I make them . Some can guess , Hint it is nueroligical.
I bet that doe notfiguer into your racisit hate filled rantings KKK .

Far ot inconvient . Grits did a few blogs on it a while back. Bit that is not fittingwith your dernged racist rants and gibberish

sunray's wench said...

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/
"Richard Lynn
Professor Emeritus,
University of Ulster

Research Interests:
Intelligence
Sex Differences
Race Differences
Eugenics"

Says it all really. He has no background in criminology.

Karl, perhaps you should read something like "Why Women Kill: Homicide and Gender Equality" by Vickie Jensen
http://www.questia.com/library/book/why-women-kill-homicide-and-gender-equality-by-vickie-jensen.jsp


"Ray Hill, himself a convict, is a prison reform activist and advocate for the rights of inmates. "Inmate" is the term he routinely uses. I'm surprised that a convict might bristle at the term "inmate." To my ears it's neutral and non-pejorative."

So you may also be surprised to learn that even among those incarcerated there are levels of society and terms given to denote respect and degradation.

I disagree with you that murders are committed by sociopaths or psychopaths. Every human has the capacity to murder, given a particular set of circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:
>Certainly minority crime in America is a major problem, but how many white men have sex with children as compared to minority me?

Fact: blacks also have a higher rate than whites for child molestation.

Source: "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From Prison in 1994," Table 2, U.S. Department of Justice.

Some prominent blacks now argue that black behavior, including misbehaving in class, failing to learn from books, and even crime, is authentic black behavior and should be accepted. (MacDonald, H., "Poisonous 'Authenticity'," City Journal, Apr. 29, 2008).

African men have a high crime rate for rape, regardless of what country they are in. The Union of South Africa is now the rape capital of the world. ("News 24," Nov. 22, 2005). http://tinyurl.com/y8qehes

The South African rape rate is estimated at at least 1.69 million females per year, 40% of which are of children; more than 65% are gang rapes. (Clayton, J. "Anti-rape device must be banned, say women," Times Online, June 8, 2005). http://tinyurl.com/36mqgh

Also, (Gettleman, J., "Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War," The New York Times, Oct. 7, 2007).

Sunray wrote:
>Says it all really. He has no background in criminology.

And he has never claimed to be a criminologist. He's a professor of psychology. You clearly have not bothered to read any of his works.

>Karl, perhaps you should read something like "Why Women Kill: Homicide and Gender Equality" by Vickie Jensen

Thanks, I'll take a look.

And I feel a need to point out that after 66 comments, finally somebody (well, somebody other than me) actually cites a study or statistic. Look at the comments of the people I've been arguing with. They are remarkably fact-free. Nothing but stupid ill-informed opinion. It doesn't really surprise me. Rotten public schools turn out people incapable of real thought. I see it everywhere. Our society is in serious decline.

>I disagree with you that murders are committed by sociopaths or psychopaths.

Did I claim that murders are committed *only* by sociopaths and psychopaths? That's not a claim that I have ever made.

>Every human has the capacity to murder, given a particular set of circumstances.

Change the word "murder" to "commit homicide" and I could almost agree with your statement.

Ex-TDCJ Con wrote:
>KKKs ideaology [sic] is a way to dehumanize offenders/ convicts so it is easier to abuse and torture and in some cases kill his fellow man .

I do not support abusing or torturing my fellow man, even if they are Al Qaeda suspects or convicted murderers.

And I don't support killing anyone who doesn't need killin'. For example, a home invader deserves nothing but a double-tap to the chest. Someone who rapes a child deserves to swing at the end of a rope.

Were I king, I'd end the war on drugs on day one, and that would take a huge bite out of crime. I would also pardon all non-violent offenders convicted of victimless crimes.

On day two I would institute alternatives to incarceration for nuisance crimes like graffiti and vandalism. It would be Singapore-style corporal punishment.

On day three I would turn my attention to the predators who walk among us.

--Karl Ketzer

sunray's wench said...

">Says it all really. He has no background in criminology.

And he has never claimed to be a criminologist. He's a professor of psychology. You clearly have not bothered to read any of his works."

Actually I have, a while ago, and do not care to repeat the exercise. You were using him as a source for an argument to prove that criminality is racially biased. His studies focus on the differences between genders and races, and are not focused on crimiological issues. That was my point.

No need to ridicule those who were taught by the public school system (by which I assume you mean the American use of the term "public school" and not the English use, which is the opposite). I was taught in a state school and went to University to get my degree as a mature student almost 10 years ago.

This is a blog. People do not expect to have to justify their opinions by citing sources. If you want that kind of exchange, perhaps a symposeum on criminal behavour would be a better setting? people may appear "stupid and ill informed" to you, but if they are speaking from personal experience, then their comments are factual whether you agree with them or not.

You did say

"I think that both 'poverty' and a propensity towards violence stem from the same underlying psychological traits. Psychopathic personality is an extreme manifestation of a continuously distributed personality trait."

which I interpreted to be an inference that you believe murder is carried out by sociopaths and psychopaths. Why do you make the distinction between murder and homicide?

TDCJ EX said...

Sunray . That is true. This happens to be a internet blog not a undergraduate , graduate level course or post graduate symposium . People do not want or have the time to cite and fact check every damn thing they post . If our friendly neighborhood Klansman wants that I suggest he find the funds in the private sector to pay for go to the appropriate setting . In his case a cross burning or Aryan Nations gathering would be adequate to spout his racist he can cite rascit auther all he wants .


Just because a person did time does not mean they are stupid or ill informed Klansman . . Never confuse a criminal conviction with being stupid . No one would cal Bernie Maddoff stupid to be able pull off what he did for years . Arrogant yes but stupid no . In fact many drug dealers have very good entrepreneurial ideas they just happen to sell a illegal product . It also take some brains power to get out of prison especially TDCJ in one piece .

Our Klansman uses the citations to show how “smart he is” and how stupid every one else is . A time worn tactic . . If every one were to cite every thing that would be one boring blog .

Maybe he has never heard of dyslexia either . Or is that a “excuse” in the Klansman's mind .

At least he has it right about drugs . that is a start . But making them legal would cut into the prison industrial “biddness” as it is called . Crime ,including murder would drop dramatically .If drugs were legal .Then that is why those who benefit from them being illegal fight tooth and nail to keep them illegal .What would prison towns like Huntsville and Gatesville do with out TDCJ their main employer?

Where is there any link to psychopaths / sociopaths and poverty . If anything the causes of psychopaths and Sociopaths ar not known there are hypothesis but no solid theories

Anonymous said...

Ex-prisonbitch,

Yes dyslexia is an excuse, and a really bad one, for committing crime. You think some dumbass who can't read has a right to rob a bank?

Anonymous said...

Sunray wrote:
>You were using [Richard Lynn] as a source for an argument to prove that criminality is racially biased. His studies focus on the differences between genders and races, and are not focused on crimiological issues. That was my point.

And you used that as an excuse to dismiss his contribution to our understanding of the black-white propensity for violence differential.

The DMS-IV (Revised) lists 11 features, the first of which is "inability to to sustain consistent work behavior." Other features relate to aggression, impulsivity, failing to honor financial commitments, inability to form or maintain long-term relationships, dishonesty, recklessness, lacking remorse, etc.

It's an interesting list, but it fails to really put its finger on the core issue. Psychopathic personality is a personality disorder of which the central feature is lack or moral sense.

While psychopathic personality disorder is a psychiatric disorder, it's long been regarded as the extreme expression of a personality trait that is continuously distributed throughout the population. In other words it's not like, say, pregnancy, where one either is or is not pregnant.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a widely used personality test. Race differences have been observed. (Dahlstrom, Lachar, and Dahlstrom: 1986) Overall, blacks show higher average scores on Psychopathy, Schizophrenia, and Hyperactivity scales.

People who are routinely dishonest and aggressive, who can't plan ahead and always live for today, who fail to keep financial obligations, and engage in similar self-destructive activities tend to be poor. Those are not traits for success. Low-income neighborhoods are not just materially poor; there's a poverty of values there as well. Psychopathic personality is only the most extreme form of this lifestyle.

I did not mean to imply that only psychopaths commit murder. They're more likely to, of course.

>Why do you make the distinction between murder and homicide?

The law in Texas allows the legitimate use of deadly force to protect one's life and property. Also, there's a "mischief at night" rule that allows a homeowner to use deadly force.

Do you believe that shooting a man who tries to rape you constitutes "murder"?

>Just because a person did time does not mean they are stupid or ill informed Klansman

I never claimed otherwise. I know several people who've done time who are not at all stupid or ill-informed.

I didn't call you an illiterate buffoon because you are a convict. It would not matter whether you were a convict or not.

Your biggest problem is that you make it up as you go along. For example, your false claim that the scholars I had listed earlier had been kicked out of teaching positions for teaching eugenics. Not only is the charge untrue, but you made the charge without any basis for it. In other words, it was simply a lie.

You tell lies and call names because you cannot refute my facts, you cannot take apart my arguments, and you cannot handle the truth.

--Karl Ketzer

TDCJ EX said...

Klansman ,

This as you have been told is internet blog not academic discussion group . The vast majority of us do not have the time or desire to find data or cite every thing we talk about . If you want such a debate you can find one . Do your own internet search or try one of the law schools Grits frequently posts about . In said debate you will be buried in enough data and statistics to make your pointy robe covered head spin .

The truth is you are a racist and believe in eugenics . I can handle that .

Perhaps Grits should close this thread ?

Anonymous said...

Ex-prisonbitch, of course you want to close the thread.

You seem to have the criminal mentality and can only think of your wounded ego. So Karl's arguments make sense...why not just admit it?

Anonymous said...

TDC Convict said:
>Perhaps Grits should close this thread ?

I knew that was coming.

You cannot refute any of my arguments, and you cannot shame me into silence, so you want to shut me up by having the mod close the thread.

The last thing in the world your ilk wants is an honest discussion of race and crime.

Your mentality is what's behind all "hate laws" the world over.

--Karl Ketzer

Anonymous said...

Karl, he is still sore. He is complaining about you in a newer thread.(The thread itself is about mental illness and crime).

Anonymous said...

Blacks make up 12% of the population but commit some 40% of the rapes, half the murders, and 62% of the robberies. (Figures are from the US DoJ, and fluctuate slightly, but not significantly.) For some reason (political correctness), it's considered rude to point this out in public.

What is extremely significant is that Blacks used to not have any where near that kind of representation in the statistics (other than in %tage of total population).

Something is going on, and it is clearly not genetic. Which means that Eugenics are not a cure and that focusing on Eugenics in this discussion merely distracts attention.

Anonymous said...

Nobody has advocated eugenics in this blog. Perhaps your inability to read is a distraction.

Anonymous said...

04:17:00 PM,

Do you have any statistics to back this claim up?

Every statistic I have seen has shown that the black rate has been higher ever since records were kept.

I suspect that you are making this up as you go along.

RAS said...

Perhaps those with good intentions have succeeded in convincing blacks that they aren't equal because thet can't compete without affirmative action in hiring and scholastic admissions. Up until the Democrats recognized a voter block they could lock in Black parents and their kids fought the prevailing winds of society and the economy to get educations. After it became a gift and then a right it stopped being wanted or desirable.

Ricardo said...

***you just don't have legitimate data to support differences. ***

Testosterone & MAO-A variants could be factors.

"Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

Anonymous said...

That's interesting. However I doubt hormones are the big issue here. I really think the big issue here is differene between intelligence levels.

I suspect lower intelligence is often associated with lower self control. Lower self control is definitely associated with crime.

Anonymous said...

Alveo
It's a pity you don't have a donate button! I'd without a doubt donate to this fantastic blog!
I suppose for now i'll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed
to my Google account. I look forward to new updates and
will share this website with my Facebook group.
Chat soon!