JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,543
- 280
If you think crime is a local issue for the most part, why do judge Blacks by crimes committed on a national level? Give me a state by sate analysis and I might agree to some degree with your premise. I think in that case you would find that in some places Whites commit more local crimes than Blacks at all levels.The conversation was between Meathead and me. We were discussing the list he posted citing the ten most SEGREGATED cities. Off the top of my head I brought to his attention the fact that Atlanta, a black run city, was NOT on that list. In contrasting Atlanta and Detroit I noted that Atlanta was nowhere near as badly managed . Further, Atlanta is managed better than some White run cities.It's the 6th most dangerous city and you contend that means it's run well? About the only thing it's being run is into the ground. Been there lately.
My source indicates Atlanta is 9th on the list of Most Dangerous Cities in the USA. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency does not equate to poor management or governance. It is nothing like Detroit or White run failing cities like Stockton, CA. do you understand now?
Something managed so well doesn't have the 9th most dangerous ranking. They go together.
Stop trying to modify my position to give substance to your strawman. I never said Atlanta was well managed I just said it was better managed than many white run cities. If you cannot see the difference between Atlanta and Detroit or White run Stockton California, there's no benefit in continuing our conversation . BTW, your insistence that," Something managed so well doesn't have the 9th most dangerous ranking. They go together," would mean your champion of governance, Ronald Reagan, was a failure. After all, the crime rate for the entire country under his tenure was even higher than it is today.
In this article we apply age-standardization methods to the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Crime Survey (NCS) to determine whether the drop in the nation's Crime Rate from 1980 to 1988 (the Reagan period) is due to changes in the age structure of the population.
Our major findings are that the age-adjusted Crime Index increases 7% in the UCR but declines 7% in the NCS. This contrasts to a 4% drop in the crude UCR index rate and 17% drop in the crude NCS index rate. Overall, the age adjustment explains the entire drop (100% +) in the reported or crude index rate in the UCR and about 60% of the drop in the NCS. When examined over a longer period — 1976 to 1988 — the UCR shows rates that, fluctuate but tend to rise overall, whereas the NCS shows fairly stable or slightly declining rates.
The crime-fighting stance of the Reagan years which emphasized stricter enforcement and greater sanction threat (aimed mainly at street crime and drug trafficking) dramatically increased rates of imprisonment. But no discernible reduction in crime rates occurred, suggesting that no law enforcement strategy can be confidently recommended as a remedy to the nation's crime problem.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
Your Reagan example is faulty since the crime problem is a local issue for the most part and Reagan didn't govern on the local level. If you can't understand that difference, it's not wonder the black bastard birth rate is over 70%. Want to stop crime, stop the males of your kind from impregnating young girls then running off and not supporting their own damn kids.
By your logic, if middle class White people continue to leave Detroit, eventually the majority of Whites left behind will be criminals and derelicts. Ironically , that means the smaller the White population the greater criminal statistical impact they will make. Detroit's White minority population could soon have a much higher rate of crime than the majority Black population due to proportionality!