This is a good analysis, but I guess I'm left wondering whether the NCVS is reliable, more than anything. Murder, of course, is only a small % of violent crime (<1), but there blacks are victimized at a much higher rate than their share of the population (about 4x). Is it reasonable that they are the victims of non-fatal violence at a lower rate than their population and a much lower rate than their murder? This seems to strain credulity.
Robbery is extremely unusual in it's victim and offender demographics. Classify it as a crime against property, as the NIBRS now does, and you get a completely different picture of crimes against persons. In general it's a mistake to consider this issue without disaggregating by crime. Details here:
"The point that it was making is that, if you listen to the media, you’d think that black people are much more at risk of being victimized by white people than the other way around, but in fact the opposite is true."
I've never seen anyone in the media claim that for crime overall, blacks are much more at risk of being [violently] victimized by whites than vice versa. Is there any research illustrating that the media frequently makes this claim?
(I have seen people in the media say that blacks are more likely to be victimized by white cops, but that's not a generalization about all violent crime.)
Anecdotally, a lot of local news reporting is dedicated to crime, and it's pretty common to see Black faces when they put up mug shots of offenders. I can't speak to percentages, but the media is certainly willing to report on violent criminals who are Black.
I don't have a Twitter account, but I saw your more elaborate bar graphs for rape, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault. Surely it can't be right that neither whites nor Asians ever rob Asians?
Interviews with criminals may be relevant. In Wright and Decker’s Armed Robbers in Action, they interview a few dozen (mostly black) active robbers in St. Louis (snowball sampled through a reformed ex-robber). Robbers consider several factors when deciding who to rob, and there is some disagreement among them on who is the best target. But there was general agreement that whites were safer targets — less likely to fight back. Given the demographics of local neighborhoods race probably is a decent indicator of whether someone has experience with violence or follows the code of the streets with its ethic of retaliation and toughness.
This is a good analysis, but I guess I'm left wondering whether the NCVS is reliable, more than anything. Murder, of course, is only a small % of violent crime (<1), but there blacks are victimized at a much higher rate than their share of the population (about 4x). Is it reasonable that they are the victims of non-fatal violence at a lower rate than their population and a much lower rate than their murder? This seems to strain credulity.
Robbery is extremely unusual in it's victim and offender demographics. Classify it as a crime against property, as the NIBRS now does, and you get a completely different picture of crimes against persons. In general it's a mistake to consider this issue without disaggregating by crime. Details here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4405359
"The point that it was making is that, if you listen to the media, you’d think that black people are much more at risk of being victimized by white people than the other way around, but in fact the opposite is true."
I've never seen anyone in the media claim that for crime overall, blacks are much more at risk of being [violently] victimized by whites than vice versa. Is there any research illustrating that the media frequently makes this claim?
(I have seen people in the media say that blacks are more likely to be victimized by white cops, but that's not a generalization about all violent crime.)
Anecdotally, a lot of local news reporting is dedicated to crime, and it's pretty common to see Black faces when they put up mug shots of offenders. I can't speak to percentages, but the media is certainly willing to report on violent criminals who are Black.
I don't have a Twitter account, but I saw your more elaborate bar graphs for rape, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault. Surely it can't be right that neither whites nor Asians ever rob Asians?
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1658908170620739604?s=20
Interviews with criminals may be relevant. In Wright and Decker’s Armed Robbers in Action, they interview a few dozen (mostly black) active robbers in St. Louis (snowball sampled through a reformed ex-robber). Robbers consider several factors when deciding who to rob, and there is some disagreement among them on who is the best target. But there was general agreement that whites were safer targets — less likely to fight back. Given the demographics of local neighborhoods race probably is a decent indicator of whether someone has experience with violence or follows the code of the streets with its ethic of retaliation and toughness.