mad profiler finds numbers backing his "bias"

[bob quarteroni]

Ok silent children out there, 27 pages of facts that seem kind of disturbing to me but then, what do I know, I'm just mindless.
Race, Crime and Justice in America
The Color
of
Crime
New Century Foundation
Oakton, VA 22124
[phone]
Second, Expanded Edition
Major Findings
• Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.
Crime Rates
• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder,
and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely
than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and
Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of
the population that is black and Hispanic.
Interracial Crime
• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving
blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Fortyfive
percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are
Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are
black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against
a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes
against whites than vice versa.
Gangs
• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs.
Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
Incarceration
• Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139
to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39
million.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are
three times more likely.
New Century Foundation - 1 - The Color of Crime, 2005
On March 11, 2005, Brian Nichols, who was
on trial for rape, went on a murderous rampage
at an Atlanta courthouse, shooting a
judge, a court reporter, and a deputy. After his arrest,
he explained that he was a “soldier on a mission”
against a racially biased legal system. In jail
awaiting his rape trial, he had been angry to find so
many other black inmates, and he wondered how
many were innocent. For him, the large number of
blacks meant the legal system was “systematic slavery.”
1
Mr. Nichols’s views were only an extreme version
of what a majority of black Americans believe.
A 2003 national poll found that only 28 percent of
blacks, as opposed to 66 percent of whites, thought
whites and blacks receive equal treatment at the
hands of the police.2
This widely-held view that the police are biased
is not supported by the evidence. The data suggest
the criminal justice system generally treats offenders
of different races equally. High arrest and incarceration
rates for blacks and Hispanics—and very
low rates for Asians—reflect differences in crime
rates, not police or justice system bias.
Many Americans also have misconceptions about
interracial crime, believing that whites are the primary
perpetrators. In fact, blacks are far more likely
to commit crimes against whites than vice versa.
It is also common to assume that if different
groups commit crimes at different rates, it is because
of poverty and other forms of social disadvantage.
This is a plausible argument, but controlling for social
disparities does not greatly reduce race differences
in crime rates. This suggest differences would
remain even if the races were economically and socially
equal.
Most Americans at least suspect that blacks and
Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes than
whites or Asians. The data support this view. However,
the crime statistics published by the federal
government and reported in the press are incomplete
and often confusing. It takes real digging to get a
clear picture of racial differences in crime rates—
and they can be great.
One of the biggest obstacles to understanding the
relationship between race and crime is the failure of
most national crime statistics to distinguish between
Hispanics and whites. The Uniform Crime Reporting
Program (UCR), which is the basis of the FBI’s
national tabulation of arrests, puts most Hispanics
in the “white” category.3 The National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS), an extensive annual survey
of crime victims, classifies some Hispanic criminals
as white and some as “other race.” Because
Hispanics commit most crimes at higher rates than
non-Hispanic whites, lumping the two groups together
distorts the data.
In this report, white means non-Hispanic whites,
and Hispanic means people from Spanish-speaking
countries. Hispanics can be of any race, but in the
United States the majority are of mixed European
and Amerindian ancestry with roots in Latin
America. When official statistics lump whites and
Hispanics together and it is impossible to distinguish
The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation - 2 - The Color of Crime, 2005
between them, this report calls that group W&H,
which stands for “white and Hispanic.”
Government reports usually treat blacks clearly
and consistently, so they are the group about which
we have the best information. They are also the group
generally thought to be the worst victims of justice
system bias, so we will concentrate on blacks in
searching for bias.
Are Police Biased?
For someone to go to prison, four things have to
happen. The police must arrest him for a felony,
charges must be filed, he must plead or be found
guilty, and a judge must sentence him to prison.
Racial bias could enter at any stage.
Blacks are certainly more likely to be arrested
than other groups. According to the Uniform Crime
Reports (UCR), blacks accounted for 27 percent of
arrests in 2002, even though they were only 13 percent
of the population, whereas whites and Hispanics
(W&H) accounted for 71 percent of arrests, but
were 81 percent of the population. This means that
when all crime categories are added together, blacks
were more than twice as likely to be arrested as
W&H. Blacks were four times more likely to be arrested
for violent crimes, and no fewer than eight
times more likely to be arrested for robbery.4
Many people believe blacks are arrested so often
because police target them unfairly. Brian Nichols,
the Atlanta gunman, seems to think police are arresting
blacks en masse whether they are guilty or
not. Many local authorities have passed laws to correct
what they believe to be police bias.5 Police argue
that they are targeting criminals, not non-whites,
and that they arrest large numbers of minorities only
because minorities are committing a large number
of crimes.6
The best test of police bias is to compare an independent
and objective count of the percentage of
criminals who are black with the percentage of arrested
suspects who are black. If they are about the
same—if, for example, we can determine that half
the robbers are black, and we find that about half
the robbers the police arrest are black—it is good
evidence police are not targeting blacks unfairly.
But what information do we have about the race
of criminals other than arrest reports? The best independent
source is the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS). For the most recent report, the
government surveyed 149,040 people about crimes
of which they had been victims during 2003. They
described the crimes in detail, including the race of
the perpetrator, and whether they reported the crimes
to the police. The survey sample, which is massive
by polling standards, was carefully chosen to be representative
of the entire US population. By comparing
information about races of perpetrators with racial
percentages in arrest data from the Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR) we can determine if the proportion
of criminals the police arrest who are black
is equivalent to the proportion of criminals the victims
say were black.
UCR and NCVS reports for the years 2001
through 2003 offer the most recent data on crimes
suffered by victims, and arrests for those crimes.
Needless to say, many crimes are not reported to the
police, and the number of arrests the police make is
smaller still. An extrapolation from NCVS data gives
a good approximation of the actual number of crimes
committed in the United States every year. The
NCVS tells us that between 2001 and 2003, there
were an estimated 1.8 million robberies, for example,
of which 1.1 million were reported to the
police. The UCR tell us that in the same period police
made 229,000 arrests for robbery. Police cannot
make an arrest if no one tells them about a crime,
so the best way to see if police are biased is to compare
the share of offenders who are black in crimes
reported to the police, and the share of those arrested
who are black.
Figure 1 compares offender information to arrest
information for all the crimes included in the
NCVS. For example, 55 percent of offenders in all
robberies were black, 55.4 percent of robbers in robberies
reported to police were black, and 54.1 percent
of arrested robbers were black.
For most crimes, police are arresting fewer blacks
than would be expected from the percentage of
criminals the victims tell us are black (rape/sexual
assault is the only exception). In the most extreme
case, burglary, victims tell police that 45 percent of
the perpetrators were black, but only 28 percent of
the people arrested for that crime were black. If all
New Century Foundation - 3 - The Color of Crime, 2005
the NCVS crimes are taken together, blacks who
committed crimes that were reported to the police
were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people
of other races who committed the same crimes. 7
These figures lend no support to the charge that
police arrest innocent blacks, or at least pursue them
with excessive zeal. In fact, they suggest the opposite,
that police are more determined to arrest nonblack
rather than black criminals. 8
Five of the NCVS crimes in Figure 1 are violent:
rape, sexual assault (threat of rape and assault short
of rape), robbery, simple assault, and aggravated
assault (assault with a weapon or that causes severe
injury). Ninety-six percent of the time, the victim
had a good enough look at the criminal to determine
his race, so the data on the percentage of violent
offenders who are black are very reliable.
What about property crimes? Victims usually do
not see thieves, so survey participants could identify
race only seven percent of the time. The percentages
in Figure 1 for burglary, car theft, and larceny
are therefore based on the assumption that victims
would be no more or less likely to know the
race of a thief if he were black than if he were of
any other race.
It would be useful to be able to make offender/
arrest comparisons for criminals of all races, but the
way the government collects data makes this impossible.
As we noted previously, the UCR do not
distinguish between arrests of Hispanics and whites.
The NCVS asks crime victims to describe perpetrators
only as black, white or “other.” Some victims
put Hispanics in the “other” category, 9 along with
Asians, and Indians. Blacks are therefore the only
group the UCR and NCVS treat consistently.
Figure 1 also shows that the black share of crimes
reported to the police is larger than the black share
of all crimes, reported or not (rape/sexual assault is
again the only exception). In other words, more
crime victims report crimes to police when the criminal
is black than when he is of another race. Why?
NCVS victims are more likely to call the police
about more serious crimes within the same category—
for example, if a robber had a gun or a knife.
According to NCVS victims, blacks are nearly three
times more likely than criminals of other races to
use a gun and more than twice as likely to use a
knife. Therefore, even within the same crime categories,
blacks are committing more serious offenses—
which makes it even more striking that
police are less likely to arrest them than criminals
who are not black.
Finally, Figure 1 indirectly shows something else:
how much more likely blacks are than people of
other races to commit certain crimes. Although
blacks are 13 percent of the population, they commit
a far larger percentage of every crime included
in the NCVS. They are eight times more likely than
New Century Foundation - 4 - The Color of Crime, 2005
people of other races to rob someone, for example,
and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.
The National Incident-Based Reporting System
(NIBRS) is a different collection of data that can be
used to compare the races of criminals reported to
the police to the races of suspects the police arrest.
In 2002, the most recent year for NIBRS data, 4,726
police agencies in 23 states reported all crimes
known to the police, the race of the offender if
known, and the races of all people arrested. These
data represented 19 percent of the US population,
and 15 percent of US crime. Like the previous reports,
NIBRS does not distinguish between whites
and Hispanics.
Figure 2 compares the percentage of criminals
victims and witnesses say were black with the percentage
of arrested suspects who were black. More
often than not, blacks made up a higher percentage
of offenders than those arrested, and overall, black
offenders were nine percent less likely to be arrested
than white and Hispanic (W&H) offenders who
committed crimes in the same categories. Once
again, this is the opposite of what we would expect
if police are unfairly targeting blacks.
Other racial comparisons show that Asians/Pacific
Islanders were just as likely as W&H to be arrested,
but Indians were 20 percent more likely to
be arrested than W&H.10 The data on Indians are
intriguing but there is such a small number of Indian
offenders in NIBRS that it may be risky to draw
conclusions about police bias.
Drugs
NIBRS data for drug offenses are particularly
interesting, since some critics of the police have argued
that “racial profiling” leads primarily to biased
drug arrests.11 NIBRS data suggest otherwise;
once again, the percentage of reported drug offenders
who were black is about equal to the percentage
of arrested suspects who were black.
There is another source of information that suggests
blacks are arrested for drug crimes in proportion
to their drug use and not because of police bias.
Figure 3 shows Health and Human Services statistics
on emergency room admissions for illegal drug
use. Emergency room admissions are a reliable, independent
indicator of who is using drugs; people
do not end up in HHS’s statistics unless they are
taking illegal drugs, and there is no reason to think
New Century Foundation - 5 - The Color of Crime, 2005
drug-takers of different races are more or less likely
to need emergency treatment. The graph shows that
the black share of emergency room admissions for
illegal drugs in 2002 was slightly higher than the
black share of those arrested for drug offenses.12 If
police were unfairly targeting blacks for drug arrests,
their share of arrests would be higher than their
share of drug-related trips to the emergency room.
Some might argue that this lack of evidence of
anti-black bias proves that recent anti-racial profiling
campaigns are working. However, Figure 4
makes a similar comparison using 1996 statistics—
before any laws prohibiting racial profiling had been
passed—and 2002 statistics. The gap between emergency
room admissions and arrests was even larger
in 1996 than in 2002. Police appear to be arresting
criminals, not indulging in bias.
Murder and Other Crimes
Another government source, the Supplementary
Homicide Reports (SHR), makes it possible to compare
the races of murderers and the people arrested
for murder. In 2002, the SHR had information about
91 percent of America’s homicides. In many cases,
the race of the killer was known, and when it was
not, experts at the Bureau of Justice Statistics considered
all the circumstances and made an educated
guess.13 They estimated that in 2002, 47 percent of
murderers were W&H and 51 percent were black.14
These percentages are almost identical to the percentage
of arrests from the Uniform Crime Reports
(UCR) that were W&H and black (Figure 5). These
data do not support the claim that police are biased
against blacks.
Probably the most widely-publicized reports of
“racial profiling” were of traffic stops on the New
Jersey Turnpike. A 2002 study found that here, as
well, police were simply stopping speeders, and
speeders were disproportionately black. The Public
Service Research Institute in Maryland observed
40,000 cars on the turnpike and found blacks were
twice as likely to speed as whites. The disproportion
was even greater for people driving 90 miles
per hour or more. While blacks were 25 percent of
speeders, they were 23 percent of those stopped by
police,15 again a figure that shows, if anything, police
are less rigorous about stopping blacks than
people of other races.
Practicalities of Police Bias
The more seriously one thinks about arrest bias,
the less likely it seems. How does it work? Do poNew
Century Foundation - 6 - The Color of Crime, 2005
lice deliberately arrest innocent blacks and Hispanics
but ignore white and Asian criminals? If the victim
of a crime says he was attacked by a white man,
police cannot very well go out and arrest a black.
Or do they simply make no effort to find white or
Asian criminals? If DNA from a crime scene turns
out to be from a white person, do police stop trying
to solve the case? If police see a white or Asian
breaking into a building do they ignore him? Or, at
the same time, do police try to clear crimes by arresting
people—presumably blacks—they know are
probably innocent? None of this makes sense. Police
officers win recognition and advancement for
making arrests, but only if arrests lead to convictions.
The justice system does not reward false arrests
or lackadaisical law enforcement.
Likewise, every officer in the country knows that
race is potentially explosive. Every officer knows
minority communities—blacks, especially—publicize
and demonstrate against what they see as bias.
Police know they are under scrutiny from activist
organizations and city governments, and that officers
lose jobs over race scandals. It would take a very
determined racist to risk his job in order to indulge
prejudice.
The fear of scandal may even explain why arrest
rates for blacks are lower than their offense rates. In
uncertain cases, officers may let a black suspect go
rather than risk a scandal. Under the same circumstances
they might arrest a white because there will
be no scandal. As a practical matter, it is not easy to
see how police can work systematic racial bias into
their jobs.
Or is it? When it comes to what are called discretionary
arrests, police actually can vent prejudices
if they want. When there is a murder or a rape, police
are under pressure to catch the criminal. It is
not a matter of making an arrest—or not—only if
they feel like it. The police have much more leeway
with crimes like public drunkenness or disorderly
conduct. They can drive right past a drunk and do
nothing, or they can stop and arrest him, so crimes
of this kind, in which police have a choice about
whether they take action, are the perfect opportunity
for bias.
If officers are prejudiced, therefore, one would
expect blacks to figure in even greater disproportions
in discretionary arrests than they do in serious
crimes. They do not. Racial differences in arrest rates
for drunkenness, disorderly conduct, drunk driving
and vagrancy, and other offenses in which arrest is
discretionary are smaller than for violent crimes. The
2002 UCR show blacks and W&H were equally
likely to be arrested for drunkenness, for example,
but blacks were 6.6 times more likely to be arrested
for murder.
It is clear, therefore, that the only evidence for
police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those
groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High
black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates,
not police misconduct.
Prosecution and the Courts
The police may be arresting criminals without
regard to race, but what about the rest of the justice
system? Although accusations of bias usually focus
on the police, prosecutors and judges have far more
discretion in what they do than police officers.
Prosecutors, for example, dismiss charges against
30 percent of adults arrested on felony charges.16
Racial bias at this stage could make a big difference
in who goes to jail,17 but here, too, bias is hard to
find. Marvin D. Free, Jr., a University of Wisconsin
criminologist, reviewed 24 studies on prosecutor
decisions, published between 1979 and 2001.
Twelve used data collected in 1980 and after; all of
them controlled for offense seriousness and prior
record. Of these 12 studies, eight found no racial
bias. Two found bias against non-whites, but two
found bias against whites.18 Scholarship therefore
leaves little basis for claims of unfair treatment.
Once a criminal is prosecuted, he can plead or
be found guilty. The judge then has some discretion
about imposing prison time or some other punishment.
Is this process biased? State Court Processing
Statistics (SCPS), a collection of data compiled
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, records the outcomes
for a sample of 15,000 felony defendants in
state courts in 40 of the nation’s 75 most populous
counties in 2000. Unlike many other reports, the
SCPS distinguishes between Hispanics and whites.
The black bars in Figure 6 represent how much
more likely black and Hispanic felony defendants
New Century Foundation - 7 - The Color of Crime, 2005
were to go to prison than white defendants for the
same crimes.19 There were differences—blacks were
five percent more likely to go to prison than whites—
but this leaves out most of the factors that affect
sentencing.
When a judge passes sentence, he considers such
things as previous convictions and characteristics
of the crime. The gray bars in Figure 6 show what
happens when criminal background is controlled.20
When their circumstances are the same, black defendants
are slightly less likely to be sentenced to
prison than whites, and Hispanic defendants are
about half a percent more likely.
Why does controlling for these factors make a
difference? Because among these defendants blacks
were 37 percent more likely than whites to have a
prior felony conviction and 58 percent more likely
to have a prior conviction for a violent crime.
What about sentence length? The black bars in
Figure 7 show that whites got shorter sentences than
blacks convicted of the same crimes, and longer sentences
than Hispanics. The gray bars show that controlling
for criminal background reduced the difference
in sentence lengths between blacks and whites,
but hardly at all between whites and Hispanics.
Does this mean sentencing is biased? Perhaps.
But the data for Hispanics suggest sentencing is biased
in their favor. These differences may simply
reflect random variation but if they are the result of
bias, the bias is small and racially inconsistent, favoring
one minority and disfavoring another.
It is possible to gauge the total effect of prosecution
and the courts on blacks by comparing the percentage
of those arrested who are black with the
percentage of prisoners who are black. Because, as
we have seen, blacks commit more serious crimes
in the same category and have longer criminal
records, we would expect the percentage of prisoners
who are black to be slightly greater than the percentage
of arrested suspects who are black. Figure
8 compares the percentage of black adult felony arrests
between 1997 and 2001, with the percentage
of prisoners who were black in 2001. Overall, on
the basis of felony arrests, we would expect 45 percent
of prisoners for these offenses to be black. The
actual figure of 49 percent represents exactly the
kind of small difference we would expect because
of race differences in criminal record and seriousness
of crime within the same offense category.21
Incarceration
Because the Department of Justice data on offenses
and arrests do not distinguish between whites
and Hispanics, and because they are inconsistent in
their treatment of Asians, Pacific Islanders, and
American Indians, we cannot make the same arrest
and offense rate analysis for these groups that we
have done for blacks. A few states collect arrest data
that distinguish between whites and Hispanics, but
they give us only a partial picture of how white and
Hispanic crime rates may differ, and these data are
New Century Foundation - 8 - The Color of Crime, 2005
inconsistent and sometimes unreliable.22
Where can we turn for crime data on groups other
than blacks? National incarceration statistics are
consistent, reliable, and distinguish between whites,
Hispanics, blacks, and people of other races. They
are therefore the best indicators we have of offense
rates for groups other than blacks. This is not the
ideal way to track offense rates, because it is accurate
only if the justice system is free of bias, and is
jailing people of different races in proportion to the
rates at which they commit crime. People who are
convinced the system is biased do not believe incarceration
rates are an accurate measure of crime,
and it would certainly be better if we could compare
offense rates from the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) with arrest rates from the
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for all races.
There are two reasons, however, to use the prison
data. First, there are no other national data. Second,
the offense, arrest, and incarceration data we have
are strong evidence the system is not racially biased
against blacks. The more limited prosecution and
sentencing data suggest no bias against Hispanics.
Blacks are universally believed to be the racial group
most likely to suffer from police and justice system
bias, so if there is little evidence for anti-black bias,
it is probably safe to assume there is little systematic
bias against other groups. If people of different
groups go to prison at different rates, it is probably
because they commit crimes at different rates.
Incarceration rates are usually expressed as the
number of prisoners per 100,000 of a population. In
2001, there were 600,593 blacks in state and federal
prisons and 35.4 million blacks in the US population,
for an incarceration rate of 1,695 per 100,000.
The white incarceration rate was 236 per 100,000.
Dividing the black rate by the white rate, we get the
black multiple of the white incarceration rate—7.2.
This does not mean there are 7.2 times more blacks
in prison than whites (there are 34 percent more
blacks than whites in prison23), only that any given
black is 7.2 times more likely to be a prisoner than a
white.
This multiple of 7.2 does not necessarily mean
blacks are 7.2 times more likely than whites to commit
felonies because, as we saw earlier, prison time
depends on the severity of a crime as well as prior
record. Incarceration rates are therefore a more subtle
measure that tell us not only who is committing
crime, but who the repeat offenders are, and who is
committing the most serious crimes. That said, for
most crimes, it is unlikely that incarceration rates
differ a great deal from offense rates.
Figures 9 and 10 show how many times more
likely than whites various groups were to be in state
and federal prison in 2001.24 The white incarceration
rate is set at one for every crime. For every other
race, a bar at two means people of that race are twice
New Century Foundation - 9 - The Color of Crime, 2005
New Century Foundation - 10 - The Color of Crime, 2005
as likely as whites to be imprisoned for that crime;
three means three times more likely, etc. What is
perhaps most striking about these data is the remarkable
contrast between black and Asian rates in all
crime categories. In total, blacks had the highest
incarceration rate at 7.2 times the white rate, followed
by Hispanics, at 2.9 times the white rate. Indians
and Pacific Islanders were imprisoned at about
twice the white rate, and Asians at only 22 percent
of the white rate.
Blacks are generally the leaders in all crime categories,
but there are exceptions. Indians lead in
manslaughter (negligent or accidental killings) and
rape, and Pacific Islanders lead in motor vehicle theft
(where do they drive those stolen cars?). Indians also
had the highest rates of incarceration for alcoholrelated
crimes (Figure 11).
Most measures of crime lump
Asians and Pacific Islanders together.
The incarceration data in Figures 9 and
10 show how misleading this is; incarceration
rates for Pacific Islanders
(most are Hawaiians) are almost always
higher than those for whites,
while Asian rates are always lower.
There is only one category of crime
for which Asians (unfortunately, this
figure includes Pacific Islanders) are
more likely to be arrested than whites,
and that is gambling, which is deeply
rooted in some Asian cultures. The
2002 UCR tell us Asians/Pacific Islanders
are three times more likely than W&H to be
arrested for this crime; they are also 4.8 times more
likely than whites to be admitted to federal prison
for running illegal gambling businesses.25
There were 120,000 non-citizens—legal and illegal
aliens—in state and federal prisons in 2003,
of whom the great majority were Hispanic. Noncitizens
were 2.3 times more likely to be in prison
than whites.26
A common myth about crime is that whites are
more likely to commit white-collar offenses than
blacks. Prison statistics suggest this is not so. Blacks
had substantially higher incarceration rates for fraud,
embezzlement, bribery/conflict of interest, and racketeering
than whites (Figure 12).27
Gang Membership
The past three decades have seen an explosion
in “youth gangs,” whose members are generally
between the ages of 12 and 24. In the 1970s, 19
states reported problems with youth gangs; now, all
50 states and the District of Columbia do. In the
1970s, only 270 cities and towns in the United States
reported youth gang crimes; in 2002, 2,300 did.28
Between 1999 and 2003, the number of murders
attributed to gangs rose from 702 to 934 (this
amounted to 6.5 percent of all murders in 2003).29
Youth gangs are overwhelmingly non-white; in
fact, in 2001, only 10 percent of members were
white,30 and Figure 13 shows non-whites were many
times more likely to be youth gang members than
whites.31 The most likely were Hispanics, at 19 times
the white rate. Members of a gang are almost alNew
Century Foundation - 11 - The Color of Crime, 2005
ways of the same race, and immigration has fueled
non-white membership. With an estimated 8,000 to
10,000 members, the Salvadoran Mara Salvatrucha,
or MS-13, is the largest Hispanic gang, and one of
the largest in the country. It is known for its savagery
and is now the top priority of the FBI’s organized
crime division.32
Although Asians are much less likely to commit
crimes than whites, young Asians are nine times
more likely to be in gangs. Between Nov. 2004 and
Feb. 2005, Sacramento police reported four deaths
in Laotian Hmong gang wars. On Feb. 3, 2005, a
battle between Tibetan and Hmong gangs left two
dead in Minneapolis. Between Oct. 2003 and Jan.
2004, six Cambodians died in gang violence in Long
Beach, California.33 High rates of Asian gang membership,
if they continue, could push Asian crime
rates closer to those of whites.
Poverty and Crime
Many people believe that a bad social environment
is a major contributor to crime. They believe
that if people of all races had the same education,
income, and social status, there would be no race
differences in crime rates. Academic research, however,
shows that these differences persist even after
controlling for social variables.34
Figures 14 through 17 show correlations for the
50 states and Washington, DC, between rates of vioNew
Century Foundation - 12 - The Color of Crime, 2005
lent crime reported to the police in 2002 and different
social factors. In all the charts, the highest point
is Washington, DC. A positive correlation can vary
from zero to one, and the steeper the trend line, the
higher the correlation and the stronger the association.
The graph with the steepest trend line and highest
correlation, Figure 14, compares violent crime
rates to the percentage of the population that is black
and Hispanic. The other graphs show that there are
relationships between violent crime and other social
factors, but the correlations are much weaker.35
In fact, the percentage of the population that is
black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more
than four times better than the next best measure:
lack of education.36 Furthermore, even controlling
for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly
changes the correlation between racial mix and crime
rates. The correlation between violent crime and the
percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic
is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and
unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they
are not. In layman’s terms, the statistical results suggest
that even if whites were just as disadvantaged
as blacks and Hispanics the association between race
and violent crime would still be almost as great. It
may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single
best indicator of an area’s violent crime rate is its
racial/ethnic mix.
Interracial Crime
Media coverage of interracial crimes highlights
violence committed by whites against non-whites,37
suggesting that whites are more likely than nonwhites
to commit interracial violence and more
likely be motivated by race hatred. In fact, blacks
are vastly more likely to commit crimes against
whites than the reverse.
The National Crime Victimization Survey can be
used to determine how much violent crime blacks
commit against whites and vice versa. Unfortunately,
although it has clear racial categories for victims,
NCVS classifications for perpetrators are vague.38
Therefore, for the purposes of interracial crime only,
we must refer to a “white” (with quotation marks)
perpetrator category that includes some but not all
Hispanics. Because the victim categories are better
defined, we can still refer to white (without quotation
marks) victims of interracial crime. Because the
“white” perpetrator category for interracial crime
includes some Hispanics, the result is an inflated
measure of what we will have to call “white”-onblack
crime.39
Even so, the differences between black and
“white” rates of interracial crime are enormous. As
Figure 18 shows, between 2001 and 2003, blacks
were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes
against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more
likely to commit robbery.40 There were an average
of 15,400 black-on-white rapes every year during
this period, 139,000 robberies, 489,000 assaults, and
12,762 sexual assaults. By contrast, there were only
900 “white”-on-black rapes every year, 7,600 robberies,
101,000 assaults, and 3,217 sexual assaults.
Of all 768,879 violent interracial crimes involving
blacks and whites, blacks committed 85 percent and
“whites” 15 percent.
What about interracial murder? The Supplementary
Homicide Reports (SHR) include the race of
the victim and offender, and make it possible to calculate
rates of interracial murder. In 2002, blacks
were 16 times more likely to murder W&H than the
reverse. SHR statistics from 1976 to 2002 tell us
blacks murdered 26,727 W&H during those 26
years, and W&H murdered 10,207 blacks, making
the black-on-W&H murder rate 17 times that of the
W&H-on-black murder rate.41
High multiples like these do not necessarily mean
blacks are deliberately targeting whites (and HisNew
Century Foundation - 13 - The Color of Crime, 2005
New Century Foundation - 14 - The Color of Crime, 2005
panics) for violent crime. One reason multiples for
interracial crime are so high is that there are about
5.5 times as many whites as blacks in the United
States. This means blacks are 5.5 times more likely
to encounter whites than the other way around,42 so
even if blacks choose victims without regard to race,
there are many more potential white than black victims.
White criminals are also more likely to have
white victims for the same reason.
Dividing the multiples in Figure 18 by 5.5 corrects
for this difference in populations, and the results
are shown in the black bars in Figure 19. Even
when likelihood of encounter is considered, blacks
are still much more likely to commit crime against
whites than the reverse. They are, for example, 25
times more likely to rob a white than vice versa.
This is still not clear evidence blacks are targeting
whites. Not only are there 5.5 times more potential
white victims for black criminals—this is
what is adjusted for by dividing the white bars in
Figure 18 by 5.5—but blacks commit crimes of violence
in general at far greater rates than whites. The
huge multiples found in Figure 18 could therefore
be the combined result of these two things: a larger
number of potential white than black crime victims
and much higher black rates of violent crime regardless
of the race of the victim.
The black bars in Figure 19 must therefore be
divided again, this time by the black/white multiples
for the overall rates for each crime, which are represented
by the gray bars. The results are shown in the
white bars in Figure 19. In the case of aggravated
assault, the result is just over one, which means the
disproportions in black-on-white assault are almost
entirely explained by the fact that there are more
white potential victims and blacks commit this crime
at a higher rate than whites. However, for the other
crimes, the ratio is greater than one—1.66 for robbery
and 7.4 for rape—suggesting that something
else is contributing to much higher rates of blackon-
white than white-on-black crime. The fact that
these interracial crime multiples remain even after
controlling for population differences and overall
racial differences in crime rates suggests either that
blacks do target whites for crime, white criminals
deliberately avoid black victims, or some combination
of the two.
The NCVS also permits an examination of interracial
crime from a different angle. Figure 20 tells
us, for example, that of all violent crimes committed
by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43
percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics.
Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent
crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike
an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased
segregation decreases opportunities for interracial
crime for blacks and whites equally—the
proportion of victims of black criminals who are
New Century Foundation - 15 - The Color of Crime, 2005
white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals
tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods,43
and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes
are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly
black. Their friends and associates are
likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance
encounters are likely to be black. A large number of
white victims suggests targeting of whites.
As Figure 21 shows, “whites” commit only a
small percentage of their violent crimes against
blacks—only one percent of rapes and three percent
of all violent crimes. Since blacks make up 13
percent of the population, this is well below the rate
expected by chance encounter. Furthermore, Figure
22 shows that blacks commit a substantial percentage
of all crimes committed against whites—17
percent of all violent crimes against whites, and 45
percent of robberies.
The one violent crime for which blacks have a
relatively small number of white victims is murder.
Only 16 percent of the victims of black murderers
are W&H.44 Murder is the crime in which offender
and victim are most likely to know each other. For
violent black criminals, 16 percent may be a realistic
figure for the percentage of their acquaintances
or neighbors who are white or Hispanic. If so, when
the percentage of their victims who are W&H is significantly
higher than that, it may suggest deliberate
targeting of non-blacks.
Hate Crimes
Figures on hate crimes provide more information
on interracial crime. The Hate Crime Statistics
Act of 1990 requires the FBI to collect national data
on criminal acts “motivated, in whole or in part, by
bias,” which the FBI publishes in an annual report
called Hate Crime Statistics. The law does not force
local police departments to give the FBI this information
but most do—the reports cover 86 percent
of the US population.45
The government’s treatment of hate crimes is
misleading in one obvious way: Hispanics are a victim
category but not a perpetrator category. If someone
attacks a Mexican for racial reasons, he becomes
a Hispanic victim of a hate crime. However, if the
same Mexican commits a hate crime against a black,
he is classified as a “white” perpetrator. Even more
New Century Foundation - 16 - The Color of Crime, 2005
absurdly, if a Mexican commits a hate crime against
a white, both victim and perpetrator are reported as
white. And, in fact, the 2002 FBI figures—the most
recent available—duly report that 130 so-called
whites committed anti-white hate crimes. They are
likely to have been Hispanics, but it is impossible
to know. Sloppy racial categorization is particularly
obtuse in a report that is supposed to shed light on
the level and nature of racial friction.
In 2002, there were 8,832 bias crimes reported
to the FBI, of which 5,738 were crimes of race or
ethnic origin. The rest were for reasons of religion,
sexual orientation, or disability.46 The FBI says there
were 5,119 suspected hate crime offenders whose
race was known. Of that number, 3,712 were W&H
and 1,082 were black.47 It is widely believed that
blacks are generally victims rather than perpetrators
of hate crimes, but they are actually more likely
than W&H to be offenders. On the basis of offense
rates—number of offenses divided by population—
blacks were 82 percent more likely than W&H to
commit hate crimes of all kinds, including those
based on religion, disability, etc.
Blacks were also considerably more likely to
commit crimes of racial bias against W&H than the
other way around; any given black person was 2.25
times more likely to commit a hate crime against
W&H than the reverse.48 Should this multiple be
divided by 5.5 to take into consideration differences
in size of the black and white populations and the
likelihood of encounter? An adjustment necessary
for non-bias interracial crime is not appropriate for
crimes motivated by racial hatred. Interracial crime
that is not motivated by bias can be
the result of chance encounter, so
the racial mix of the population
makes a difference. As the examples
that follow suggest, serious
racial hate crime involves searching
out a victim of a particular race,
which is the opposite of chance encounter.
There are fewer blacks than
whites in the United States, but a
white person deliberately looking
for a black victim is not likely to
have trouble finding one. Differences
in population sizes are therefore
much less relevant.
On the other hand, although crimes officially
categorized as racial hate crimes are certainly horrific,
they may be getting more attention than they
deserve. Every year, the annual release of Hate
Crime Statistics is national news, but the interracial
data in the National Crime Victimization Survey are
not. Which group of crimes has a greater impact on
society? In 2002, only 2,168 of the 5,738 bias crimes
of race or ethnicity were violent. The rest were nonviolent
crimes like vandalism and intimidation. According
to the NCVS, there were an average of 1.68
million violent interracial crimes committed each
year between 2001 and 2003, and of these about
half—844,000—were reported to police. Only 0.3
percent of interracial crimes reported to police—
three out of every thousand—are officially categorized
as motivated even “in part” by racial bias.
In order for a crime to be counted as a hate crime,
the criminal must make his motive clear, usually by
using racial slurs. It is impossible to know how many
of those 844,000 crimes a year had some racial bias,
but the perpetrator said nothing to reveal it.
Many states have passed laws that increase penalties
for hate crimes. These laws recognize the harm
done to society when people are attacked because
of race or other characteristics. However, it is worth
asking which does more damage to society: the 2,168
violent acts officially labeled as hate crimes or the
844,000 interracial crimes of violence that go otherwise
unremarked?
Given the reality of race in the United States,
would it be unreasonable for a person attacked by
New Century Foundation - 17 - The Color of Crime, 2005
someone of a different race to wonder whether bias
had something to do with the attack, even if his assailant
said nothing? Such suspicions are even more
likely in the case of the average 572,000 acts of
group violence that crossed racial lines every year
between 2001 and 2003. What is the psychological
effect on a white woman gang-raped by blacks or a
black man cornered and beaten by whites? Victims
are likely to wonder if they were not singled out at
least in part because of race, even if the attackers
never said so.
The NCVS tells us that interracial multiple-offender
offenses are even more lopsidedly black than
interracial crime as a whole. In fact, whereas blacks
committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between
2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not
pick up a single “white”-on-black gang rape. Overall,
blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-
offender violent crimes against whites per year
between 2001 and 2003, and “whites” committed
32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators
89 percent of the time.49
In any case, official hate crime data must be
viewed with some skepticism. A few people have
argued that police are more likely to call a crime a
hate crime when a white commits it than when a
black does. This charge is impossible to prove, but
according to the chief executive of a think tank dedicated
to law enforcement policy who did not wish
to be named in this report, newspapers pay more
attention to interracial crimes when whites commit
them—for one reason they are far more unusual—
and put more pressure on police to investigate them
as hate crimes.
Local police departments are, in fact, inconsistent
in their classifications, and make surprising
designations. It is not feasible to study the circumstances
of all racial hate crimes, but the most serious
ones—the six hate crime murders that were committed
in 2002—may well be representative. Three
were classified as white-on-black, one was whiteon-
Hispanic, one was Indian-on-white, and one was
black-on-Hispanic. Only three appear clearly to be
hate crimes.
One white-on-black murder took place in Long
Beach, California. According to a police investigator,
the offender was a 26-year-old white man with
a history of mental problems. After a black beat up
one of his friends, he decided to “get a ni**er”—
any black would do. He met two blacks and invited
them to take drugs with him, and shot them. This
appears to be a legitimate hate crime.
A second killing classified as a white-on-black
hate crime was more ambiguous. Seventeen-yearold
Paul Perone of Rennselaer City, New York, was
arrested for stabbing a black 17-year-old named El-
Shareem Noisette in a brawl. The day after the fight,
Mr. Perone confessed to killing Mr. Noisette in selfdefense,
but later recanted, claiming someone else
was the killer, and that he had been pressured to
confess. A jury acquitted him, but the district attorney
did not prosecute anyone else. News stories suggested
no bias motive, and the case was not prosecuted
as a hate crime.50 At this point there is some
doubt even as to who the killer was, so it is impossible
to know his motives.
In a third “white-on-black” hate murder, two 16-
year-old Riverside, California, Hispanic gang members,
David Alaniz and Franco Castaneda, shouted
out the name of their gang while they shot up people
on the porch of a house often used by black gang
members. They do not appear to have aimed at anyone
in particular, but killed a 13-year-old black
named Anthony Sweat. There had been gang violence
between blacks and Hispanics in the area, and
police said the shooting reflected hatred of blacks.51
The victim in the one murder classified as a
white-on-Hispanic hate crime was a Hispanic man
named Eduardo Ruvalcaba married to a white
woman. He and his wife moved in with his fatherin-
law, Kenneth Hunter, of Belton, Missouri, but
refused to pay any bills. Mr. Hunter resented this,
but Mrs. Hunter sided with the young couple. Tensions
led to a fight, and Mr. Hunter shot and killed
his son-in-law and wife, and accidentally wounded
his daughter.52 The Belton police officer who investigated
the crime said he did not think it was motivated
by bias. Newspaper accounts gave no evidence
of racial hatred either.
The murder classified as an Indian-on-white hate
crime took place on the Leech Lake Ojibwa Reservation
in Minnesota. The victim was a legally-blind
part-Indian man named Louis Bisson. Mr. Bisson
was an albino with very white skin, and Indian boys
New Century Foundation - 18 - The Color of Crime, 2005
sometimes taunted him, calling him “whitey.” The
killers were three Indians, aged 16 to 17, who had
been drinking and smoking marijuana and cocaine.
One, Jesse Tapio, had been known to pick on people
with light skin. The boys spotted Bisson, and beat
him to death with an ax handle.53 The prosecutor
told us that he did not bring hate crime charges, and
said he did not believe the crime was motivated by
racial hatred, but news reports suggest there may
have been some racial motive in the killing.
A murder classified as a black-on-Hispanic hate
crime, took place in Apopka, Florida. According to
the prosecutor, five young black men were driving
around drinking, and smoking marijuana. After three
of them robbed a black man, they decided to get a
white next. They picked up a Hispanic at random
and shot him. The prosecutor considered this a hate
crime.
These six murders highlight the
ambiguities of the FBI’s classifications.
In only three cases—the
Apopka blacks who killed the Hispanic,
the Long Beach white who
killed two blacks, and the Hispanic
gang members who shot up a group
of blacks—does there clearly seem
to have been racial hatred. The motives
in the stabbing of the young
Rennselaer black are murky, and the
white man who killed his Hispanic
son-in-law does not appear to have
had a racial motive at all. The murder
of the part-Indian on the reservation
may or may not have had a
racial motive.
In two cases, officials responsible
for arrest and prosecution said they
did not consider the killings bias
crimes; they were surprised to learn
they had been classified that way.
Finally, one of the three hate murders
attributed to whites was committed
by Hispanics. There were two
perpetrators in this case, which means that this one
crime added two “whites” to the list of hate criminals.
It is not the FBI but local officials who decide
which crimes are hate crimes. Clearly, they are making
some decisions that surprise even their own officers,
and this casts doubt on the entire hate crimes
report. Police take great care in investigating murder.
They do not spend nearly as much time on the
crimes that make up the vast majority of hate crimes:
vandalism, intimidation, and simple assault. If the
authorities make doubtful hate-crime designations
for serious crimes, it is hard to have confidence in
how they classify less-serious crimes. Given the
limitations of the data, it is hard to draw conclusions
from them.
Incarceration and Crime
The 1990s saw a substantial drop in crime. As
Figure 23 shows, after peaking in 1991, the murder
rate dropped by 44 percent over the next nine years,
and other types of crime showed similar declines.54
(In order to get all the information on the same chart,
the homicide rate is multiplied by 500, the property
Homicide, violent crime, and incarceration are measured in rates
per 1,000 people, property crimes in rates per 1,000 households.
New Century Foundation - 19 - The Color of Crime, 2005
crime rate is divided by ten, and the incarceration
rate is multiplied by 10.) There has been much debate
about what caused the drop, but the enormous
rise in prison populations is part of the explanation.
Figure 23 shows that between 1980 and 2003 the
incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482
per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased
from 320,000 to 1.39 million.55 Critics of incarceration
argue that it only punishes poor people and nonwhites,
and does not control crime. However, studies
have shown that felons commit 12 to 15 crimes
every year, so locking them up prevents them from
committing those crimes.56 According to University
of Texas criminologist William Spelman, every one
percent increase in the prison population therefore
cuts the violent crime rate by 0.48 percent. Prof.
Spelman estimates that if incarceration rates had
stayed the same between 1972 and 1997, there would
have been twice as much violent crime in 1997.57
It is worth noting in Figure 23 that the homicide
rate has leveled off and has even risen slightly since
1999. Rates of violent and property crimes have also
leveled off just as incarceration rates flattened out
after 30 years of steady increase. This is probably
not a coincidence.
America’s changing racial and ethnic makeup has
played a role in the rise in incarceration. The number
of Hispanic and non-citizen prisoners is rising
faster than the overall prison population. In 2003,
there were 4.4 times as many prisoners as in 1980,
but the Hispanic prison population rose 10 fold.58
Between 1990 and 2003, the total number of prisoners
rose by 90 percent while the number of noncitizens
in prison increased 4.8 fold.59 This means
that the number of Hispanic and non-citizen prisoners
is rising at more than twice the rate of the total
prison population. Figure 24 shows the racial composition
of the prisoner population in 2003—black:
44.1 percent; white: 35.0 percent; Hispanic: 19.0
percent; other: 1.9 percent.60
Some experts worry that the growing number of
crimes committed by youth gangs have contributed
to the leveling out of crime rates, and that the problem
will only get worse.61 As we saw earlier, immigrants
and their children are the main source of new
gang members.
The experience of the past several decades tells
us that putting more people in prison reduces crime.
The cost, however, is very high. In inflation-adjusted
dollars, in 2001 the US spent three times as much
on prisons as it did in 1980.62 Other policing costs
are also rising rapidly. Many of the one million or
more immigrants who come to the United States
every year are from population groups that raise
crime rates rather than lower them. The result is more
crime or higher costs to control crime—or both.
Why Study Race and Crime?
Why study racial differences in crime rates?
Many Americans believe this can lead only to invidious
comparisons and scapegoating. Others resist
the idea that there are significant group differences
in crime rates, and believe that even if there
are differences, society is to blame for not treating
people of all races equally. Some scholars even suggest
it may be better for Americans to remain ignorant
of certain realities about race.63 This view is
both obscurantist and patronizing: who is to decide
which are the truths that must be withheld? Society
does not benefit when information is suppressed.
Truth and knowledge are always better than falsehood
and ignorance.
This report takes no position on causes of group
differences in crime rates, except to point out that
the ones that are most commonly proposed—poverty,
unemployment, lack of education—are not satisfactory.
As for the reality of those differences, the
evidence is overwhelming: Blacks are considerably
more likely than any other group to commit crimes
New Century Foundation - 20 - The Color of Crime, 2005
of virtually all kinds, while Asians are least likely.
Whites and Hispanics have intermediate crime rates.
There can be debate about the exact extent of the
differences—the data do not make these calculations
easy—but differences are a fact.
These differences are far greater than some that
have given rise to significant public initiatives.
Blacks are more than twice as likely as whites to be
unemployed, and white household income is 60 percent
higher than black household income. Blacks
are twice as likely as whites to drop out of high
school. Race differences of this kind have led to
everything from affirmative action preferences to
No Child Left Behind legislation.
Americans are right to be concerned about these
differences, but they are, relatively speaking, small.
To repeat some of the more substantial differences
in crime rates: Blacks are about eight times more
likely than whites to commit murder, and 25 times
more likely than Asians to do so. Blacks are 15 times
more likely than whites to go to prison for robbery,
and 50 times more likely than Asians. Crime reduction
programs analogous to No Child Left Behind
may or may not be practical, but no solutions will
be found if we avert our eyes from these differences.
A better understanding of the facts is important
for other reasons. The evidence suggests that deeplyrooted
assumptions about police bias are wrong.
Many Americans believe that entire professions—
police, prosecutors, judges—are systematically biased
against minorities (critics usually have nothing
to say about low incarceration rates for Asians,
but if they were consistent they would argue that
the police and the courts must be biased in favor of
Asians). This is insulting and unfair. Not only does
it reflect abiding prejudice against some of the most
hard-working people in America, it leads to onerous
anti-“racial profiling” regulations that require
police to fill in detailed racial information about
every traffic stop, stop-and-frisk, or search. Additional
paperwork is a distraction from the job that
really matters: stopping crime.
Assumptions about police bias are especially
common among minority groups that have the most
to gain from good relations with the police. Blacks,
in particular, are convinced of police “racism.” In
extreme cases, this belief leads to murderous rampages
like that of Brian Nichols with whi

[Bunny]

check out...http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-renaissance

Since 1994, the New Century Foundation has also played host to American Renaissance conferences, suit-and-tie affairs that attract a broad spectrum of participants from the racist right, including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Ku Klux Klan members, Holocaust deniers and eugenicists. The conferences even have an international presence. In 2002, for instance, speakers included Nick Griffin, leader of the neofascist British National Party, and Bruno Gollnisch, who was then second in command of Jean Marie Le Pen's immigrant-bashing National Front in France.

[bob quarteroni]

Good work, Bunny! I didn't bother to check their credentials -- obviously I should have. I'll have to look for more impartial
sources. It's nice to know someone cares enough to do this.
I stand chastened.