William Bennett: "If you want to reduce crime...abort every black baby in America."

[Shayna]

@Eonwe

Well, according to the US Dept of Justice:

As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the country’s black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of white males in the same age group.

Now, I don’t think this is a surprise to anyone on these boards. I know the reasons for this statistic are varied and many of them have been discussed ad infinitum here and in other public forums. But, in this context we’re not discussing objective justice, but crime.

So, the question is, is it really offensive to suggest that blacks account for a large portion of crime in the US? Does it approximate a true suggestion?

@Siege

Yes, black people do commit a disproportionate number of crimes.

No, black people do not necessarily commit a disproportionate number of crimes in this country, nor do statistics that show the comparative percentage of the prison population reflect the reality of who is actually committing more crimes, either. In fact, it’s completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that more drug crimes are committed by whites, but the overwhelming percentage of arrests for drug crimes are against blacks.

The Truth About Black Crime

The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimated that while 12 percent of drug users are black, they make up nearly 50 percent of all drug possession arrests in the U.S. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)

According to the National Drug Strategy Network, although African Americans make up less than one-third of the population in Georgia, the black arrest rate for drugs is five times greater than the white arrest rate. In addition, since 1990, African Americans have accounted for more than 75% of persons incarcerated for drug offenses in Georgia and make up 97.7% of the people in that state who are given life sentences for drug offenses. In six California counties independently surveyed in 1995, 100% of those individuals sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the drug-using population in those same counties was more than 60% white.

And that’s just drug crimes. Across the board, blacks are stopped more often, pursued more often, arrested more often and convicted more often than whites who commit the exact same crimes. Therefore, the proper conclusion isn’t that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes, but that they are arrested and convicted disproportionately to the total number of crimes being committed by all races.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@KidCharlemagne

Do you find this offensive because it’s true or because it isn’t?

Who are you talking to?

[KidCharlemagne]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Who are you talking to?

Anyone who finds it offensive.

[The_Chao_Goes_Mu]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The first amendment prevents the government from making any LAW abridging the freedom of speech. No one you quoted has proposed making illegal for Bennett to remain on the air or to remove him by force. They are still free to ask his company to fire him and his company is free to tell them to fuck off. Until the government actually to directly prevent him from speaking, there is no civil rights violation.

Than you. You beat me to it.

Finally, someone else besides myself who actually understands what the 1st amendment actually says.

[Nutty_Bunny]

@Marley23

If a shock jock on the radio said this, I think he’d be suspended and then fired three days later.

Ten months ago, my brother used to work for a Chicago top 40 station and made a comment that inadvertently sounded racist (meaning, he didn’t mean it in the way it came out). The station only received one negative phone call about the comment, but he was gone within a week.

He had great ratings for his timeslot, boosting the overall ratings for the station, and he won an award for Best Local On-Air Personality in the first year he worked there.

Why this waste of skin Bennett is still on the air is a mystery. Perhaps it’s the thinking that “even bad publicity is good publicity”, but my brother’s bosses didn’t see it that way.

[mhendo]

@Annie-Xmas

Since when does “pro-choice” mean forcing abortions on people? I suggest you go to a dictionary site and look up the word CHOICE.

The two sides of the abortion debate are anti-abortion and pro-choice.

Geez, folks, give poor old duffer a break will ya?

Now, i’ll be the first to admit that he has one of the more appropriate usernames on this message board, and we’ve crossed paths on more than a few occasions. But his post was clearly a joke, not an attempt to make a serious defence of Bennett. I thought it was pretty funny, actually.

[wonky]

@Miller

Er, I would? I don’t have to be Jewish to be appalled at the idea of destroying synagogues, and I don’t have to be black to be appalled at the idea of aborting all black fetuses.

You’re right. I should have said “could.”

You don’t have to be Jewish to be appalled at the idea of destroying synagogues, but if you aren’t Jewish, there’s a greater chance that you won’t be appalled.

Arguing through absurdity only works if the audience considers it absurd. The way to make sure they will is to have it impact them, not someone else they can just wave off as being unimportant. If the audience does not see the example as absurd, then you aren’t making any argument at all.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@KidCharlemagne

Anyone who finds it offensive.

In that case, I’m offended because it’s NOT true.

[wonky]

@KidCharlemagne

Do you find this offensive because it’s true or because it isn’t?

It’s a supposition that might be true but would not be uniquely true. That means the statement can be both true and viciously deceptive.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

He was probably attempting to mae a reductio absurdio argument, but even so, his reduction included a racist assumption that black people are inherently more likely to commit crimes than white people. If he had said “poor” intead of “black” it would have made his point, as it stands, all he did was unwittingly expose a racist mentality.

Christ on a pogo stick, you can’t have reductio absurdio w/o the absurdio. The fact that the crime rate for blacks is higher than whites can just as easily be attributed to racism as anything else. Get rid of the race, and you get rid of the racism. But we wouldn’t do that BECAUSE IT’S ABSURD! Kill all the sick people, and the health of the country improves. Kill all the Protestants in N. Ireland, and the IRA will disband.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

Christ on a pogo stick, you can’t have reductio absurdio w/o the absurdio. The fact that the crime rate for blacks is higher than whites can just as easily be attributed to racism as anything else. Get rid of the race, and you get rid of the racism. But we wouldn’t do that BECAUSE IT’S ABSURD! Kill all the sick people, and the health of the country improves. Kill all the Protestants in N. Ireland, and the IRA will disband.

It has not been demonstrated that the crime rate is higher for blacks than whites, only that the arrest and conviction rates are higher. Those statistics are not synonomous.

And it’s not the absurdio I object to, it’s the reductio. Bennett was not reducing the point about access to legal abortion correlating to a drop in crime rates. he was changing it into an argument about forced abortions. It’s a bogus comparison. Yes, forced abortions are wrong, but what does that have to do with voluntary abortion.

Bennett not only made a racist assumption in his hypothetical, he was also wrong about its validity to the point raised by the caller.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

By the way. It’s absurdum, not absurdio. I should have caught that earlier.

[SmackFu]

Here’s the Freakonomics author’s take on this: Bill Bennett and Freakonomics (He’s the one who did the abortion lowers crime study.)

[wonky]

@John Mace

Christ on a pogo stick, you can’t have reductio absurdio w/o the absurdio. The fact that the crime rate for blacks is higher than whites can just as easily be attributed to racism as anything else. Get rid of the race, and you get rid of the racism. But we wouldn’t do that BECAUSE IT’S ABSURD! Kill all the sick people, and the health of the country improves. Kill all the Protestants in N. Ireland, and the IRA will disband.

Getting rid of all black people doesn’t get rid of racism. Getting rid of racists might. There’s an idea.

Bennett made absolutely no statement about racism being a or the cause of elevated crime rates. I have rarely, if ever, heard conservatives suggest that racism is a or the cause of elevated crime rates. Race, yes. Racism, no. So why should I assume that Bennett meant that aborting all black babies would reduce racism and therefore indirectly reduce crime rather than assuming that Bennett meant that aborting all black babies would directly reduce crime?

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Diogenes the Cynic

It has not been demonstrated that the crime rate is higher for blacks than whites, only that the arrest and conviction rates are higher. Those statistics are not synonomous.

Yes, anybody who takes statistics knows that the population sample is rarely, to the point of never, identical of the true underlying pobability. Nevertheless, are you really going to nitpick this point? He might even concede your point you know, thtat given thorough research intot he subject it might not even be true. Who knows. This was an off-the-cuff remark certainly meant as a reflection on the known published statistics of the DOJ.

[Jackmannii]

@Steve MB

I was one of the people who called BS on Bricker last time… but he’s right this time. Bennett was clearly making a reductio ad absurdum argument.

I didn’t say I thought Bennett was a racist - but that he was engaging in stupid behavior.

Stupid, for raising hackles with that sort of language, no matter what clever point he thought he was making (with an embedded dig at pro-abortion rights advocates).

The really absurdum part is how any self-respecting conservative can feel the need for knee-jerk defense of…well, a jerk.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

A relevant snippet from SmackFu’s link:

Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics. It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement. Empirically, what matters is the fact that abortions are disproportionately used on unwanted pregnancies, and disproportionately by teenage women and single women.

Also this:

In light of point (4) above, it is hard to even know what Bennett means when he says “you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” Implicit in his comment is the idea that some external force, like a government, is forcing blacks to have abortions. This is obviously a completely different situation than abortion as we know it today, in which a woman chooses whether or not to have an abortion now, and then starts her family later in life, when her situation is more stable and conducive. The distinction between a woman choosing to control her fertility and the government choosing to limit her fertility is fundamental and people often seem to lose sight of that.

And this:

If we lived in a world in which the government chose who gets to reproduce, then Bennett would be correct in saying that “you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” Of course, it would also be true that if we aborted every white, Asian, male, Republican, and Democratic baby in that world, crime would also fall.

The Freakaonomics author is pretty much making all the exact same points that I’m making but doing a better job of it.

[John_Mace]

@Shayna

No, black people do not necessarily commit a disproportionate number of crimes in this country, nor do statistics that show the comparative percentage of the prison population reflect the reality of who is actually committing more crimes, either. In fact, it’s completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that more drug crimes are committed by whites, but the overwhelming percentage of arrests for drug crimes are against blacks. And that’s just drug crimes. Across the board, blacks are stopped more often, pursued more often, arrested more often and convicted more often than whites who commit the exact same crimes. Therefore, the proper conclusion isn’t that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes, but that they are arrested and convicted disproportionately to the total number of crimes being committed by all races.

That would be relevant if we measured the “crime rate” by taking surveys. But we don’t.

@DtC

It has not been demonstrated that the crime rate is higher for blacks than whites, only that the arrest and conviction rates are higher. Those statistics are not synonomous.

How is the crime rate measured? What is the crime rate for Blacks? What is it for Whites?

And it’s not the absurdio I object to, it’s the reductio. Bennett was not reducing the point about access to legal abortion correlating to a drop in crime rates. he was changing it into an argument about forced abortions. It’s a bogus comparison. Yes, forced abortions are wrong, but what does that have to do with voluntary abortion.

Bennett not only made a racist assumption in his hypothetical, he was also wrong about its validity to the point raised by the caller.

It woulld have been racist if he actually advocated doing it.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

A relevant snippet from SmackFu’s link:

Also this:

And this:

The Freakaonomics author is pretty much making all the exact same points that I’m making but doing a better job of it.

So, if you change the statistics from what they actually are you get a different result? Who woulda thunk it? :rolleyes:

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

That would be relevant if we measured the “crime rate” by taking surveys. But we don’t.

How is the crime rate measured? What is the crime rate for Blacks? What is it for Whites?

I don’t know how it’s measured but I do know they can’t be extropolated from arrest or conviction rates. White people are far less likely to be busted or jailed for the same shit that black people do. See also my first quote from the Freakonomics dude above. When you adjust for certain things like economics, family structure and environments, there is virtually no difference between blacks and whites.

It woulld have been racist if he actually advocated doing it.

I think it’s racist to assume that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals. Race is not a relevant factor. What matters is stuff like poverty, single mothers and urban environments.