Holy Shit, I can't believe you are actually suggesting that women murder statistics are skewed because women use poison and get away with it. I never said women don't murder, I said men commit about 95% of murders and that is just a guess on my part, I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually higher. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that 12% (actually the male half) 6% commit about half the crime in America.
I'm saying all statistics are skewed, statistics only show who gets caught. Experts don't get caught. Poisoning is actually the #1 form of murder. A poisoned victim would die of a heart attack, and the woman would inherit the money and property. The death would be declared of natural causes, especially if the guy is old.
If these people never get caught how do you know it's the #1 form of murder? For all we know, it could be the rarest form of murder. In case you forgot about that little hurricane in New Orleans or the riots in LA in 92, try to remember who was involved in them. Shit, anyone who watches the news with their eyes open can see for themselves who commits the most mayhem.
Count, stop trying to use hypnosis on me, I know what you are trying to do. Why don't you imagine some of those soccer hooligans running around, or imagine the crazy folks throwing bricks at kids who want to ride busses, or imagine Martin Luther King's murder. What is the point of this excercise? For every black crime, there is a white crime, so imagining criminal actions is pointless. I don't like hooliganism period, and it does not make a difference what they look like individually.
Your innumeracy appalls me. If half the crime is committed by 13% of the population, that 13% creates a huge amount of crime per capita. Think of a class of 8 kids and 1 kid causing as much problems as the other 7 combined. Get the picture? That is America today.
if you weren't poor,you wouldn't have a need to rob someone. it's not a skin color issue. can't someone get it! well everyone does but some won't admit it. ha. of course there are exceptions. Enron, the former energy giant stole millions from the country and poor people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
Well, the Appalachian area of the US is probably the most poverty-stricken place in the entire USA, yet the crime is nothing like in other poverty-stricken areas. Oops, wait, that area is mostly white, ain't it. In China and North Korea, the poverty levels are extremely high, yet crime is almost nonexistent. In Singapore, poverty is rampant, yet crime is very low. Hmm, perhaps poverty doesn't cause crime, huh? Baron Max
In China and North Korea, crime is not reported or recorded. What you are seeing is not lack of crime, but lack of collection of crime statistics. You make a very common mistake in assuming that crime statistics tell you everything about crime. Much crime is "hidden". Have you been to Singapore lately? Poverty is not rampant there. Singapore is one of the richest nations in South East Asia. It is the largest port in the world, and has a thriving economy.
But there's still crime. You equate crime with colour when the whole concept is quite ridiculous. Look at Mexico as a perfect example of how crime is rampant and a high percentage of the population live in abject poverty. Now I don't recall Mexicans being black, do you? You also miss the fact that there is a higher reported rate of 'black crime' or a higher representation of blacks in the criminal justice system because they are at times singled out or watched a lot more closely by the police and the public in general. More blacks driving a nice car for example are likely to be pulled up by the police than whites driving the same car. Do you really think that in a poor white area there are less cases of break-in's than there are in a black area for example? Surely you're cant be that naive. One thing you've failed to realise. Asians aren't "white". They are Asians. So if you're going to look at this from a racist point of view, you also need to look at the race of the people instead of just their colour. Another thing you've completely ignored is that China and North Korea are communist countries where they tend to not divulge the statistics of their crime rates to the outside world. Lets not forget, in China or North Korea, you'd be seen to be a criminal if you dared voice your wish for freedom from oppression, as an example. So in light of their appalling human rights records, they tend to keep their crime rates secret lest the outside world finds out exactly what is going on within their borders. And while there are a lot of poor people in Singapore, I'd hardly consider it to be 'rampant'. Singapore is also a very strict country with strict rules and laws. For example, if you were in that country and were caught throwing a cigarette butt on the ground, you'd be arrested, since it is a crime to litter in that country. Now if we were to take all that into consideration, the punishment for breaking the law is also quite severe and serves as a deterrent. But crime still occurs regardless, as it does in every society on this planet. You can't equate it with colour. You need to take into consideration all internal and external factors that may cause a higher crime rate in one area and not in another. Colour or race is quite an absurd thing to even consider.
wow. I was not following the thread for some time, and then I come back and see this discussion between a supposed link between race and crime. That is just too "19th-centurish" to be discussed wholly in a single post, but I should at least mention that there have been a few advancements in science since then, and things like phrenology or that ideas that someone with a nose like Darwin's cannot endure a long trip on a ship. For example, complex issues such as crime hardly can be attributed to genetic/biological roots so easily, since humans have only about 30 000 genes and that's too few to make our body and determine our behaviour so specifically. It's not like the profession you have (or lack thereof) was genetically determined and is just like some ritualized, "robotic", mating behavior of a bird that can't help but collect blue pieces many things and put them on display nearly some other structure that was likewise instinctively constructed. I also do not blame only a so general, "shared" environment, like simple "poverty" as being the cause of behavior or criminality, I rather think that more specific environments and the individual life course of persons is more determinant. I personally think that rates of crimes between classes probably do not change so much between social classes, but mostly the sorts of crimes for many reasons, and that the deviation from an equal proportion of crimes between classes, is not a so direct effect of poverty, but has a culture of crime as a more proximal cause. A culture of crime, however, may find in poverty a fertile terrain to prosper, since, for example, poor neighbourhoods, along with more likely having people with more needs unsatisfied by their economic condition, would less likely have a long history of effective program of crime prevention of some sort, by absence police and/or lack other policies. In that places, the formation of gangs - which are social endeavours of people rather than some sort of genetic/behavioural result of group selection - is less inhibited, and gangs then can have more influence over the lifes of people living there. Not only that, I would go as far as to think that things like some rap music (or any other style that pass the same sort of content), ideas spread by media, have their effect, even the "environment is the cause" argument, and racist arguments. With these things, socially accepted excuses for otherwise socially unaccepted behavior are readily given to people, and also there is pygmalion effect. With more specific environments (i.e., including the local development of an specific culture), and taking in account the individual history and psychological development of individuals I think we have a more realistic explanations for behaviour pattern of groups and its deviations usually pointed as refutations of a more simplistic environmental causation, usually followed by the conclusion of the false bifurcation of "gross environment vs genes". At the same time, I'm not trying to refute the need for some race-specific medications or racial/populational considerations in medical care. As I've said earlier in this thread, there's no reason to suppose that all gene frequencies of diseases are the same between all populations, even though, as pointed by many, there are more genetic variation within than between populations. Also, the populational consideration in medical care do not need to be relied upon the assumption that the biological issues being dealt have inate, racial roots, but instead it can be in some cases something with cultural roots also, like the chosen diet and other possible cultural variations in lifestyle with effects on health. That would make it even lessa race-specific, but rather race-incidental, but is likely to be so is even if the cause is confirmedly genetic, as there are more shared genes than race-specific. Maybe race-specific is a bit of a sloppy misnomer. Complex human behaviors, in the other hand, cannot be put in the same bag of other bodily conditions, because of what I've said earlier. Brains are organs that essentially make our behavior flexible in relation to the environment, rather than rigid, ritualized responses of lower animals. They can carry on much more information than genes, not to mention the modern means of transmission of the information, what can make this information evolve much faster than genes could evolve. Genes are already filled with information needed to the development of our bodies, which would be "prioritized" by natural selection, whose power to make anything evolve is limited, that makes very hard to explain huma behavioral patterns genetically. I might have said it earlier in this same topic, even dog breeds, which have been much more intensely selected - more effectively than what natural or even sexual selection could do - for specific behaviors, do not behave in a clear pattern as if each breed has its own script. Instead, even with dogs, which possess much more limited brains, the individual development plays a big if not bigger role in the development of individual behavior. ____________________________________________ An article on Scientific American about this: race in a bottle Excerpt:
