Originally posted by King Kandy
For all we know, all the "unknown" crimes could have been whites, in which case it would be whites who had the most crimes... the huge error margin left by that large of an "unknown" category is simply unacceptable if this is to be taken seriously.
Even if it was all whites. Blacks would still account for 33% of the crimes.
But what are they supposed to say when the race is actually unknown? I mean it's definitely not other, is it? Should they just not publish their stats?
Originally posted by botankus
In the defense of the black race defendants, maybe criminals in ski masks and people with darkish faces on blurry video cameras (which could very well be "other) are being lumped into the "black" category.
I'm guessing the stats are from people who have been convicted of crimes and the "unknown" are from reported but unsolved cases.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex NihiloIf we're discussing diseases, then that's just a small part of genetics, and factors involving the environment. Japanese known for strokes, Armenian and Greeks for Mediterananea fever etc...
I'm afraid not. There's a reason that blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia than whites.
There are research journals/articles that have long ended this debate.
Haven't read these, but should be similar to the journal we used in lab.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=vn20021217112750970C124344&set_id=1
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist
Originally posted by The Dark CloudBioltechnology major. Relax buddy. You're just mad cuz I'm arrogant and drive a porsche. We talked about this before. Relax.
That is absolutely the lamest most untrue statement I've ever read
Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if it was all whites. Blacks would still account for 33% of the crimes.But what are they supposed to say when the race is actually unknown? I mean it's definitely not other, is it? Should they just not publish their stats?
Statistics are misleading because they don't count the severity or scope of crimes or discount non-violent drug offenses. If you wanted a more realistic statistics of supposed crimes by race, take total crime statistics, discount all crimes that are not crimes of moral turpitude, then discount everyone convicted of marital infidelity and/or sodomy and you'll have a much clearer and more meaningful picture if you're the kind of person who looks at societal harm through a racial lens.
For those who don't know, Crimes of moral turpitude (with the exception of adultery and sodomy) are those crimes which are most serious, negatively affect the most amount of people, and demonstrate a clear intent to harm people, property, and/or the state.
Originally posted by botankus
Maybe we could just discount every crime for which at least one person doesn't feel is wrong, and then we'd have a crime-free society, and then all races would be equal in the crime standings. YAY!
All crimes are not equal.
You don't see the difference between smoking pot and robbing a liquor store? You don't see the difference between DUI and running a Ponzi Scheme?
People are different and think different things when they hear of the crime.
But to answer your question, it depends. Someone smoking pot behind the wheel of a car could very well be perceived as more dangerous than a guy sticking his thumb in his hoodie pocket and saying, "Yo Liquor Store dude, I'm taking this 6-pack of beer!"
I see your point, and this is a little off-topic, but I think no one really knows the biggest threat to their future at present moment, like the guy who carjacks you at a stoplight, or the waiter who steals your credit card info, or the kid who bullies your child on the playground and sends him/her to the hospital.
I think theres more than black and white people, and those two skin colours are not a "RACE" humans are a race. Black is merely a skin colour, there are many CULTURES and CIVLISATIONS that contain people of that specific skin colour as are the same with Whites.
Ridiculous, typical racist government idiots.
Originally posted by botankus
I see your point, and this is a little off-topic, but I think no one really knows the biggest threat to their future at present moment, like the guy who carjacks you at a stoplight, or the waiter who steals your credit card info, or the kid who bullies your child on the playground and sends him/her to the hospital.
And that is what defines crimes of moral turpitude
Crimes defined as such-
* Making false representation
* Knowledge of such false representation by the perpetrator
* Reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded
* An intent to defraud
* The actual act of committing fraud
* Arson
* Blackmail
* Burglary
* Embezzlement
* Extortion
* False pretenses
* Forgery
* Fraud
* Larceny (grand or petty)
* Malicious destruction of property
* Receiving stolen goods (with guilty knowledge)
* Robbery
* Theft (when it involves the intention of permanent taking)
* Transporting stolen property (with guilty knowledge)
* Bribery
* Counterfeiting
* Fraud against revenue or other government functions
* Mail fraud
* Perjury
* Harboring a fugitive from justice (with guilty knowledge)
* Tax evasion (willful)
* Abandonment of a minor child (if willful and resulting in the destitution of the child)
* Assault (this crime is broken down into several categories, which involve moral turpitude):
o Assault with intent to kill, commit rape, commit robbery or commit serious bodily harm
o Assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon
* Bigamy
* Contributing to the delinquency of a minor
* Gross indecency
* Incest (if the result of an improper sexual relationship)
* Kidnapping
* Lewdness
* Manslaughter:
o Voluntary
o Involuntary (where the statute requires proof of recklessness, which is defined as the awareness and conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk which constitutes a gross deviation from the standard that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A conviction for the statutory offense of vehicular homicide or other involuntary manslaughter only requires a showing of negligence will not involve moral turpitude even if it appears the defendant in fact acted recklessly)
* Mayhem
* Murder
* Pandering
* Prostitution
* Rape (including "Statutory rape" by virtue of the victim's age)
* An attempt to commit a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude
* Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude
* Being an accessory (before or after the fact) in the commission of a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude
* Taking part in a conspiracy (or attempting to take part in a conspiracy) to commit a crime involving moral turpitude where the attempted crime would not itself constitute moral turpitude.
Not crimes of moral turpitude-
* Damaging private property (where intent to damage not required)
* Breaking and entering (requiring no specific or implicit intent to commit a crime involving moral turpitude)
* Passing bad checks (where intent to defraud not required)
* Possessing stolen property (if guilty knowledge is not essential)
* Joy riding (where the intention to take permanently not required)
* Juvenile delinquency
* Trespassing
* Black market violations
* Breach of the peace
* Carrying a concealed weapon
* Desertion from the Armed Forces
* Disorderly conduct
* Drunk or reckless driving
* Driving while license suspended or revoked
* Drunkenness
* Escape from prison
* Failure to report for military induction
* False statements (not amounting to perjury or involving fraud)
* Firearm violations
* Gambling violations
* Immigration violations
* Liquor violations
* Loan sharking
* Lottery violations
* Minor traffic violations
* Possessing burglar tools (without intent to commit burglary)
* Smuggling and customs violations (where intent to commit fraud is absent)
* Tax evasion (without intent to defraud)
* Vagrancy
* Assault (simple) (i.e., any assault, which does not require an evil intent or depraved motive, although it may involve the use of a weapon, which is neither dangerous nor deadly)
* Creating or maintaining a nuisance (where knowledge that premises were used for prostitution is not necessary)
* Incest (when a result of a marital status prohibited by law)
* Involuntary manslaughter (when killing is not the result of recklessness)
* Libel
* Mailing an obscene letter
* Mann Act violations (where coercion is not present)
* Riot
* Suicide (attempted)
Originally posted by Bicnarok
When comparing black and white´s crime, you have to take in the surroundings and life situation into account.Because blacks tend to reside in dodgy neighborhoods, maybe they have to participate in crime to get by.
What´s the white´s excuse?
on the right track but it isn't skin colour that has you commit crimes, it's you, yourself. Yeah, Poverty = Crime, Emma Goldman proved that as did many others.
But these things can't be taken from a stand point like this. The human RACE commits crimes because thats what we do, theres immoral cruel bastards out there, (aka the FBI), who make it their mission to do stupid shit like this.
Originally posted by Liberator
on the right track but it isn't skin colour that has you commit crimes, it's you, yourself. Yeah, Poverty = Crime, Emma Goldman proved that as did many others.But these things can't be taken from a stand point like this. The human RACE commits crimes because thats what we do, theres immoral cruel bastards out there, (aka the FBI), who make it their mission to do stupid shit like this.
Again, which is why racially based statistics are more or less useless, but if someone is determined to use them why separating crimes into two categories as said would make more sense. I'm sure if the statistics were based on moral turpitude and not all crimes, crime statistics based on race would be pretty even.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Sorry, I guess I just think that Hugh Grant (the CEO, not the actor), Steven Hemsley, Tim Geithner, and Joe Leiberman are more dangerous to my well being than Willie Horton or John Allan Mohammed.
So, you measure how "bad" it is based on how many people they impact?
Those loss of billions of dollars by hundreds (or thousands) of people is certainly impacting lots of people. I just don't think any amount of money is equal to a productful human life.