In Module 4, you interacted with content about rates of justice involvement (as victims and offenders) across races and ethnicity.? Part 1:? What statistic or statistics that you r

RACE, ETHNICITY, VICTIMIZATION, AND OFFENDING

Perception versus reality

Different sources of data

Intraracial versus interracial

Implications of racial disparities

OVERVIEW

• The media and perceptions of crime

• The “typical” victim and “typical” offender

• What do the data say?

• Victimization surveys

• The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

• Offending data

• The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)

• Self-report data

• Intra versus interracial crime

PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME

• Many factors shape how we think about crime and justice

• One factor is media portrayals of crime and offenders

• Media exerts a potentially powerful influence on public perceptions

• Unfortunately, the image the media creates is often wildly distorted

• Portray violent crime more than property crime

• Suggest ever-rising crime rates

• Some types of crimes, offenders, and/or victims capture more attention

• Racial hoaxes

• When someone fabricates a crime or falsely blames someone based on race/ethnicity

• Most racial hoaxes involve whites blaming African Americans

PERCEPTIONS V. EMPIRICAL REALITIES

Media Portrayals

• Typically focused on violent crime

• Often portray crime as an interracial

event with a white victim

• Often emphasize “gang” involvement

Empirical Data

• More than 80% of crimes reported to

the police are property crimes

• A disproportionate number of crime

victims are persons of color

• Crime is predominately intraracial

• Not all group activity is gang activity

DATA LIMITATIONS

• Unfortunately, available data suffer from several limitations

• Limited data on certain groups/types of crime

• Most data compares Whites and Blacks

• Hispanic/Latinx data slowly increasing

• Racial/ethnic categories may vary across jurisdictions

• White versus nonwhite dichotomy

• Lumps all “non-whites” together

• Assumes homogeneity within groups

• Data suited for description, not establishing causality

• Can tell us differences exist, but not why they exist in many cases

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND VICTIMIZATION

EXAMINING

DISPARITIES

NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY (NCVS)

• Most systematic source of victimization information in the U.S.

• Household survey designed to be representative of the entire nation

• Persons aged 12 and older are surveyed

• Survey conducted every 6 months; households surveyed for 3 years

• Information collected

• Victim info; victim perceptions of offender characteristics; context of the event

• Data restricted to selected major crimes

• Race and ethnicity self-reported at household and individual level

• White, African American, and “other”

• Hispanic and non-Hispanic

• Captures crime/victimization data not necessarily reported to the police

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF VICTIMIZATION

• Victimization is widespread

• NCVS estimates roughly 20 million victimizations a year (about 18.6 in 2019)

• 2019 violent victimization rate = 21.0 per 1,000 (7.3 per 1,000 excluding simple assault)

• 2019 property victimization rate = 101.4 per 1,000

• Victimization is not evenly distributed

NCVS FINDINGS BY RACE & ETHNICITY

• Household victimization (2014)

• Hispanic households experience highest rate of property victimization

• African American households more vulnerable than white households

• Personal victimization (2014)

• African Americans more likely than other groups to be crime victims

• Hispanics less likely to be assaulted

• Violent Victimization Rates (VVRs) fluctuate over time and across race/ethnicity

• VVR (per 1,000 individuals 12 or older) trends across time and race/ethnicity from NCVS

2004 2012 2013 2014

White 28.5 25.2 22.2 23.1

Black/African American 30.2 34.2 25.1 27.8

Hispanic/Latino 20.1 24.5 24.8 21.3

American Indian/Alaska Native 165.6 46.9 56.3

Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 11.3 16.4 7.0

VICTIMIZATION (CONT’D)

• Victimization varies across time, place, demographics, social class, etc.

• Many victims are victimized repeatedly

• Urbanization is a risk factor for victimization

• Victimization rates for all groups highest in urban areas and lowest in rural areas

• Urban residents 29% of the U.S. population; 38% of all crime victimizations

• Whites and Blacks have similar rates of victimization in suburban and rural areas

• Black victimization rates higher in urban areas

• Lifetime likelihood of victimization

• About 5 out of 6 people will be the victim of a violent crime in their lifetime

• Nearly everybody will be a victim of property crime at some point

• Blacks nearly twice as likely to be robbed than whites

Koppel, 1987; Duhart, 2000

HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION

• Largest racial differences in victimization are for homicide

• Supplemental Homicide Reports (2014)

• African Americans (about 15% of the population) comprised approximately 51.6% of all

homicide victims

• 45.7% of homicide victims were White, 21% were Hispanic

• Risk of homicide victimization significantly higher for Blacks

• Homicide victimization rates have decreased for all groups since the 1990’s

• In 2011, African Americans were six times more likely to be murdered than whites

• 17.3 per 100,000 population compared to 2.8 per 100,000 population

• Especially high rates for Black males

• 7 to 8 times the rate for white males

VICTIMIZATION SUMMARY

• Inaccurate portrayal of “typical” crime victims

• Victimization counts versus victimization rates

• People of color more likely to be victims of many types of crime

• Especially violent crimes (e.g., robbery and homicide)

• NCVS data suggest that urbanization plays an important role

• All groups have higher rates of victimization in urban areas

• Much of the black-white difference occurs in urban areas

• Homicide victimization rates especially high for Black males

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND OFFENDING

COMPARING

SOURCES OF DATA

THE “TYPICAL” OFFENDER?

• Many Americans associate crime with people/communities of color

• Numerous factors may drive this perception

• Focus of media, politicians, and CJ policy makers on “street crimes”

• Crimes for which African Americans are arrested at disproportionately high rates

• Personal experiences; vicarious experiences; and media portrayals

• Heavy reliance on arrest statistics

• Differential involvement v. differential treatment

• Three primary sources of crime data

• Arrest statistics; victimization surveys; self-report surveys

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND CRIME

• The relationship between race, ethnicity, and crime is complex and

controversial

• Official data indicate disproportionate minority involvement

• Especially in more serious, violent crimes (e.g., homicide, robbery)

• Other sources of data (e.g., self-reports) indicate smaller disparities

• Race and crime as social constructs

• Racial invariance thesis

• The causes of crime are the same for all races; differences in crime rates explained by

differential exposure to the causes of crime (e.g., structural disadvantage)

EXPLAINING RACIAL DISPARITIES

• Three primary explanations

• Differential behavior/involvement

• People of color commit more crimes than whites

• People of color commit different types/more serious crimes than whites

• Differential treatment

• People of color are treated differently than whites in the CJS

• E.g., more likely to be stopped by police; more likely to be arrested; more likely to be sentenced to

incarceration; sentenced more harshly

• Combination of differential behavior and differential treatment

• A significant portion of racial disparities can be explained by legal factors (i.e., involvement)

• Direct and/or indirect discrimination also contributes to racial disparities (i.e., treatment)

OFFICIAL ARREST DATA

• Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) are primary source

• Compiled annually since 1930 by the FBI

• Compiles reports from over 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the country

• UCR limitations

• Only includes data on offenders whose crimes result in arrest

• Many crimes are never reported to the police (the “Dark Figure” of crime)

• Fewer than half of all violent victimizations are reported to the police (NCVS)

• Many reported crimes do not result in an arrest

• UCR (2017) clearance rates by index offense:

• Murder = 61.6%; Rape = 34.5%; Robbery = 29.7%; Aggravated Assault = 53.3%

• Burglary = 13.5%; Larceny-theft = 19.2%; Motor vehicle theft = 13.7%

Offense charged Total White

Black or

African

American

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native Asian

Native

Hawaiian

or Other

Pacific

Islander Total2

Hispanic

or

Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

TOTAL 7,710,900 69.0 27.4 2.1 1.2 0.2 6,343,684 18.8 81.2

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 8,957 44.1 53.3 1.2 1.0 0.3 7,050 20.9 79.1

Rape3 18,776 68.1 28.6 1.4 1.5 0.3 15,316 26.7 73.3

Robbery 66,789 43.5 54.2 1.0 1.0 0.4 57,048 22.5 77.5

Aggravated assault 298,040 61.9 33.7 2.3 1.7 0.4 254,614 25.6 74.4

Burglary 134,542 68.1 29.4 1.2 1.1 0.2 114,027 20.3 79.7

Larceny-theft 669,983 66.9 30.0 1.8 1.1 0.2 540,174 14.5 85.5

Motor vehicle theft 69,002 64.5 32.3 1.7 1.2 0.3 56,263 25.6 74.4

Arson 6,946 71.1 25.1 2.0 1.5 0.4 5,790 18.2 81.8

Violent crime4 392,562 58.7 37.4 2.0 1.6 0.4 334,028 25.0 75.0

Property crime4 880,473 66.9 30.1 1.7 1.1 0.2 716,254 16.3 83.7

Other assaults 794,787 64.4 32.0 2.0 1.3 0.3 654,150 19.1 80.9

Forgery and counterfeiting 37,724 66.6 30.8 0.9 1.5 0.2 31,565 16.8 83.2

Fraud 89,610 65.4 31.7 1.6 1.2 0.2 74,521 12.9 87.1

Embezzlement 11,174 62.0 35.4 1.1 1.4 0.1 9,252 12.9 87.1

Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing 69,874 63.2 33.9 1.3 1.2 0.5 57,379 19.7 80.3

Vandalism 134,794 67.6 28.8 2.2 1.2 0.2 112,716 19.1 80.9

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc. 126,332 54.4 43.3 0.9 1.1 0.3 100,312 23.6 76.4

Prostitution and commercialized vice 23,502 55.0 38.8 0.4 5.6 0.3 21,484 20.4 79.6

Sex offenses (except rape and prostitution) 35,157 72.1 23.9 1.7 2.1 0.2 28,928 25.6 74.4

Drug abuse violations 1,234,178 70.6 27.0 1.1 1.1 0.2 1,044,789 20.3 79.7

Gambling 2,465 40.6 48.6 0.4 8.3 2.1 1,390 24.5 75.5

Offenses against the family and children 64,357 67.4 28.8 2.9 0.8 0.1 51,589 11.6 88.4

Driving under the influence 736,644 81.2 14.8 1.8 1.9 0.3 604,136 24.4 75.6

Liquor laws 128,453 78.4 14.6 5.4 1.5 0.1 102,624 15.6 84.4

Drunkenness 251,490 76.8 15.0 6.9 1.1 0.2 233,325 22.5 77.5

Disorderly conduct 248,716 63.7 31.4 3.9 0.8 0.1 186,261 13.2 86.8

Vagrancy 18,048 71.0 24.7 2.7 1.4 0.1 16,649 15.4 84.6

All other offenses (except traffic) 2,413,408 69.1 27.5 2.3 1.0 0.2 1,947,281 16.3 83.7

Suspicion 432 54.9 29.9 15.0 0.2 0.0 390 3.8 96.2

Curfew and loitering law violations 16,720 56.0 41.0 1.6 1.1 0.3 14,661 20.7 79.3

UCR Arrests by Race/Ethnicity 2018

COMPARING ARRESTS TO OTHER SOURCES

• Comparing arrest rates to victim reports

• Table 2.6 (p. 78) in Walker et al. – African Americans arrested at higher rates than their

perceived perpetration as reported by victims

• Hindelang (1978) also found differences between arrest rates and victim reports

• Found some evidence of victim-based selection bias and system selection bias, but found most

support for differential involvement

• Self-Reported Offending

• Self-reports avoid the bias of criminal justice selection

• Race differences considerably smaller in self-report studies

• However, some research finds differential validity across race

• African Americans may underreport serious offending

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND DRUG USE

• Media image of a user is a person of color?

• Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey

• Survey of 12th grade youth

• African American 12th grade youth report the lowest use of all licit and illicit drugs reviewed

• Whites had the highest reported use rates for drugs including Marijuana, powder cocaine,

inhalants, LSD, ecstasy, OxyContin and Ritalin

• Hispanic 12th graders report the highest use rates for crystal meth and heroin

• Crack use rates are highest among 12th grade Hispanics, followed by whites and blacks

• No clear picture of a “typical drug user”

• Racial crossover effect?

INTRA V. INTERRACIAL CRIME

• NCVS data reports on race of victim and victim’s perception of offender’s race

• Roughly 75% of of violent crimes committed by whites were against whites

• High rate of intraracial victimization also reported by blacks

• Supplemental Homicide Reports (1980-2008)

• 93% of AA victims slain by other AA’s

• 84% of whites killed by other whites

• Asians and Native Americans more likely to be victims of interracial homicide

• Some researchers challenge claim that crime is primarily intraracial

• Whites more likely to be victimized by blacks than blacks by whites

HATE CRIMES

• Not all interracial crimes are “hate crimes”

• Hate crimes require an element of prejudice based on race/ethnicity, national origin,

religion, sexual orientation, or disability (some jurisdictions include gender)

• FBI Hate Crime Data Collection Program

• In 2018, more than 7,000 hate crimes were reported to the FBI

• Most of these hate crimes (4,047 cases) related to Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry bias

• Not valid measure of national or regional volume

• NCVS

• 2000-2003 = Average of 191,000 hates crimes per year; 92,000 (44%) reported to

police

• 3% of all violent crime was conditioned with hate

OFFENDING SUMMARY

• The myth of the “typical” offender

• Rates of offending vary across offense types and data sources

• Most offenders are white; Blacks are disproportionately involved

• African Americans disproportionately involved in serious violent offending

• Extent of disproportionality depends on data source

• More pronounced in arrest data; followed by victim reports; and lowest in self-reports

• Differential involvement versus differential treatment

• Stereotype of African American drug user challenged by data

• Crime is most often an intraracial event

• Hate crimes are rare (<3%) but often involve race

WHAT DO/DON’T THE DATA SAY?

• Descriptive data may raise more questions than answers

• Identify differences, but cannot answer questions about causality

• What accounts for observed differences?

• All data have limitations/inherent biases

• Some things these data can’t answer

• Questions about individuals within groups (ecological fallacy)

• Questions about the experiences of people in the CJS

• Questions about causality

• Broad descriptive data answer very few of our social research questions

• Need to dig deeper, collect/analyze richer data to better understand complex social issues

such as, race, ethnicity, victimization, offending, and criminal justice system processing

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF RACIAL DISPARITIES

• Reinforcement of existing stereotypes

• E.g., African Americans as violence prone

• Again, differences do not imply causality

• Negative impact on perceived legitimacy (Rocque, 2011)

• Racial and ethnic minorities often perceive the CJS as less legitimate than whites

• Lower levels of perceived legitimacy may increase racial disparities

• People of color perceive less legitimacy of law/law enforcement and therefore are more

likely to violate the law/have negative experiences with LEOs

• Further destabilization of impoverished communities

• Mass incarceration, even if justified by legal factors, may contribute to more crime