Why would you try to argue that? Seems like a losing proposition to me.
Edit: assuming you are talking about rate, not raw numbers, and here in America, and this century, etc.
What do you mean?
With no scientific evidence that “black” even means anything at a biological fashion the bigger question is “why”
With no biological reason those numbers are driven by social constructs, economic and cultural factors.
it is not “blacks” committing more crimes, it is a group of marginalized, socioeconomically disadvantaged people who have a higher conviction rate. It may be that they are charged and convicted more, it may be due to the fact of being marginalized as a group due to physical features increases the chances that someone will commit a crime. But it is 100% certain that it has nothing to do with biology or any innate trait due to an arbitrary, non-scientific, social classification like ‘race’.
White middle aged men commit more serial killings?
White middle aged priests commit more child molesting?
White middle aged men commit more white coller crimes?
Or the numbers are incomplete and misleading. For example: mass killings, like the one in South Carolina recently, don’t show up in that report because there were multiple victims.
Personal attacks are not appropriate and armchair psychiatry is not a valid basis on which to make such an argument even if it was appropriate.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
I did similar math, back when the Ferguson thing was happening and, as I recall, if you incorporate the ratios of people living under the poverty line, by ethnicity, the number of black people murdered is still disproportionate with the number of white people. There is more going on than poverty.
I don’t think that’s a given. I’d venture to guess that there’s a strong correlation between criminal behavior and abusive/corrupting parenting. Potentially, it’s better to grow up in a single-parent home or to get one parent out of the home so that a different, more wholesome mate is brought in, than it is to have a dual-partner home where one of the parents is a criminal.
You assume most criminals are bad parents, probably because you picture rapists and murderers. Of course, lots of criminals are drug offenders or gun possessors and the like.
News to me. 
Anyway, found this article, which seems like a pretty balanced commentary.
The Great Leap Forward? The Cultural Revolution? The TaiPing Rebellion? John Woo?
Notably, though, the statistical analysis begins with:
“It’s true that around 13 per cent of Americans are black, according to the latest estimates from the US Census Bureau.”
The Bureau’s data is based on self-reporting, i.e. people who identify themselves as black or other than black, rather than any kind of scientific testing. Is there a possible scientific test that could confirm or disprove whether or not, say, Barack Obama, Halle Berry, Tiger Woods or their various children were black, assuming “black” was scientifically defined in some way?
I did not assume. I intended and - I think - clearly presented my statement as a potentiality that could change the result from what you expected. But minus data, neither of us really has a compelling case.
I also specified that the sort of problem that one might encounter is simply “corruptive” parenting, where the parent is nice enough to his kids, but still encourages to engage in criminal or self-defeating behavior, like discouraging them from putting much importance in their education.
Of course. There is a lot more to generational poverty than simply current wealth. Being poor does not usually happen in a vacuum; it is more likely to be a result of multiple generations of poverty and all the social and cultural baggage that comes with it.
Well, you “guessed” that there is a “strong correlation between criminal behavior and abusive/corrupting parenting.”
I agree that both of us are operating without citations to data here, but that doesn’t make your guess equally valid to mine. Last I checked, there is lots of evidence that single-parent households struggle compared to two-parent households (if for no other reason than the loss of earnings). I’m not aware of any evidence connecting the commission of crime with “abusive/corrupting” parenting. My intuition is that some crimes are probably so correlated and the majority are not–or at least, are more weakly correlated to negative outcomes than the negative outcomes correlated with imprisoning a parent.
Yet another example of rampant white priviledge…
Sure. I did say start with poverty data.
Myeah, that’s basically the way it works.
Child abuse is the commission of a crime, so that’s one’s a straight 100% correlation, and it’s no effort to find studies showing that childhood abuse rarely affects people positively. E.g.:
http://www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/JoanMcCord/FortyYear1983.pdf
A substance abuser is more likely to be arrested for criminal behavior and a substance abuser is not a good influence on their children:
60% of people in jail reported using drugs in the month before their arrest:
The most influential person in a child’s consideration of a future career is their parent:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23900166?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Half of men who were sent to jail were not living with their child at the time they were arrested, suggesting that most of the children would be growing up a single-parent home anyways.
And the majority of women, whose partner was sent to jail, felt that the incarceration had no or slight effect on their child, indicating that the father was of limited influence before the fact:
And I think the most telling is that children do better if they’re part of a single-parent household because their other parent died, than for “other” reasons (like incarceration of a parent):
Any word on if the black reporter that filmed himself shooting the white devils was abused as a child?
Sage Rat:
Yes, obviously child abuse is going to be a crime correlated to child abuse. That’s not exactly responsive to the question of whether removing approximately one in three black men from their families might contribute to black criminality, unless you think a large portion of them are going in for child abuse.
You seem to mischaracterize the substance abuse links. They do not establish the parental influence (as distinct from genetic influence) of substance abusers, much less of the different category of people that is those convicted of drug crimes, not all of whom are substance abusers. (Though I admit I only read the abstract of the one you had to pay for…if that one contains the evidence you claim notwithstanding what is said in the abstract suggesting otherwise, I’m open to that information. Did you read the whole thing or just the abstract?)
None of the other links are really on point. I would be interested to know what percentage of first-time offenders with children are active in their children’s lives. I don’t see that in your data.