We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant...

[bodecea]

The modern liberal party in America is nothing more than a bunch of closet authoritarians who realized that the only way they can ever stay in power is to feign liberty. Just notice how each generation of liberals become more and more closer to the communist party. Compare Obama to Clinton Clinton to jfk and jfk to FDR and you will see that each sequence the politics of each person has changed quite a lot. FDR respected the founders, so did jfk. I would not say that is true of Clinton or Obama.

The confederate flag does not represent slavery as it represents defiance to the federal government and that is a massive no no in any authoritarians world. It is just a piece of history that some people want to cherish and nothing more. What is the big deal?

I'm sure you've convinced yourself of that.....just like some loons have convinced themselves that the slaveholding South was fighting for freedom.

 

[bodecea]

Need we say more...NeoCommie will never admit to the TRUTH!

Interesting how binary minds think the two problems are mutually exclusive.

 

[bodecea]

Clearly you do have time for asshattery- since that is all this thread is about.

And all you have time for is name calling. Care to make a point?

That and your butt hurt about the Confederate Flag no longer flying where you think it should.

I don't really care where it flies. Honestly. I'm beyond the point of caring.

Yes...we can tell....you "don't care" so much you started a thread.

 

[Coyote]

Forgive me for not directly quoting you, Coyote, but the quote system doesn't seem to like you tonight, so in the interests of simplicity, I will tag you instead.

1. Basic math dictates that more whites are on death row than blacks, as seen here:

White 1,334 (43.10%)
Black 1,291 (41.71%)

That makes your premise incorrect. By proportion perhaps, but given the larger white population, there will naturally be more white death row inmates. Math.

2.

"41% are black...yet blacks make up only 14% of our population."

And? Yet, only 1,291 of them are on death row. That's roughly 0.0033% of the entire 38 million black people in America. Let's keep bendingg and twisssting! If you want to be absurdly technical the 1,334 whites on death row amount to 0.00059% of the 223 million white people in America.

If they were disproportionately targeted... why would they be on par with white people on death row in terms of percentage? You are citing the NCAAP (not to be confused with NAACP) study that only showed four states as proof of a race disparity on their death rows, right? Or this Atlantic article perhaps? It's convenient to use the proportional argument to claim how disproportionate the populations are being treated in any negative regard.

I get messed up in the quotes sometimes also

I think you misunderstand the way the math works.

Yes - whites should be represented in higher numbers. But lets look at math and ratios.

77% of the population is white.
14% is black.

You would expect to see that same ratio on death row: 77%/14%. Instead you see a really skewed ratio of 43%/42% that is way out of line with the general population. Blacks are more than 3 times over-represented on death row.

The numbers vary according to source with Whites at 77-80% and Blacks at 13-14%. Using this source: United States Demographics Profile 2014 the US population in 2014 was 318,892,103.

13% (using same source) are black - that's 41,455,973, making the percentage on death (1291) to be .00000311
80% are white - that's 255,113,682, making the percentage on death row (1334) to be .00000052

No matter how you do the math - you are getting a much larger percentage of blacks on death row than is represented in the general population and a much (order of magnitude) larger proportion of the black population on death row than of the white population.

2. Something you missed:

The race of the victim and the race of the defendant in capital cases are major factors in determining who is sentenced to die in this country. In 1990 a report from the General Accounting Office concluded that "in 82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

No I did not miss it. The same source also stated this: The race of the victim and the race of the defendant in capital cases are major factors in determining who is sentenced to die in this country.

3. "We are not talking about crime (a much more complex problem) - we are talking about police actions and race."

No, your exact words were: "Blacks are more likely to be pulled over, handled aggressively, shot, arrested, incarcerated, and given the death penalty for the same crimes than whites. There is a lot of evidence to support that."

You're changing it to crime in general - I'm talking about crime and the justice system. How the justice system and law enforcement respond.

a) Once again, no. Whites are arrested at three times the rate of blacks. Arrested, which was one of the terms you used in your remark. A ratio of 3:1. For every black person arrested, there were three white people arrested.

Well duh...whites are 6 times more prevalent than blacks in the population, you would expect to see them arrested at six times the rate of blacks.

b) A disproportionate number of whites are shot by cops than blacks, "there is a lot of evidence to support that." Shot, which was one of the terms used in that remark.

What evidence supports that a "disproportionate number of whites are shot by cops than blacks?

c) As for more blacks being "given the death penalty for the same crimes than whites" it seems clear to me looking at the stats you took from my link that there is a roughly equal amount of black and white people on death row. That makes your argument again, incorrect.

No, it makes your math wrong

d) As for "being handled aggressively" you'll have to refine your terminology.

I'll refine it with these examples then:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/09/us/mckinney-texas-pool-party-video/
New video of Sandra Bland's arrest before she later died in jail | Daily Mail Online
University cop indicted in traffic stop shooting - CNN.com

e) As for "being pulled over," of all the blacks pulled over, a staggering 12.3% were pulled over because of their race in 2008. That leaves a whopping 88.7% of them who were treated lawfully during traffic stops. Yeah. Such a problem.

Not quite. Were they pulled over for some minor thing that a white person would have gotten away with? I already showed you statistics stating that blacks are more likely to be searched on a routine traffic stop than whites for example. Or, harrassed like Sandra Bland.

f) As for incarceration, I have no doubt you are referring to the ACLU report by Ayers and Borowski of the supposed racial profiling of the Los Angeles Area in 2003 and 2004. That report however was soundly debunked, by David Klinger, a professor of criminology at the University of Missouri - St. Louis and former LAPD police officer himself. What Ayers and Borowski did was try to set the benchmark, saying a disproportionate amount of blacks are profiled. But as the LA and National crime statistics show, blacks commit more crimes than whites. Pure and simple.

Two examples , one from that that 28 year study I posted earlier:

Blacks don't necessarily commit more crimes. They are more likely to be arrested and more likely to be convicted than whites.

And another from a fact check done by a British TV station which is backed up clearly by this FBI report:

FactCheck: do black Americans commit more crime?

Your race argument is bunk. I'm sorry but it is what it is. As I said before, the Black Lives Matter movement is addressing a nonexistent problem. They neglect to mention the astronomically high crime rates by black men in their population. The NCVS survey also debunks the whole idea that arrests are motivated by race. The victims disproportionately identified the assailant as black. Therefore police have to arrest more black people than white.

"Facts are stubborn things ; and whatever may be our wishes or our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and of evidence."

-John Adams

Race and Racism in the United States: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic

More facts for you to chew on:

Racial disparities in the Juvenile Justice System: RACIAL DISPARITIES SEEN AS PERVASIVE IN JUVENILE JUSTICE

Black and Hispanic youths are treated more severely than white teenagers charged with comparable crimes at every step of the juvenile justice system, according to a comprehensive report released yesterday that was sponsored by the Justice Department and six of the nation's leading foundations.


The report found that minority youths are more likely than their white counterparts to be arrested, held in jail, sent to juvenile or adult court for trial, convicted and given longer prison terms, leading to a situation in which the impact is magnified with each additional step into the juvenile justice system.


In some cases, the disparities are stunning. Among young people who have not been sent to a juvenile prison before, blacks are more than six times as likely as whites to be sentenced by juvenile courts to prison. For those young people charged with a violent crime who have not been in juvenile prison previously, black teenagers are nine times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile prison. For those charged with drug offenses, black youths are 48 times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile prison.


Similarly, white youths charged with violent offenses are incarcerated for an average of 193 days after trial, but blacks are incarcerated an average of 254 days and Hispanics are incarcerated an average of 305 days. ​

Racial Disparities In Arrests Are Prevalent, But Cause Isn't Clear

The difficult question to answer, Heath says, is why these disparities in arrests are so prevalent across the agencies reporting data to the FBI. He says while it certainly points out the possibility of law enforcement bias, it could point to other factors as well.​

Report shows deep racial disparity in arrests in Madison

A black person in Madison is over 10 times more likely than a white person to be arrested, according to an analysis published Sunday by the Wisconsin State Journal.


The newspaper reviewed two years of Madison Police Department arrest data and found police arrested whites at a rate of 2.6 arrests per 100 white residents annually, compared to arresting African-Americans at a rate of 27.6 arrests per 100 residents. Hispanics also were more likely than whites to be arrested.​

Analysis: Blacks in Madison arrested at more than 10 times rate of whites - This article makes some good points, both on the degree of the racial disparity in arrests and on the complex reasons as to why.

Disparities occur not just in arrest rates, but in every step of the way from how they are handled in the Juvenile Justice System to the Death Penalty.

Court Processing
• African Americans were more likely to be sentenced
to prison and less likely to be sentenced to probation
than Whites.
• The average prison sentence for violent crime was
approximately one year longer for African Americans
than for Whites.
• African Americans were convicted for drug charges at
substantially higher rates than those for Whites.

Incarcerated in Prisons and Jails
• Nationwide, African Americans were incarcerated in
state prison at 6 times the rate for Whites and in local
jails at almost 5 times the rate for Whites.
• African Americans were on probation at almost 3 times
and on parole at over 5 times the rate for Whites.

Death Penalty
• The rate at which African Americans were on death row
was almost 5 times the rate for Whites.

Juveniles
• Rates of youth admitted to adult prisons were 7 times
higher for African Americans and over 2 times as high
for Native Americans as for White youth.
• Disparity in the juvenile justice system is the worst at
the deepest levels of the system

And you think #Blacklivesmatter is little more than a race war group? I think they have a very legitimate concern.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documented historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided. WHY did president Lincoln otherwise free slaves ONLY in those states in rebellion, and not ALL slaves across the United States?

10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation


Fact #1: Lincoln actually issued the Emancipation Proclamation twice.

Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd, 1862. It stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then Proclamation would go into effect. When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863.


act #3: Lincoln’s advisors did not initially support the Emancipation Proclamation.

When President Lincoln first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet in the summer of 1862, many of the cabinet secretaries were apathetic, or worse, worried that the Proclamation was too radical. It was only Lincoln’s firm commitment to the necessity and justice of the Proclamation, along with the victory at Antietam, which finally persuaded his cabinet members to support him.


Fact #4: The Battle of Antietam (also known as Sharpsburg) provided the necessary Union victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

President Lincoln had first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet in July 1862, but Secretary of State William Seward suggested waiting for a Union victory so that the government could prove that it could enforce the Proclamation. Although the Battle of Antietam resulted in a draw, the Union army was able to drive the Confederates out of Maryland – enough of a “victory,” that Lincoln felt comfortable issuing the Emancipation just five days later.


Fact #5: The Emancipation Proclamation was a firm demonstration of the President’s executive war powers. (damn commie!)


Fact #6: The Emancipation Proclamation changed the focus of the war.

Up until September 1862, the main focus of the war had been to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim.

Fact #7: The Emancipation Proclamation helped prevent the involvement of foreign nations in the Civil War.

Fact #8: The Emancipation Proclamation paved the way for African-Americans to fight for their freedom.



Fact #9: The Emancipation Proclamation led the way to total abolition of slavery in the United States.
10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation

You just proved the civil war wasnt started over slavery, not until the emancipation proclamation was slavery even an issue. Notice how the first proclamation was against the southern states in rebellion alone - BINGO!!!! It was a strategic decision to go after the south when President Lincoln was on the verge of losing the war and his effort to preserve the union. The north had a lovelyhood that included black slaves, how could Lincoln make a statement to immediately free ALL the slaves? It was a move against the southern states to try to hurt those states and hopefully turn the tide of war, by drafting those freed slaves into the union army.

Thank you for proving my point.

Weird YOUR reading comprehension issues Bubs? Miss the link when the CONServative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa IN THEIR OWN WORDS, ADMITTED THEY LEFT THE UNION BECAUSE OF SLAVERY? Yep, Abe wouldn't split the union over it though Bubs

1) FACT 6 - The emancipation proclamation CHANGED the focus of the civil war. Before it was about preserving the union NOT slavery. You proved that historical fact yourself - thank you.


2) Also fact: President Lincoln used the freed slaves to add colored troops in an attempt to regain the union army's strength. It's also a FACT that the proclamation prevented foreign nation's involvement into the war. Can you answer me why? No you can't.

3) WHY did the emancipation proclamation ONLY free slaves of those slaves in rebellion and NOT the north who had the rich upper class in possession of more slaves than the south?


When you can answer those wuestions above as to why the union held onto their slaves, while the proclamation ONLY affected the south states in rebellion. Then we can engage in an "intelligent" discussion about the civil war. Until then take a lesson in United States history.

 

[Coyote]

The most damning fact was not acts of individuals, but states demanding the right to own slaves and making sure the number of slave holding states equaled non-slave owning states. You can't unwind slavery from the Civil War which is what you are trying to do. It was not the ONLY cause, but it was far from being marginal.

I hate to keep bringing up facts, but here it goes.

Union Army setbacks in battles over the summer of 1862 led Lincoln to emancipate all slaves in states at war with the Union. In September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing that all slaves in rebellious states would be free as of January 1. Recruitment of colored regiments began in full force following the Proclamation of January 1863.

Again it was a strategic decision by President Lincoln who was losing a war against General Lee and the south. The emancipation provision was ONLY against those states in rebellion against the north. It doesn't come any clearer than that, you can't dispute documented historical facts. You haven't produced any facts to explain the evidence provided. WHY did president Lincoln otherwise free slaves ONLY in those states in rebellion, and not ALL slaves across the United States?

10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation


Fact #1: Lincoln actually issued the Emancipation Proclamation twice.

Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd, 1862. It stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then Proclamation would go into effect. When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863.


act #3: Lincoln’s advisors did not initially support the Emancipation Proclamation.

When President Lincoln first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet in the summer of 1862, many of the cabinet secretaries were apathetic, or worse, worried that the Proclamation was too radical. It was only Lincoln’s firm commitment to the necessity and justice of the Proclamation, along with the victory at Antietam, which finally persuaded his cabinet members to support him.


Fact #4: The Battle of Antietam (also known as Sharpsburg) provided the necessary Union victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

President Lincoln had first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet in July 1862, but Secretary of State William Seward suggested waiting for a Union victory so that the government could prove that it could enforce the Proclamation. Although the Battle of Antietam resulted in a draw, the Union army was able to drive the Confederates out of Maryland – enough of a “victory,” that Lincoln felt comfortable issuing the Emancipation just five days later.


Fact #5: The Emancipation Proclamation was a firm demonstration of the President’s executive war powers. (damn commie!)


Fact #6: The Emancipation Proclamation changed the focus of the war.

Up until September 1862, the main focus of the war had been to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim.

Fact #7: The Emancipation Proclamation helped prevent the involvement of foreign nations in the Civil War.

Fact #8: The Emancipation Proclamation paved the way for African-Americans to fight for their freedom.



Fact #9: The Emancipation Proclamation led the way to total abolition of slavery in the United States.
10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation

You just proved the civil war wasnt started over slavery, not until the emancipation proclamation was slavery even an issue. Notice how the first proclamation was against the southern states in rebellion alone - BINGO!!!! It was a strategic decision to go after the south when President Lincoln was on the verge of losing the war and his effort to preserve the union. The north had a lovelyhood that included black slaves, how could Lincoln make a statement to immediately free ALL the slaves? It was a move against the southern states to try to hurt those states and hopefully turn the tide of war, by drafting those freed slaves into the union army.

Thank you for proving my point.

Weird YOUR reading comprehension issues Bubs? Miss the link when the CONServative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa IN THEIR OWN WORDS, ADMITTED THEY LEFT THE UNION BECAUSE OF SLAVERY? Yep, Abe wouldn't split the union over it though Bubs

1) FACT 6 - The emancipation proclamation CHANGED the focus of the civil war. Before it was about preserving the union NOT slavery. You proved that historical fact yourself - thank you.


2) Also fact: President Lincoln used the freed slaves to add colored troops in an attempt to regain the union army's strength. It's also a FACT that the proclamation prevented foreign nation's involvement into the war. Can you answer me why? No you can't.

3) WHY did the emancipation proclamation ONLY free slaves of those slaves in rebellion and NOT the north who had the rich upper class in possession of more slaves than the south?


When you can answer those wuestions above as to why the union held onto their slaves, while the proclamation ONLY affected the south states in rebellion. Then we can engage in an "intelligent" discussion about the civil war. Until then take a lesson in United States history.

FACT: The focus of the war for the south was SLAVERY. The south was fighting to retain slavery.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A Gay flag, I don't think, can be construed as "racist" or even as derogatory toward any other group, it can only be viewed as pride toward your sexual orientation. I guess a Christian person (such as myself) might view it was "ungodly"... but, I don't think anyone views it as hateful...

You missed the point.

In the rant, I launched a figurative argument. How would those who bashed the Confederate flag after the shooting in Charleston react if someone called for a ban on the gay pride flag in the wake of a gay man murdering two people on live TV?

Suddenly the narrative shifted from hating one flag to defending the other. Same circumstances. Different reactions. Double standard.

I don't want to ban anything. But it was something to think about.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes - whites should be represented in higher numbers. But lets look at math and ratios.

77% of the population is white.
14% is black.

You would expect to see that same ratio on death row: 77%/14%. Instead you see a really skewed ratio of 43%/42% that is way out of line with the general population. Blacks are more than 3 times over-represented on death row.

You keep using the proportional argument. But like I said. The crime statistics say blacks commit more crimes, thus are represented more in prison populations, arrests, and death row.

Loving the fact that we are using the "blacks are over represented, therefore there must be a racist motive" argument. Just because whites make up the majority of the population doesn't mean they have to make up for that by being the majority of prison populations, killers, or death row inmates.

That's the whole thing, expectations don't mirror reality. Your expectations are rather naive "there are more whites than blacks, therefore there should be more whites than black on death row, or arrested, or..."

In 2005, the following was found in "The Color of Crime"

• 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.
• 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. Forty-five 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  
  The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)

You can see here that the high crime rate directly correlates with the high incarceration rate.

 

[ABikerSailor]

A Gay flag, I don't think, can be construed as "racist" or even as derogatory toward any other group, it can only be viewed as pride toward your sexual orientation. I guess a Christian person (such as myself) might view it was "ungodly"... but, I don't think anyone views it as hateful...

You missed the point.

In the rant, I launched a figurative argument. How would those who bashed the Confederate flag after the shooting in Charleston react if someone called for a ban on the gay pride flag in the wake of a gay man murdering two people on live TV?

Suddenly the narrative shifted from hating one flag to defending the other. Same circumstances. Different reactions. Double standard.

I don't want to ban anything. But it was something to think about.

I challenge you to show any pictures of this dude with a gay pride flag displayed in it. The Charleston shooter had several.

Additionally, if you followed the news stories, you would have seen that although he was gay, this was not a hate crime committed by a gay man over gay rights. He was a mentally disturbed person who had been fired from several jobs because he was unable to keep his temper in check, and when he was fired from the television station whose reporters he killed, he warned them that they should call the cops, and also gave a wooden crucifix to the station manager and told him that he was going to need that cross later.

He then moved into an apartment that was ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE NEWS STATION.

No, this wasn't because he was gay, it was because he was mentally disturbed.

 

[bodecea]

A Gay flag, I don't think, can be construed as "racist" or even as derogatory toward any other group, it can only be viewed as pride toward your sexual orientation. I guess a Christian person (such as myself) might view it was "ungodly"... but, I don't think anyone views it as hateful...

You missed the point.

In the rant, I launched a figurative argument. How would those who bashed the Confederate flag after the shooting in Charleston react if someone called for a ban on the gay pride flag in the wake of a gay man murdering two people on live TV?

Suddenly the narrative shifted from hating one flag to defending the other. Same circumstances. Different reactions. Double standard.

I don't want to ban anything. But it was something to think about.

Now you want to say that bashing a flag is the same as banning one?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are either confused or very stupid. It wasn't banned, it was moved. That flag wasn't moved because a guy shot a bunch of blacks. It was moved because it has been a symbol of oppression since the civil war. It was virtually forgotten until the KKK took it as a symbol, and wasn't displayed on public property until civil rights were granted. Only a racist idiot would say it was banned (again, it was not) because of roof.

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

If you don't think it was about slavery, you might want to read the declarations of session issued by the states. Here are quotes directly from the Texas and Mississippi documents. The others are easily found and quite similar.
TEXAS
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. | TSLAC
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
MISSISSIPPI
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

So the north wanted to rid this country completely of slavery? That alone is the reason the nation went into Civil War?

Let's look at the efforts of those who represent the north during the civil war.


The Civil War was fought between April 12, 1861 - April 9, 1865

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863.

Northern Generals:

William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.

U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865

I'm sure you can give me a reason WHY the northern commanders didn't give up their slaves in honor of President Lincoln's executive proclamation? Tell me.... Exactly HOW MANY UNION STATES freed and ended their participation of slavery soon after the address was made by President Lincoln? I'd really love to see your response to this in your next post. Show me your facts regarding the north and proof that they actually ended their use of slavery from among the union states soon after that executive order. Then you have proven your argument, and I will concede.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes - whites should be represented in higher numbers. But lets look at math and ratios.

77% of the population is white.
14% is black.

You would expect to see that same ratio on death row: 77%/14%. Instead you see a really skewed ratio of 43%/42% that is way out of line with the general population. Blacks are more than 3 times over-represented on death row.

You keep using the proportional argument. But like I said. The crime statistics say blacks commit more crimes, thus are represented more in prison populations, arrests, and death row.

Loving the fact that we are using the "blacks are over represented, therefore there must be a racist motive" argument. Just because whites make up the majority of the population doesn't mean they have to make up for that by being the majority of prison populations, killers, or death row inmates.

That's the whole thing, expectations don't mirror reality. Your expectations are rather naive "there are more whites than blacks, therefore there should be more whites than black on death row, or arrested, or..."

In 2005, the following was found in "The Color of Crime"

• 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.
• 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. Forty-five 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  
  The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)

You can see here that the high crime rate directly correlates with the high incarceration rate.

That's your rationale for racist policies?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I challenge you to show any pictures of this dude with a gay pride flag displayed in it.

He said he was gay. No pictures needed. And we all know what flag represents the LGBT community.

The Charleston shooter had several.

But what made the flag responsible for the murder? If I can't blame the LGBT flag for the murder, how can you blame the Confederate one for the murder in Charleston?

Additionally, if you followed the news stories, you would have seen that although he was gay, this was not a hate crime committed by a gay man over gay rights.

No, it was also racial. Black on white murder. He consistently accused his colleagues of racism and bigotry.

He was a mentally disturbed person who had been fired from several jobs because he was unable to keep his temper in check,

Yeah, we can call him mentally disturbed, or someone who committed premeditated murder.

No, this wasn't because he was gay, it was because he was mentally disturbed.

That's quite the convenient justification.

 

[BULLDOG]

You must enjoy flailing around trying to justify an unjustifiable thread. Everything you have claimed has been shot down repeatedly. Isn't there some other crazy right wing conspiracy you want to try?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are either confused or very stupid. It wasn't banned, it was moved. That flag wasn't moved because a guy shot a bunch of blacks. It was moved because it has been a symbol of oppression since the civil war. It was virtually forgotten until the KKK took it as a symbol, and wasn't displayed on public property until civil rights were granted. Only a racist idiot would say it was banned (again, it was not) because of roof.

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.

Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863.

So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.

Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.

 

[Coyote]

Yes - whites should be represented in higher numbers. But lets look at math and ratios.

77% of the population is white.
14% is black.

You would expect to see that same ratio on death row: 77%/14%. Instead you see a really skewed ratio of 43%/42% that is way out of line with the general population. Blacks are more than 3 times over-represented on death row.

You keep using the proportional argument. But like I said. The crime statistics say blacks commit more crimes, thus are represented more in prison populations, arrests, and death row.

It doesn't exactly work that way. For example, blacks are more likely to receive jail time or the death penalty than whites - for comparable crimes. This is particularly true in capital cases and research has shown that when the perpetrator is black, or the victim is white the penalty is substantially greater.

From: There's blatant inequality at nearly every phase of the criminal justice system

Black Americans are more likely to have their cars searched. Nationally, black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over and less likely to receive a reason for being stopped. In one Rhode Island study, black drivers were stopped more even though they were less likely to receive a citation.

Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug use. Police arrest black Americans for drug crimes at twice the rate of whites, according to federal data, despite the fact that whites use drugs at comparable rates and sell drugs at comparable or even higher rates.

Black Americans are more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial. A 2014 study in New York City showed that blacks were more likely than whites or nonblack minorities to be in jail while they await trial, even after controlling for the seriousness of charges and prior record. Other research suggests that this disparity is often due to the fact that black defendants cannot afford to pay bail. The temporary incarceration stigmatizes the defendant, disrupts family life and employment, and makes it harder for the defendant to prepare a defense.

Black Americans are more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes prison time. The same study in New York found that black defendants are more likely to be offered plea deals that include prison time than whites or nonblack minorities. Even after controlling for many factors, including the seriousness of charges and prior record, blacks were 13 percent more likely than whites to be offered such deals. (note - this would certainly influence crime rate statistics where a white person might get a much lighter sentence for felonies, community service, fines, no prison time or the ability to have it expunged from the record after a certain number of years).

Black Americans may be excluded from juries because of their race. Researchers found that North Carolina prosecutors were excluding black people from juries in capital cases at twice the rate of other jurors, even when controlling for legitimate justifications for striking jurors, such as employment status or reservations about the death penalty. Other studies have shown that excluding black people from juries can influence deliberations and verdicts. For example, black defendants in capital cases with white victims are less likely to receive a death sentence if there is a black juror.

Black Americans are more likely to serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offense.

A 2012 working paper found “robust evidence” that black male federal defendants were given longer sentences than comparable whites. Black men’s sentences were, on average, 10 percent longer than those of their white peers. This is partly explained by the fact that prosecutors are about twice as likely to file charges against blacks that carry mandatory minimum sentences than against whites.​

There is more in the article but all of these factors would have an effect on prison populations, skewed conviction rates and even arrest rates if blacks are more likely to have their cars searched or receive penalties for drug convictions.

Loving the fact that we are using the "blacks are over represented, therefore there must be a racist motive" argument. Just because whites make up the majority of the population doesn't mean they have to make up for that by being the majority of prison populations, killers, or death row inmates.

Placing it all under racism would be oversimplifying it - many factors influence crime rates and arrest rates, for example poverty - which effects one's ability to mount a good defense or make bail (as just one example). However, when you read the article I cited above it is also quite clear that there are racist elements involved as well: striking blacks from juries, the disproportionate representation of blacks on death row and the way death sentences are given as well as sentencing for drug crimes and the offering of plea deals.

That's the whole thing, expectations don't mirror reality. Your expectations are rather naive "there are more whites than blacks, therefore there should be more whites than black on death row, or arrested, or..."

In 2005, the following was found in "The Color of Crime"

• 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.
• 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. Forty-five 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  
  The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)

You can see here that the high crime rate directly correlates with the high incarceration rate.

The Color of Crime is a problematic resource and I question it's scholarship: New Century Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tim Wise wrote the following rebuttal to it in The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science

“A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots.”​

Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime — A Look at How Racists Do Math


Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.


To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.


But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).


As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor’s position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.


As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).


Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.​

 

[Meathead]

Yes - whites should be represented in higher numbers. But lets look at math and ratios.

77% of the population is white.
14% is black.

You would expect to see that same ratio on death row: 77%/14%. Instead you see a really skewed ratio of 43%/42% that is way out of line with the general population. Blacks are more than 3 times over-represented on death row.

You keep using the proportional argument. But like I said. The crime statistics say blacks commit more crimes, thus are represented more in prison populations, arrests, and death row.

It doesn't exactly work that way. For example, blacks are more likely to receive jail time or the death penalty than whites - for comparable crimes. This is particularly true in capital cases and research has shown that when the perpetrator is black, or the victim is white the penalty is substantially greater.

From: There's blatant inequality at nearly every phase of the criminal justice system

Black Americans are more likely to have their cars searched. Nationally, black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over and less likely to receive a reason for being stopped. In one Rhode Island study, black drivers were stopped more even though they were less likely to receive a citation.

Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug use. Police arrest black Americans for drug crimes at twice the rate of whites, according to federal data, despite the fact that whites use drugs at comparable rates and sell drugs at comparable or even higher rates.

Black Americans are more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial. A 2014 study in New York City showed that blacks were more likely than whites or nonblack minorities to be in jail while they await trial, even after controlling for the seriousness of charges and prior record. Other research suggests that this disparity is often due to the fact that black defendants cannot afford to pay bail. The temporary incarceration stigmatizes the defendant, disrupts family life and employment, and makes it harder for the defendant to prepare a defense.

Black Americans are more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes prison time. The same study in New York found that black defendants are more likely to be offered plea deals that include prison time than whites or nonblack minorities. Even after controlling for many factors, including the seriousness of charges and prior record, blacks were 13 percent more likely than whites to be offered such deals. (note - this would certainly influence crime rate statistics where a white person might get a much lighter sentence for felonies, community service, fines, no prison time or the ability to have it expunged from the record after a certain number of years).

Black Americans may be excluded from juries because of their race. Researchers found that North Carolina prosecutors were excluding black people from juries in capital cases at twice the rate of other jurors, even when controlling for legitimate justifications for striking jurors, such as employment status or reservations about the death penalty. Other studies have shown that excluding black people from juries can influence deliberations and verdicts. For example, black defendants in capital cases with white victims are less likely to receive a death sentence if there is a black juror.

Black Americans are more likely to serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offense.

A 2012 working paper found “robust evidence” that black male federal defendants were given longer sentences than comparable whites. Black men’s sentences were, on average, 10 percent longer than those of their white peers. This is partly explained by the fact that prosecutors are about twice as likely to file charges against blacks that carry mandatory minimum sentences than against whites.​

There is more in the article but all of these factors would have an effect on prison populations, skewed conviction rates and even arrest rates if blacks are more likely to have their cars searched or receive penalties for drug convictions.

Loving the fact that we are using the "blacks are over represented, therefore there must be a racist motive" argument. Just because whites make up the majority of the population doesn't mean they have to make up for that by being the majority of prison populations, killers, or death row inmates.

Placing it all under racism would be oversimplifying it - many factors influence crime rates and arrest rates, for example poverty - which effects one's ability to mount a good defense or make bail (as just one example). However, when you read the article I cited above it is also quite clear that there are racist elements involved as well: striking blacks from juries, the disproportionate representation of blacks on death row and the way death sentences are given as well as sentencing for drug crimes and the offering of plea deals.

That's the whole thing, expectations don't mirror reality. Your expectations are rather naive "there are more whites than blacks, therefore there should be more whites than black on death row, or arrested, or..."

In 2005, the following was found in "The Color of Crime"

• 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.
• 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. Forty-five 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  
  The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)

You can see here that the high crime rate directly correlates with the high incarceration rate.

The Color of Crime is a problematic resource and I question it's scholarship: New Century Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tim Wise wrote the following rebuttal to it in The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science

“A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots.”​

Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime — A Look at How Racists Do Math


Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.


To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.


But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).


As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor’s position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.


As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).


Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.​

Black Americans have to stop being so violent. A society has a right to protect itself regardless of political correctness and the self-righteousness of some of its members.

 

[Coyote]

Yes - whites should be represented in higher numbers. But lets look at math and ratios.

77% of the population is white.
14% is black.

You would expect to see that same ratio on death row: 77%/14%. Instead you see a really skewed ratio of 43%/42% that is way out of line with the general population. Blacks are more than 3 times over-represented on death row.

You keep using the proportional argument. But like I said. The crime statistics say blacks commit more crimes, thus are represented more in prison populations, arrests, and death row.

It doesn't exactly work that way. For example, blacks are more likely to receive jail time or the death penalty than whites - for comparable crimes. This is particularly true in capital cases and research has shown that when the perpetrator is black, or the victim is white the penalty is substantially greater.

From: There's blatant inequality at nearly every phase of the criminal justice system

Black Americans are more likely to have their cars searched. Nationally, black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over and less likely to receive a reason for being stopped. In one Rhode Island study, black drivers were stopped more even though they were less likely to receive a citation.

Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug use. Police arrest black Americans for drug crimes at twice the rate of whites, according to federal data, despite the fact that whites use drugs at comparable rates and sell drugs at comparable or even higher rates.

Black Americans are more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial. A 2014 study in New York City showed that blacks were more likely than whites or nonblack minorities to be in jail while they await trial, even after controlling for the seriousness of charges and prior record. Other research suggests that this disparity is often due to the fact that black defendants cannot afford to pay bail. The temporary incarceration stigmatizes the defendant, disrupts family life and employment, and makes it harder for the defendant to prepare a defense.

Black Americans are more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes prison time. The same study in New York found that black defendants are more likely to be offered plea deals that include prison time than whites or nonblack minorities. Even after controlling for many factors, including the seriousness of charges and prior record, blacks were 13 percent more likely than whites to be offered such deals. (note - this would certainly influence crime rate statistics where a white person might get a much lighter sentence for felonies, community service, fines, no prison time or the ability to have it expunged from the record after a certain number of years).

Black Americans may be excluded from juries because of their race. Researchers found that North Carolina prosecutors were excluding black people from juries in capital cases at twice the rate of other jurors, even when controlling for legitimate justifications for striking jurors, such as employment status or reservations about the death penalty. Other studies have shown that excluding black people from juries can influence deliberations and verdicts. For example, black defendants in capital cases with white victims are less likely to receive a death sentence if there is a black juror.

Black Americans are more likely to serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offense.

A 2012 working paper found “robust evidence” that black male federal defendants were given longer sentences than comparable whites. Black men’s sentences were, on average, 10 percent longer than those of their white peers. This is partly explained by the fact that prosecutors are about twice as likely to file charges against blacks that carry mandatory minimum sentences than against whites.​

There is more in the article but all of these factors would have an effect on prison populations, skewed conviction rates and even arrest rates if blacks are more likely to have their cars searched or receive penalties for drug convictions.

Loving the fact that we are using the "blacks are over represented, therefore there must be a racist motive" argument. Just because whites make up the majority of the population doesn't mean they have to make up for that by being the majority of prison populations, killers, or death row inmates.

Placing it all under racism would be oversimplifying it - many factors influence crime rates and arrest rates, for example poverty - which effects one's ability to mount a good defense or make bail (as just one example). However, when you read the article I cited above it is also quite clear that there are racist elements involved as well: striking blacks from juries, the disproportionate representation of blacks on death row and the way death sentences are given as well as sentencing for drug crimes and the offering of plea deals.

That's the whole thing, expectations don't mirror reality. Your expectations are rather naive "there are more whites than blacks, therefore there should be more whites than black on death row, or arrested, or..."

In 2005, the following was found in "The Color of Crime"

• 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.
• 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. Forty-five 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  
  The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)

You can see here that the high crime rate directly correlates with the high incarceration rate.

The Color of Crime is a problematic resource and I question it's scholarship: New Century Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tim Wise wrote the following rebuttal to it in The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science

“A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots.”​

Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime — A Look at How Racists Do Math


Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.


To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.


But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).


As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor’s position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.


As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).


Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.​

Black Americans have to stop being so violent. A society has a right to protect itself regardless of political correctness and the self-righteousness of some of its members.

Of course society has a right to protect itself. Crazy damn gunrights nuts.

 

[Meathead]

Yes - whites should be represented in higher numbers. But lets look at math and ratios.

77% of the population is white.
14% is black.

You would expect to see that same ratio on death row: 77%/14%. Instead you see a really skewed ratio of 43%/42% that is way out of line with the general population. Blacks are more than 3 times over-represented on death row.

You keep using the proportional argument. But like I said. The crime statistics say blacks commit more crimes, thus are represented more in prison populations, arrests, and death row.

It doesn't exactly work that way. For example, blacks are more likely to receive jail time or the death penalty than whites - for comparable crimes. This is particularly true in capital cases and research has shown that when the perpetrator is black, or the victim is white the penalty is substantially greater.

From: There's blatant inequality at nearly every phase of the criminal justice system

Black Americans are more likely to have their cars searched. Nationally, black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over and less likely to receive a reason for being stopped. In one Rhode Island study, black drivers were stopped more even though they were less likely to receive a citation.

Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug use. Police arrest black Americans for drug crimes at twice the rate of whites, according to federal data, despite the fact that whites use drugs at comparable rates and sell drugs at comparable or even higher rates.

Black Americans are more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial. A 2014 study in New York City showed that blacks were more likely than whites or nonblack minorities to be in jail while they await trial, even after controlling for the seriousness of charges and prior record. Other research suggests that this disparity is often due to the fact that black defendants cannot afford to pay bail. The temporary incarceration stigmatizes the defendant, disrupts family life and employment, and makes it harder for the defendant to prepare a defense.

Black Americans are more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes prison time. The same study in New York found that black defendants are more likely to be offered plea deals that include prison time than whites or nonblack minorities. Even after controlling for many factors, including the seriousness of charges and prior record, blacks were 13 percent more likely than whites to be offered such deals. (note - this would certainly influence crime rate statistics where a white person might get a much lighter sentence for felonies, community service, fines, no prison time or the ability to have it expunged from the record after a certain number of years).

Black Americans may be excluded from juries because of their race. Researchers found that North Carolina prosecutors were excluding black people from juries in capital cases at twice the rate of other jurors, even when controlling for legitimate justifications for striking jurors, such as employment status or reservations about the death penalty. Other studies have shown that excluding black people from juries can influence deliberations and verdicts. For example, black defendants in capital cases with white victims are less likely to receive a death sentence if there is a black juror.

Black Americans are more likely to serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offense.

A 2012 working paper found “robust evidence” that black male federal defendants were given longer sentences than comparable whites. Black men’s sentences were, on average, 10 percent longer than those of their white peers. This is partly explained by the fact that prosecutors are about twice as likely to file charges against blacks that carry mandatory minimum sentences than against whites.​

There is more in the article but all of these factors would have an effect on prison populations, skewed conviction rates and even arrest rates if blacks are more likely to have their cars searched or receive penalties for drug convictions.

Loving the fact that we are using the "blacks are over represented, therefore there must be a racist motive" argument. Just because whites make up the majority of the population doesn't mean they have to make up for that by being the majority of prison populations, killers, or death row inmates.

Placing it all under racism would be oversimplifying it - many factors influence crime rates and arrest rates, for example poverty - which effects one's ability to mount a good defense or make bail (as just one example). However, when you read the article I cited above it is also quite clear that there are racist elements involved as well: striking blacks from juries, the disproportionate representation of blacks on death row and the way death sentences are given as well as sentencing for drug crimes and the offering of plea deals.

That's the whole thing, expectations don't mirror reality. Your expectations are rather naive "there are more whites than blacks, therefore there should be more whites than black on death row, or arrested, or..."

In 2005, the following was found in "The Color of Crime"

• 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.
• 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. Forty-five 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  
  The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)

You can see here that the high crime rate directly correlates with the high incarceration rate.

The Color of Crime is a problematic resource and I question it's scholarship: New Century Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tim Wise wrote the following rebuttal to it in The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science

“A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots.”​

Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime — A Look at How Racists Do Math


Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.


To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.


But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).


As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor’s position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.


As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).


Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.​

Black Americans have to stop being so violent. A society has a right to protect itself regardless of political correctness and the self-righteousness of some of its members.

Of course society has a right to protect itself. Crazy damn gunrights nuts.

To be fair, not all blacks are nuts about guns. A lot of the thus are though, and a society needs to protect itself.

 

[Coyote]

Yes - whites should be represented in higher numbers. But lets look at math and ratios.

77% of the population is white.
14% is black.

You would expect to see that same ratio on death row: 77%/14%. Instead you see a really skewed ratio of 43%/42% that is way out of line with the general population. Blacks are more than 3 times over-represented on death row.

You keep using the proportional argument. But like I said. The crime statistics say blacks commit more crimes, thus are represented more in prison populations, arrests, and death row.

It doesn't exactly work that way. For example, blacks are more likely to receive jail time or the death penalty than whites - for comparable crimes. This is particularly true in capital cases and research has shown that when the perpetrator is black, or the victim is white the penalty is substantially greater.

From: There's blatant inequality at nearly every phase of the criminal justice system

Black Americans are more likely to have their cars searched. Nationally, black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over and less likely to receive a reason for being stopped. In one Rhode Island study, black drivers were stopped more even though they were less likely to receive a citation.

Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug use. Police arrest black Americans for drug crimes at twice the rate of whites, according to federal data, despite the fact that whites use drugs at comparable rates and sell drugs at comparable or even higher rates.

Black Americans are more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial. A 2014 study in New York City showed that blacks were more likely than whites or nonblack minorities to be in jail while they await trial, even after controlling for the seriousness of charges and prior record. Other research suggests that this disparity is often due to the fact that black defendants cannot afford to pay bail. The temporary incarceration stigmatizes the defendant, disrupts family life and employment, and makes it harder for the defendant to prepare a defense.

Black Americans are more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes prison time. The same study in New York found that black defendants are more likely to be offered plea deals that include prison time than whites or nonblack minorities. Even after controlling for many factors, including the seriousness of charges and prior record, blacks were 13 percent more likely than whites to be offered such deals. (note - this would certainly influence crime rate statistics where a white person might get a much lighter sentence for felonies, community service, fines, no prison time or the ability to have it expunged from the record after a certain number of years).

Black Americans may be excluded from juries because of their race. Researchers found that North Carolina prosecutors were excluding black people from juries in capital cases at twice the rate of other jurors, even when controlling for legitimate justifications for striking jurors, such as employment status or reservations about the death penalty. Other studies have shown that excluding black people from juries can influence deliberations and verdicts. For example, black defendants in capital cases with white victims are less likely to receive a death sentence if there is a black juror.

Black Americans are more likely to serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offense.

A 2012 working paper found “robust evidence” that black male federal defendants were given longer sentences than comparable whites. Black men’s sentences were, on average, 10 percent longer than those of their white peers. This is partly explained by the fact that prosecutors are about twice as likely to file charges against blacks that carry mandatory minimum sentences than against whites.​

There is more in the article but all of these factors would have an effect on prison populations, skewed conviction rates and even arrest rates if blacks are more likely to have their cars searched or receive penalties for drug convictions.

Loving the fact that we are using the "blacks are over represented, therefore there must be a racist motive" argument. Just because whites make up the majority of the population doesn't mean they have to make up for that by being the majority of prison populations, killers, or death row inmates.

Placing it all under racism would be oversimplifying it - many factors influence crime rates and arrest rates, for example poverty - which effects one's ability to mount a good defense or make bail (as just one example). However, when you read the article I cited above it is also quite clear that there are racist elements involved as well: striking blacks from juries, the disproportionate representation of blacks on death row and the way death sentences are given as well as sentencing for drug crimes and the offering of plea deals.

That's the whole thing, expectations don't mirror reality. Your expectations are rather naive "there are more whites than blacks, therefore there should be more whites than black on death row, or arrested, or..."

In 2005, the following was found in "The Color of Crime"

• 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.
• 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. Forty-five 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  
  The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)

You can see here that the high crime rate directly correlates with the high incarceration rate.

The Color of Crime is a problematic resource and I question it's scholarship: New Century Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tim Wise wrote the following rebuttal to it in The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science

“A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots.”​

Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime — A Look at How Racists Do Math


Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.


To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.


But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).


As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor’s position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.


As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).


Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.​

Black Americans have to stop being so violent. A society has a right to protect itself regardless of political correctness and the self-righteousness of some of its members.

Of course society has a right to protect itself. Crazy damn gunrights nuts.

To be fair, not all blacks are nuts about guns. A lot of the thus are though, and a society needs to protect itself.

A lot of the thus? Who's thus? Roof? Lanza? Holmes? Loughner?