RACE-CRIME DIFFERENCES APPLY ACROSS ALL NATIONS AND MINORITIES z45\doc\web\2000\10\racecrim.txt British Home Office Report showing that although only 2% of the British population are Black, they account for 15% of the prison population. The Asian population from the Indian sub-continent are now 3% of the population and only 2% of the prison population. Summing the crimes, and averaging across years, Rushton (1990, 1995) found statistically significant differences per 100,000 population of, respectively, 44 (Pacific Rim), 74 (European), and 143 (Afro-Caribbean) total crimes. Thanks to "Louis R. Andrews" for forwarding that fascinating British Home Office Report showing that although only 2% of the British population are Black, they account for 15% of the prison population. The Asian population from the Indian sub-continent are now 3% of the population and only 2% of the prison population. No data were available on East Asians such as the Chinese. The data came to me just as Glayde whitney and I are about to submit an anlysis of the latest INTERPOL data to the British Journal of Criminology. It is certainly topical and we were able to insert the reference into the Introduction and lit review some of which is pasted on here for anyone interested. Thanks again Louis. P.S. We also cite a good crime textbook by Lee Ellis which is available from amazon.com Geographic and Populational Variation in Violent Crime Rates (from INTERPOL, 1993-1996) A debate has arisen over whether the disproportionate populational differences in British, Canadian, and U.S. crime statistics are generalizable internationally. Do East Asian populations from China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam (sometimes called Orientals, or more technically, Mongoloids) generally average lower rates of violent crime (e.g., murder, rape, and serious assault) than European populations (Whites, Caucasoids)? In turn, do Europeans and their descendants generally average lower rates of violent crime than Africans and their descendants (Blacks, Negroids)? The answers may shed light on whether the observed populational differences within Britain, Canada, and the United States arise from local conditions (e.g., anti-Black racism; selective migration from Pacific Rim countries), or whether they arise from conditions endemic to the populations (e.g., cultural values, family structures, biological factors or their interactions). Crime statistics within Britain, Canada, and the United States show that people of East Asian ancestry are disproportionately under-represented while those of African ancestry are disproportionately over-represented relative to those of European ancestry. For example, in Canada, a government commission found that Blacks were five times more likely to be in jail than Whites and ten times more likely than Asians (Ontario, 1996). In Britain, the Home Office (1999) found that Blacks, who were 2% of the general population made up 15% of the prison population. (No figures were reported for East Asians such as the Chinese, but Asians from the Indian subcontinent were 3% of the general population and 2% of the prison population.) In the U.S., Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and Taylor and Whitney (1999) analyzed the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and National Crime Victimization Surveys from the U.S. Department of Justice (1997, 1998) and found that since record keeping began at the turn of the century, and throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, African Americans consistently committed proportionately more violent crime than did European Americans, while Asian Americans consistently committed proportionately fewer. Victim surveys tell a similar story. The proportional differences in arrest statistics cannot therefore be attributed entirely to police prejudice. Two fundamentally different models have been put forth to explain why populations differ in average rate of crime (and other socially valued outcomes): (1) the "discrimination" model, and (2) the "distributional" model (Herrnstein, 1990). The discrimination model focuses on social and institutional practices that discriminate against members of one group (or favor members of another), thus tilting the "level playing field." The crucial assumption of this model is that in the absence of barriers, crime rates would be about equal for all populations. Factors hypothesized under the discrimination model to explain race difference in crime include relative poverty, anti-Black bias by police, a lack of access to legitimate channels of upward mobility, and inadequate family socialization due to the legacy of slavery. On the other end of the model, criminologists as early as the 1920s explained the under-representation of East Asians in U.S. crime statistics by hypothesizing the East Asian "ghetto." This "ghetto" was seen as a response to external prejudice that protected members from the disruptive tendencies of the outside society. It was also claimed that bias against East Asian migration ("yellow peril") resulted in only the wealthiest or hardest-working East Asians gaining entry into White-majority countries. The alternative distributional model explains the overlapping of the populations and their differing averages in terms of the populations themselves, for example, in cultural practices and socialization (Sowell, 1994). Other factors hypothesized to underlie the distribution model include such characteristics as deep-rooted cultural values and family structures endemic to populations, as well as biological variables including body type, percent of age of cohort, hormonal levels, toxic chemicals such as lead which may have different effects based on proximity and/or constitutional differences in metabolism, and personality and temperament. Thus according to the distributional model, the population differences are expected to occur more universally. The two models may each be partially correct (Ellis & Walsh, 1999). To test whether the population differences in crime found within Britain, Canada, and the U.S. occurred more universally, Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and Rushton (1990, 1995) collated data from INTERPOL Yearbooks (1980 to 1990) and found that Pacific Rim countries reported less violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries and much less than did African and Caribbean countries. Summing the crimes, and averaging across years, Rushton (1990, 1995) found statistically significant differences per 100,000 population of, respectively, 44 (Pacific Rim), 74 (European), and 143 (Afro-Caribbean) total crimes. These results did not depend on the selection of countries because when ethnically more homogeneous sets were chosen, for example, by limiting countries to those from northeast Asia, central Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, the proportionate differences remained the same — or became even greater. Nor did the pattern alter with other combinations of countries. For example, in the Caribbean, six mainly White/Amerindian countries averaged 72 per 100,000 whereas eight mainly Black countries averaged 449 violent crimes per 100,000 population (Rushton, 1995). -- J. Philippe Rushton Department of Psychology University of Western Ontario London, Ontario Canada N6A 5C2 Telephone: (519) 661-3685 http://www.sscl.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/14/_/64659/_/972410300/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> How to contribute to H-Bd: 1. To reply privately to just the sender of this message, click the "Reply" button on your email package. 2. To reply publicly to the entire H-Bd list, click the "Reply All" (or equivalent) button on your email package. 3. To start a thread, email your message to h-bd@egroups.com . To unsubscribe, send a blank email to h-bd-unsubscribe@egroups.com