Reply #18: I go into defending Bennett saying it's a fantastic opportunity [View All]

[Igel]

to discuss social and public policy.

Correlation does not imply genetic predisposition. And the correlation exists, or at least existed when they reported numbers by race, even just looking at violent crimes. But it's not primarily a racial correlation: the racial aspect is secondary, because more blacks live in conditions that predispose people to criminality.

But that requires a reasoned debate. The research was done under Clinton's watch; the debate got under way, policies were promulgated and suggested. But nobody wanted them apart from a few wonks. The main effect was to remove the racial categorization from the publicly released numbers, and deny the problem exists.

Except they continue the breakdown of numbers for victims--it's ok to report violent crime disproportionately has AA victims. But to deny the crime rate correlation by community (not 'racial community', but 'geographic community') is to deny the problem, the causal relationship between conditions and crime rates resulting from decades of racism and alienation.