Quantifying black crime: correcting the calculation
Jan 3rd, 2012 by Unamused
In its 2011 report (“Preliminary Report on Race and Washington’s Criminal Justice System”), the Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System (henceforth “the commission”) looked at criminal victimization data from the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).
Previously, we noted that the report’s methodology appears to be seriously flawed. Specifically, the commission’s simplistic calculation that “victims of non-fatal violent crimes… identified their assailants as Black 24.7% of the time” drastically underestimates the actual percentage (or share) of violent offenders who are black. Our objective now is to correct the calculation.
To obtain more reliable results, we examine NCVS data from 2004–2008, the five most recent years for which it is available.
Race and the NCVS
The NCVS uses four racial categories: “white only,” comprising whites and non-black, non-Amerindian Hispanics (i.e., Mestizos); “black only”; “other race only,” comprising Asians, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, and Alaskan Natives; and “more than one race.” We refer to members of the first category as white and Hispanic (W&H) and to members of the second category as black.
Each year, the percentages of survey respondents who identified as W&H, as black, and as “more than one race” were close to the overall (2004–2008) percentages of 81.6%, 12.1%, and 1.1%, respectively (ranging from 81.1%–82.2%, 12.0–12.1%, and 0.9%–1.3%, respectively). We omit respondents of “more than one race” from our analysis; our default assumption is that their racial distribution was similar to the racial distribution of all respondents. The ratio of W&H respondents to black respondents was consistently close to the overall ratio of 6.7 (ranging from 6.7–6.8).
Sample calculation: robbery
Consider the NCVS statistics on robbery (i.e., mugging).
From 2004–2008, there were (approximately) 1,600,830 single-offender robberies in the United States. The offender was black in 49.2% of victimizations where the offender’s race was known and available, and the offender was W&H in 39.1%. Our default assumption is that the racial distribution of the “missing” (race unknown or unavailable) offenders is similar to the racial distribution of all offenders. Therefore, blacks committed 1.3 times as many single-offender robberies as whites and Hispanics. The black rate of single-offender robbery was 8.5 times the W&H rate.
There were also 1,280,240 multiple-offender robberies. All offenders were black in 65% of victimizations where all offenders were of a single, known and available race, and all offenders were W&H in 27%. Our default assumption is that the racial distribution of offenders in mixed-race groups (as well as the missing offenders) is similar to the racial distribution of like-race groups. Therefore, blacks committed 2.4 times as many multiple-offender robberies as whites and Hispanics. The black rate of multiple-offender robbery was 16 times the W&H rate.
Of the multiple-offender robberies, 666,386 involved two offenders, 311,697 involved three offenders, and 302,158 involved four or more offenders, under our default assumption that the average number of offenders per multiple-offender crime for which the number of offenders in unknown or unavailable is similar to the average per crime for which the number is known. We obtain (an estimate of) the minimum total number of offenders involved in multiple-offender robberies by assuming that no robbery involved more than four offenders. There were at least 3,476,492 robbery offenders (combining single- and multiple-offender robberies). The average number of offenders per multiple-offender robbery was at least 2.7. Here, our default assumption is that the average number of offenders is similar for offending groups of any racial makeup.
The minimum number of offenders involved in multiple-offender robberies provides the minimum black multiple of the W&H robbery rate (combining single- and multiple-offender robberies), because the black multiple of the W&H rate for multiple-offender robbery (16) was greater than the black multiple of the W&H rate of single-offender robbery (8.5). Therefore, there were at least 1.9 times as many black robbery offenders as W&H robbery offenders. At least 60% of robbery offenders were black, and the black robbery rate was at least 13 times the W&H robbery rate.
Note that multiple-offender robberies provide the maximum black multiple of the W&H robbery rate, which is by no means a tight upper bound: there were no more than 2.4 times as many black robbery offenders as W&H robbery offenders, no more than 65% of robbery offenders were black, and the black robbery rate was no more than 16 times the W&H rate.
Starting next time, we will plot (1) the black single- and multiple-offender crime rates (as multiples of the corresponding W&H crime rates), (2) the minimum overall black crime rate, (3) the minimum black share of offenders, and (4) the black share of arrestees, where available, for the following crime categories: (a) rape and sexual assault, (b) robbery, (c) aggravated assault, (d) simple assault, (e) violent crime of all four types, and (f) completed (as opposed to attempted) violent crime of all four types.
What are black people? Human?
[Unamused: … Yes.]
I think you’ll find the biggest difference in offending rates concerns rape, where black men rape white women way more often than the other way ’round. Nevertheless, the scope of disproportionate black criminality of all types is astounding. As is the way the media more or less ignores it. When they’re not trying to deliberately disguise it, that is…
And of course lumping Hispanics in with Whites in any analysis of crime is just disgraceful, and only serves to reduce the difference between the offending rates of Whites and Blacks. I’m starting to believe this is done deliberately for just that purpose.
The largest gap between black and W&H crime rates is for robbery, whereas rape/sexual assault shows the greatest difference in interracial crime rates (black-on-W&H versus W&H-on-black), which is slightly different.
In 2008, for example, the NCVS found zero cases of W&H-on-black rape, but about 19,000 black-on-W&H single-offender rapes nationwide (53/day) and 4,000 black-on-W&H multiple-offender (gang) rapes (over 10/day).
Have no fear, I’ll cover interracial crime later in this series. Probably next week.
You are quite right about the scope of black criminality (but even you might be surprised by the results I’ll publish tonight…), the media’s complicity, and the “white people (PS includes Mexicans)” trick. I too suspect that elements of the mentally deficient “Hispanic isn’t a race, it’s an ethnicity — not that I know what the fuck those terms mean” crowd are motivated by the undeniable fact of Sun People criminality to lump Mestizos in with whites.
Amazing video: white marine confronts black thugs, says “I put myself at risk to protect everyone else, that’s what we do as people”.
Whites > * Once again
I’ve been lurking for a while and like this site. One wish I’d like to express (other than a very Happy New Year) is could you spend more time editing your posts? They’re frequently incoherent to some degree. For example, this comment above. By the way, how do you get access to that victimization survey? I’d like to pore over it myself, provided getting it is not too onerous.
You can find National Crime Victimization Survey data here, at the website of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Look for “Publications & Products,” then select the link to “More Publications & Products.”
Below is an easier-to-parse version of my last comment:
Bravo on the number crunching UA. This paints a stark picture of black criminality. I hope that a flyer showing these graphs could be put together. I tried to give the flyer on “Why You Shouldn’t Date Black Men” to my negro enamored sister, needless to say, it didn’t work. Hard, uncompromising graphs may yet spare me black nephews.
I think that what we former DWLs all thought about the black crime rate, was that when we finally gave them a chance in the 1990s and 2000s, the blacks would shape up and be good. Once we stopped being racist to them, they would in turn be good citizens.
Unfortunately, many former DWLs and DWCs (conservatives) are waking up to this disproven hypothesis. Fortunately, whites tend to take strong, if often wrong hypotheses. Those blacks who took advantage of the amnesty offered by the relative break in racism offered by the 2000s will find themselves in an advantageous and respected position. The rest may be left behind, as the will to give them another chance may evaporate.
The “hispanics”, with their fiercer nature, will not be kind to the problematics of the blacks. The downsides of Amerindian admixture can have surprising upsides. There is a pragmatic quality to the enterprising Mexican.
Another Obama voter in the news.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-thumbs-gouge-62-year-old-uncle-eyes-fight-tv-remote-cops-article-1.1000799
Check out today’s post for a nice pair of graphs, Dewey. Lots more to follow.
I think you’re absolutely right about those who “gave them a chance in the 1990s and 2000s.” However, when you write that
I think you must mean fortunately. It’s a very good thing that whites are waking up.
And thanks for that link, Unamuzed — and for the cleaned-up post too: I can understand exactly what you were saying now. Being pedantic as I am, one more nit though, about the “The people who claim Hispanic isn’t a “race,” but an “ethnicity,” don’t know or care what either of those words means, and probably don’t believe race exists anyway” — it should be “The people who claim Hispanic isn’t a race but an ethnicity don’t know or care what either of those words means and probably don’t believe race exists anyway”. A word in quotes is the name of the word w/o quotes, a symbol, a token. Iow, we denote the concept of race by the word “race”. Surely you meant the concepts, not tokens, when you spoke about race and ethnicity there. Commas also unnecessary. Anyway, forgive my carping: I read a lot of stuff and appreciate crisp writing ’cause it makes life easier for me. All that aside, thanks for your toilsome labours here. We’re drowning in an ocean of PC lies, and blogs like yours are an unexpected gust of fresh air to me.
Well, you can use quotation marks to indicate irony or unusual usage (“This so-called ethnicity…”). As for unnecessary commas, I find your version just reads too fast. (Also, in light of that, I don’t see how the first version of my comment could have been incomprehensible.)
Unamused wrote:
> Well, you can use quotation marks to indicate irony
Yes, but here you’re indirectly quoting your opponents — and they surely aren’t being sarcastic about their own theories. Quotes unnecessary.
> or unusual usage (“This so-called ethnicity…”).
That’d be fine if you, say, then expanded on their views (but from your own standpoint).
>As for unnecessary commas, I find your version just reads
> too fast.
Commas aren’t for slowing down. The statement is not a compound one: there’s only one subject that everything that follows is related to. No parenthesis either, so no, no commas. In fact there’s more trouble there (“isn’t a race but an ethnicity” — “isn’t”? Or “is”? the “be” here relates to both, but, being used in the negative, obviously it applies only to the “race”; the following “ethnicity” requires a positive form); here’s my best version of your statement:
“The people who claim the term “Hispanic” denotes an ethnicity rather than a race don’t know (or care) what either of those words means — and probably believe there’s no such a thing as the race to begin with”.
I think, parenthetic devices here give us a bit of a slowdown you wanted (in addition to tracing the hierarchy of meaning in the overall statement more clearly). Imo, this version is easier to parse. That said, again, I’m saying these things in the spirit of constructive criticism, not captious fault-finding. It’s great you’re writing these articles, flaws or no flaws: no one’s perfect.
Sorry, extraneous words in my own example! :-) Here goes, the lastest and greatest:
“The people who claim the term “Hispanic” denotes an ethnicity rather than a race don’t know (or care) what either of those words means — and would probably deny there’s such a thing as race, to begin with”.
Do commas truly matter when our race is confronted with an issue like this?
“In 2008, for example, the NCVS found zero cases of “white”-on-black rape, but about 19,000 black-on-”white” single-offender rapes nationwide (which is about 53/day) and 4,000 black-on-”white” multiple-offender rapes (which is over 10/day).”
Ladies and gentlemen wake up. 10 gang rapes on average a day! (upper bound) 53 rapes on average a day! These rapes are from one conquering ethnicity, black, to whites. The duty of men is to protect the women of their people, and their children!
I appreciate the feedback, Lurker. I am always trying to improve my writing.
But I still agree with Dewey. Damn your commas! Damn your commas straight to hell!
:-)
Well, like I’ve already said, I appreciate what you’re doing here, commas or no commas. Please take none of what I’ve said as a discouragement. Speaking out despite the PC totalitarianism currently prevailing in the media (and, quite honestly, in the overall cultural sphere) is an honorable and courageous thing to do. In addition, you’re doing a good job of it too, what with all the specifics and numbers: that’s just what is necessary now.
That aside, commas do matter — and they do precisely because of the imporance of the issues you’re covering. After all, you are not dealing with groids directly: you’re raising the awareness of the rest of humanity of the deleterious effect our most-preferred minority has on our society. Iow, you are communicating. Communication serves no purpose if it cannot be understood by the targeted readership. Not that your writing is that bad, by no means; it’s just a bit muddled now and then, I feel. I’m sorry my contribution to your blog started from grammar though :-) ! This is definitely not the only thing that attracted me here, nor the main.
Dewey wrote:
We don’t really know; it’s all guesses. The overall attitude towards the blacks is so increasingly absurd since 1960s that every kind of conspiracy theorizing seems justified. It just doesn’t make any direct sense. Take the much touted issue of “racial profiling” (quotes, because I’m speaking myself, in the sense of the so-called racial profiling). We can talk till kingdom come and joust with DWLs about whether it exists and when and by whom and what not, but why even do that? The simple underlying fact is, what’s wrong with profiling if there is, unmistakably, a profile? What’s wrong with stop-and-search of the groids disproportionately to the overall population if it is a fact that they’re criminal disproportionately to the same population? How come this simple question is never raised? Are they stopped disproportionately to their own criminality? Ha! I bet, in that respect they’re “underserved”, if anything. But this is never broached — why?
About conspiracy theories: I’m aware of three at least.
(1) from a nazi point of view: It’s the Jews who promote the groids, using them as cattle to stampede the whites and take over.
(2) middle-ground, non-ideological (me and, I feel, you are in this group): DWLs have been promoting blacks out of a misplaced (and unreal) sense of guilt and out of conformism to the system of groid promotion they have themselves created (hoisted on own petard, as it were). Here also belong the consciously self-serving members of the race industry, who derive sinecures, social power, and other benefits out of endless wonking of fake issues.
(3) Marxist take: the fucking capitalist pig owns the country and likes to maintain a certain level of social strife in order to keep the masses distracted and off their (fucking capitalist pig’s) case.
This could really be anything, cause we don’t know specifically: these issues are somehow never discussed specifically. This blog does, with numbers etc., which is why I like it.
Dewey, I would like to agree with you regarding Hispanics not entertaining the whole black entitlement fiasco we’ve created, but sadly, in Hispanic majority Miami Dade county, they are being forced to toe the line as well. Between hating the Hispanics and Haitians, they’ve sort of forgot about hating white people down here for the most part, so that’s sort of a nice change, but not really a change — just focusing on different groups. Haitians are very much like sub-Saharan Africans, so they do have a point there.
Lurker has a point about the importance of correct language. It’s important in general terms, but more specifically because our enemies are often themselves highly educated, and like to portray us as ignorant and stupid. We play into their hands when we present truth in semi-literate English. This site is better than many. I cringe when I see some academic challenge a blogger in perfect English (but semantic crap), and the response uses “then” instead of “than” and so on.
We all make errors (even Lurker wrote “me and … you are in this group), which is why an editor is such an important thing. I strongly recommend that you find one or more people with good language skills, and have one of them read over each article before publication. Perhaps Lurker would volunteer – but you may need to keep a tight rein on him so that he doesn’t lose your “voice” in the process. Your unique style is what makes this blog what it is.
[…] offenders, and at least 30% of aggravated assault offenders; see our lovely graph. By the way, this corrects an erroneous calculation in the fifth source (of ignorance) cited […]