Black American Males in Prison

Down below (in bold type) is some commonly heard information on Black-American Males in the U.S.A., and it got me wondering:


Are young black males having this same problem (incarceration at an alarming rate) in countries other than the United States(not counting Africa)? And if not, what might that suggest?


"In 1997, even though African Americans made up only 13% of the population, half of the 1.2 million state and federal prisoners were African American (548,900).12 African Americans are imprisoned at 6.6 times the rate of whites (3,253 vs. 491 per 100,000). The nation's imprisonment policies have had their greatest impact among young black men, resulting in alarming rates of incarceration and disenfranchisement.


One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 were under some form of criminal justice control (in prison, jail, parole or probation) in 1995.13 Other studies have shown that half the young men in Washington, DC, and more than half of the young men in Baltimore are under criminal justice control.


A black male born in 1991 stood a 29% chance of being imprisoned at some point in his life, compared to 4 percent for a white male born that year.


1.4 million African American men, or 13 percent of the black adult male population have lost the right to vote due to their involvement in the criminal justice system. In the states with the most restrictive voting laws, 40 percent of African American men are likely to be permanently disenfranchised."

Are young black males having this same problem (incarceration at an alarming rate) in countries other than the United States(not counting Africa)?


Meant to say, "Not counting countries in Africa." I know Africa is a continent

call me a racist but some types are maybe more predisposed to certain traits. maybe blacks are more violent or apt to break major laws. possible isnt it. up here in montana it seems much of the violent crimes are committed on indian reservations. of course it could be lots of things like environment and such but sometimes you just belive what you see.

Just a footnote to this: I read the opinion of a top (white) pro bodybuilder who believed that blacks ( and Italisans) tend to have higher testosterone levels, which gives them a natural advantage in bodybuilding. (Testosterone is also an advantage in most other athletic endeavors, especially those involving bursts of speed and strength). One long-time popular steroid is pure injectable testosterone (T). Testosterone is well-known to contribute also to increased aggressive behavior. And as you mentioned, men do many more violent things than women and are more war-like. Of course men have higher testosterone levels than do women.


So just maybe, if indeed blacks do have higher average testosterone levels, that could explain at least some of the higher rate of violent behavior. I have no idea if blacks do have higher testosterone levels or not...maybe someone might want to research this. Before the PC crowd automatically discounts this as a myth, perhaps a little unbiased research is in order.

The court system, and number of police stops, is skewed and based on prejudice. this has been well known since the end of slavery.

sure it is, and thats why its all just speculation. no one can really put a definite spin on many of these things. and so what if different races or classes or anything, have a trending toward a type of behavior. if anything it makes what happens more understandable.

it still boils down to you need to judge each individual by his or her own actions. but at the same time its normal to try to draw conculsions before you can make that judgement.

Aren't most blacks in prison there for drug crimes? I don't have current statistics, but in 1980, more Americans were in federal prison for drug crimes than for all other crimes put together. A Rand study showed that 99% (!) of drug-trafficking defendants nationwide betweeen 1985 and 1987 were Arican-American. 1.1 million Americans were arrested in 1990; of those, 264,000 were arrested for marijuana possession.


I don't think the war on drugs is the entire story, but isn't it a big reason for the large black involvement with the criminal justice system?

Ray,


Here's a link to one article by Mike Males, a sociologist who specializes in studies on youth and violence. It's well worth reading. In another article, Males shows that in California Black juveniles, to give one example, are nearly one and half times more likely to have their cases transfered to adult court than white teens.


In addtion, the very idea of certain people being "predisposed" to certain traits has been largely discredited in many areas. One key work, and a fascinating one for many reasons, is Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man.


John

not scientific, but in public (bus station, supermarket, etc.) ive seen black (child)siblings hitting each other and/or their mother, but never seen white siblings doing it.


but have seen white siblings in private beating each other, but not their mother.


brad


p.s. not that ive seen it a lot, but whenever i do i just think to myself that its really weird.

Your "Liberal Link" misstates that, "poverty is linked to crime."


I'm sorry, but the fact is: Values determine behavior, not economics. [Oh and by the way, the inverse of that fact gave us communism.]


The liberal belief that poverty is the cause of crime is still widely believed despite numerous conflicting facts, including:


(1) The vast majority of poor people do not engage in criminal behavior.


(2) Crime was extremely low during the Great Depression, when a far larger percentage of Americans were unemployed and experiencing great poverty.


(3) Few robberies, let alone rapes or murders, are committed to obtain subsistence items such as food or clothing.


(4) Impoverished cities in India are far safer than our much more wealthy American cities.


(5) If poverty in linked crime, it logically follows that wealth must be linked to honesty and morality. PLEASE!

"i've seen black (child)siblings hitting each other and/or their mother"


One of the most disturbing things I've ever seen took place about 12 years ago.


I was at a laundromat and there were these two little black boys (about 8 & 9 years old) with their mother. At one point they started taking turns punching each other on their heads(not the face). Let me tell ya, these guys were really whaling on one another, and with closed fists! It really was disturbing to watch. All the while the mother just sat there reading a magazine like nothing out of the ordinary was taking place.

Selective enforcement is the reason for the skew.

Unequal treatment by judges in sentencing is another issue.


The LA Rampart scndal is a good example of other issues, such as police misconduct.


The Justice system is not color-blind.

Your statements are clearly debatable. Organized crime flourished in the Depression, even after lifting prohibition.


Access to competent legal counsel is directly affected by income level. This has a direct relationship to acquital rates.


Your statistical analysis needs examining before you make blanket statements.


You are corrrect in that the wealthy commit more "white collar" crime.

I believe that socioeconomic factors play a very large role. I'm curious, however, as to how, say, black and latino average incomes compare, and how black and latino violent crime rates compare. For instance if it were shown that blacks on average earn at least as much or more than latinos, yet still had much higher violent crime rates than latinos, then obviously some other factors would be involved besides merely income levels (for instance another socioeconomic factor might conceivably be that the courts and police treat might blacks more harshly than latinos. There might also be factors outside of socioeconomics).


As for predisposition to traits, certain physical traits are well known to be racially biased such as tendency towards high blood pressure. So I don't think we can automatically rule out things like perhaps higher testosterone levels or other factors which just might contribute to higher tendencies towards physical aggressiveness--at least, not in the absence of research in these areas.


There is also the effect of culture to be considered. Rap music culture certainly doesn't help, with its heavily violent themes (probably some sort of effect similar to routinely watching violence on TV--a desensitivation process occurs over time, as has been well-documented in children).

"Access to competent legal counsel is directly affected by income level. This has a direct relationship to acquital rates."


Of course income level has a direct relationship to acquital rates. Does O.J. ring a bell?


When I say, "Poverty is not linked to crime," I'm saying that poverty is not an "influence" in regards to the "act" itself.

First, this is not, as you so deftly put it, a "liberal" mantra. Far from it. Poverty, in itself, does not "cause" crime, but poverty contributes to a number of factors that certainly do influence crime. For example, if you read Males' research, you would see that many people in prison for violent crime have been abused as children; Males puts the figure around 80%. In addition, poverty also causes malnutrition, which affects brain development. The Center for Childhood Poverty predicts that children who live in poverty have little chance of learning by the time they reach first grade. Males also looks at unemployment rates and how the creation of a permanent underclass certainly affects people's behavior. Males, quite frankly, has been a staunch critic of the liberal media who would like to blame violent TV shows and rap music for violent behavior because attaching blame to TV and music avoids any attempt to look at real life problems.


As far as some of your other claims, you are, I assume, serious, but I think you have some vision of a prelapsarian America that never existed in reality--only in your imagination. Point #5 is patently ludicrous, and inverses of opinions--values determine behavior--because it's your opinion, not a fact, do not result in Communism--or anything else for that matter.

John,


Not to discount what you are saying about malnutrition and poverty, but I have read of studies which seemed clearly to show that many hours of violent TV per day did indeed result in significantly increased tendencies towards aggressive, violent behavior in children.


Of course the Males' points about real life issues are important, but I fear he may be erring if he is discounting the above...if his position is that heavy doses of violence on TV are not as important as malnutrition, I would think that very well might be the case. But a regular diet of many hours of violence on TV does profoundly affect children both in desensitizing them to violence and in making many of them more apt to aggressive behavior. Now, Males may simply be saying, let's not ignore certain very important (perhaps more important) factors; let's not be distracted by lesser factors. But why not look at all factors, if indeed they are contributing factors? Blinders are bad in every direction except one.

lee,


I won't go so far as to say that poverty CAUSES crime, but I will say that I believe poverty is more likely than prosperity to breed crime, especially violent or street-type crime.

M,


In one of Males's studies, he shows that both boys and girls who watch about equal amounts of violent programming commit violent crimes at a much different rate. If the effects of TV violence were that influential, we would expect similar amounts of violent behavior. Japanese children are exposed to much more violent programming, and play violent video games more often, yet Japanese children do not engage in violent behavior at any where near the same rate.


Males also cites references from the Comic Book scare of the 50's--and it's really hilarious to read today about this--which blamed the reading of comic books for violence. In another study, children who watched the Power Rangers show were found to mimic the behavior--punching, kicking, and whatever stuff the characters do on that show--yet the children didn't actually hit or kick each other. Clearly, even at a young age, they recognized the difference between make-believe and real life violence.


Males's main point is that blaming the media keeps us from looking at real life causes, among them childhood poverty, child abuse, and child rape, all of which are components in the lives of many people in prison.


John

Japanese culture is very different, and children are typically taught discipline, respect and honor more so than in the US, so comparing US and Japanese children isn't really a fair comparison of the effects of TV violence. A fair comparison in that regard would be exclusively between those Japanese chilren who do, and those who do not, watch much violence on TV, to see whether there is a difference in violent or aggressive behavior between those who do and do not.


Also, males seem to be genetically more predisposed to more violent or agggressive behavior than females, not only in humans, but throughout much of the animal kingdom. Male puppies roughhouse more than female puppies...same with lions. Tomcats are more aggressive too. All this becomes even more pronunced at puberty, in humans when the testosterone and other androgenic-type hormones really kick in, and in animals at that time as well. So comparing boys to girls for this purpose and saying that if the effects of TV were that influential we would see equivalent amounts of violent behavior is not necessarily true--in fact I think it is probably untrue. As written above, it also appears to be fallacious..."if the effects were that infuential...we would expect similar amounts..."--this strikes me as an assumption and an unfounded one at that.


No doubt the causes Males mentions are very real and important. I just don't believe in discounting other, perhaps lesser, causes. To me that approacj appears to be very unscientific. I also don't believe that taking note of other causes "keeps" us from doing anything. If the causes Males mentions are the primary causes, then that should be publicized, and if his concern is that they aren't receiving proper weighting in the eyes of the public, then perhaps he should begin a campaign of sorts to raise public awareness of these issues (perhaps he already has). I just take exception to the notion that anything is "preventing us" from noticing other factors. All factors matter and it is up to scientific studies to determine which matter most. The results should then be publicized.


I don't know what the actual stats regarding blacks committing violent crimes are. However I think the first step in analyzing whether the problem is entirely due to the factors Males describes (which no doubt are very large), would be to compare relative violent crime rates and relative poverty and income rates, amongst blacks and other specific groups which may be suffering similarly, to get a clear picture of how it all stacks up.


You are also probably laughing at my suggestion that it just might have a little to do with testosterone levels. Well before you laugh too hard, recall that before "road rage" became a catch phrase, there was "'roid rage" which referred to the violent outbursts of those using certain anabolic steroids. For instance if you were to take Anadrol 50 mg on a regular basis, the flood of androgenic hormones would almost surely leave you with a much shorter temper, a more aggressive outlook, greater strength, increased muscle mass, higher overall energy levels, and an increased feeling of general physical well-being. If provoked, you would be more likely to feel like responding violently than you would have before you started taking the drug.


Now just why can't blacks have higher average testosterone levels? They certainly seem more athletic on average than whites. In fact they probably are, because many of the weaker ones probably didn't survive during the times of slavery...so today's American black is probably a bit superior to other Americans, on average, physically speaking. Testosterone also grants increased athletic performance...strength, speed, etc...and a greater propensity towards aggression. So maybe it's a long shot but just maybe this is a (probably minor) factor too.


I really favor the scientific approach. WHAT IF, for instance, it were found that blacks' rate of violent crime IS NOT in keeping with that of other equally economically diusadvantaged groups? What then? What theories could then explain a major discrepancy there? Does this discrepancy exist? I don't know, but if it does, then there is more to the whole picture than just the effects of poverty. And I think people should put all their preconceptions and/or prejudices aside when trying to understand such things.

Although he states that Japanese TV shows are even more violent than American TV, he fails to mention that undoubtedly the average Japanese child spends far less time glued to the tube...(he has longer school hours and more homework to do, so he can't spend 6 hours a day as a couch potato). So Males is noting the degree of violence in the shows but omitting number of hours of exposure to this violence, which is certainly a part of the equation too.

Mark,


(Hope you don't mind me using your real name now and then) you never saw our female pit-bull and female Boston Terrier in action.


I think what's important in Males's work is his insistence on looking at the material conditions that directly effect human lives and how people live their lives. I'm convinced that looking for explanations for violent behavior in TV programming, video games, and rap music is misguided. These become the scapegoat because it's much harder to address poverty, child abuse, and rape. (In essence, this is how ideology functions.) I'm also not discounting, nor does Males, that violent media content will affect some. I think if you look at Males's homepage, and read through a few of his essays, you'll see that he does use the kinds of "scientific" methods available to social scientists.


You seem to be saying the natural selection has also played a role. I'm not sure what era you refer to when you say the "time of slavery," but I doubt evolution works that quickly.


I favor logical approaches, not necessarily the same as "scientific" approaches, I grant you, but not everything is amenable to strict scientific scrunity because the objects under study are diiferent. After reading through a number of Males's essays, I think he certainly uses rigorous analysis.


As far a waging campaigns to increase public awareness of serious issues, I'm convinced that most people prefer easy answers: End violent programming; install a chip on your TV so the kiddies won't see what you don't want them to see; put warning labels on CD's. Besides, educators do attempt to raise public awareness through their research and teaching.


Finally, I have read most, if not all, of the discussions about the Middle East. Look at how many posters are able to espouse your point of view without attacking those who offer differing opinions. You have been one of the few that have shown poise and equanimity and, perhaps most important, the ability to listen to other points of view without making accusations about or showing hostility towards other posters. I wrote that this forum, on an albeit smaller scale, captures a sense of what happens in the rest of the country. I'm willing to read and learn, and I know that you are. Unfortunately, I think many people merely want to confirm their prejudices, and, in response, gravitate to those who can do the best job of putting into words those prejudices for them.


John

It is probably true that people often look for easy answers; in fact we all probably do at some time or another. People also probably look for confirmations of their beliefs. I think it is important that we resist these tendencies as much as possible, although that can be difficult to do.


As far as natural selection goes, times of great hardship can provide an accelerated reference frame. In other words conditions on the slave ships were terrible and no doubt wiped out many with lesser degrees of physical resistance to disease and hardships. Likewise slaves in America who died of overwork, etc. probably did not get as much chance to reproduce. So I'm not so much saying that new traits were developed, as in evolution, but just that the weakest were probably wiped out--via natural selection--leaving the stronger.


I don't doubt that most crime is associated with underlying economic conditions, and that the violent crime rates and imprisonment rates run pretty much parallel to these things, and that this is supported by studies. I just don't know if studies have been done comparing violent crimes rates between similarly disadvantaged groups--maybe it would or wouldn't show some important anomalies. I also don't think cultural or philosophical differences can necessarily be ignored--especially on a worldwide scale. For instance I would bet that warlike behavior among Buddhists is virtually nil compared to members of most other major religions.

Consider, though, for a moment, that many other major religions do not have the same sort of correspondence between spiritual life and daily existence. Wordsworth writes:


Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;

Little we see in Nature that is ours;

We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!


We live a a world that measures success in very different ways, and if you don't fit the criteria, you've failed.


"Lord, won't you buy me a color TV."


John

"poverty also causes malnutrition, which affects brain development"


You don't actually state it, but are we to infer that you believe malnutrition is linked to crime?


If so, we better start keeping a close eye on all the models and actresses who starve themselves to stay rail thin, or those who gorge themselves on Twinkies(Dan White in 1978's famous Twinky Trial).


You know in India (a country that's no stranger to malnutrition and even starvation) they have a population just shy of One Billion. That's well over three times that of the United States, yet the crime rate for the entire U.S. is several times that of India. In fact the U.S. locks up fourteen times as many of its citizens on a proportional basis than India.


"Males also looks at unemployment rates and how the creation of a permanent underclass certainly affects people's behavior"


Affects their behavior in what way? Certainly not towards a 'propensity for crime.'

According to a link in a recent post: in Saudi Arabia, morality squads roam the streets to make sure businesses are shut down for prayer 5 times a day, and to send bystanders to the nearest mosque.


The Buddhist correspondence between daily life and spiritual life may be quite different than the Muslim correspondence in many ways; yet the Muslim correspondence is there, and vividly so. Yet as a group they are far more warlike than Buddhists. So as this example shows, I don't believe we can discount the immense effects differences in philosophical (or cultural) underpinnings may produce.


Faulty ideas are to blame for a huge percentage of mankind's troubles. I continually become more convinced that Logic needs to be taught right along with Arithmetic in our elementary schools, and onwards (and along with proper nutrition;-)). Imagine how much better the world would be if virtually everyone could think reasonably clearly most of the time, and did not subscribe blindly to unscientific belief systems (other than allowing the possibility of things neither proven nor disproven).

but I'll try to look it up just to be sure

I like your view better now, I think.


White=Moral

Other=Immoral


That explains things much easier.

"I believe poverty is more likely than prosperity to breed crime,.."


Do you then believe the opposite of your statement to be true?


In that, since you say that poverty is more likely to breed dishonest behavior(crime), do you believe prosperity is more likely to breed honest and moral behavior?

Slavery and the post-war years of the Jim Crow south are certainly stains on our history. But, with the majority of U.S. large cities (especially on the two coasts) having African Americans in control of the political systems, how can bigotry explain away the still disproportionate rates of incarceration?


BR

tha tha tha that's all folks.

take any population P with virtue V.


say cambodians who are buddhists. now you said


'Yet as a group they are far more warlike than Buddhists.'


but this doesnt matter at all!


why?


well, because in any population there will always be a small percentage of people who will kill and hurt without limit if given a chance.


so what really matters is if this minority gains control of their culture.


so perhaps the critical point is the *obedience* of the general population, not on the criminal class. (kinda like aldous huxley's view on people being easily hypnotized to not able to be hypnotized and how society needs both.)


brad

Actually,


I can keep going from a number of sources; however, you want to see what you want to see (cf. your Thugs in the Making). Nice small world you live in.


Take care, lee.


John

M is an American. Do you believe the obverse is also true? All Americans are M. You've tried this logic twice. Care to strike out?

I believe that prosperity is less likely to breed violent crime than is poverty--at least in the USA.

That doesn't necessarily mean that I believe prosperity is likely to breed "good" or "moral" behavior--just that it is less likely to breed violent "bad" behavior--in the USA.

although prosperity is probably MORE likely to breed good behavior than is poverty--not necessarily "likely to--just "more likely" to "than"...

I doubt greatly that there is an equivalent percentage of Buddhists who possess the warlike qualities of many Muslims.


Buddhism is also a much more rational system of thought than other major religions, deriving conclusions and principles much more logically than other religions which emphasize blind faith.

Your whole argument ia fallacious.


Your lie is that you are stating that liberals claim that poverty causes crime. It has an impact. The truth is that it is one of many factors.


If a crime is committrd, but no one prosecutes it, then did any crime occur at all?

Not according to statistical analysis.


Selective enforcement breeds incarceration. Whites commit more crime than anyone other group. They are prosecuted the least.

ho chi minh was a buddhist monk i think.


mao slaughtered like 30 million chinese or whatever in the cultural revolution, right?


i just cant see it.


brad

I don't believe Ho Chi Minh was a Buddhist. He was from a Confucianist family but some of the biographical material I scanned said he also accepted some of the teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism...3 popular religions in Chinese history. Confucianism and Buddhism however are very different.


Chairman Mao killed millions all right, but do you think Mao was a Buddhist?

well, ho chi minh was a buddhist monk at one point, but my point is that, for example, the soldiers who shouted 'for the emperor!' and fought to the death (japanese) were buddhist.


but i think that proves my point. it doesnt matter what the masses are, if an evil leader can get control and establish a control system he can use the naturally occuring sociopaths to butcher his enemies.


brad

i believe prosperity is more likely to breed the *appearance* of honest and moral behavior.


brad

.,.,.,

,.,.,.

Okay so you're convinced that poverty "has an impact" on crime. Then with you that makes four: You, John c., Mr. Males, and Rosie O'Donnell.

Test

Measuring average bp of different ethnicities and relating genetics to complex behaviors is not exactly the same. Comparative sociological studies done on different groups are difficult to interpret because it's nearly impossible to control for every possible mitigating factor.


That being said, just because you can't necessarily do very precise studies (a la randomized controlled medical studies like drug vs. placebo) doesn't mean you shouldn't try to change factors that create an environment where crime and poverty are more likely outcomes.

Your posted name is very anonymous. Why don't you reveal your real name.

If so, you already have my real name and email addy. I sent you an email requesting proof that Paradise deep sixed you for no reason (to which you responded rather graciously). That email had my name on it, if you can find it. I have no desire to put it out there again, just so more spammers can get a hold of it and flood my email boxes any more than they are currently flooded.