Do you agree that there is a higher rate of black on black crime vs any other intra-racial crime?
First off, we're conflating "crime rate" with "propensity to commit crime." Those two concepts are not interchangeable.
But let's go with your assumption here, just for clarity's sake; do "Blacks" commit crime against other "Blacks" at a higher rate than any other race?
Well, nationally? I suppose this
might be true.. But what data do you we have to suggest it is?
How many "races" of people really live
throughout the United States? In actuality, not many. Asians are not prevalent throughout America, neither are Arab-Americans, Native-Americans, Arab-Americans, etc... So essentially the question as posed is ridiculous.
Instead, look at local regions of populations.
Let's take four examples, with actually racially diverse (not racially polar) populations:
Hawaii, a state I know well, has a 4% African-American population. There are no African-American inner-cities; African-Americans represent 4% of the prison population. One qualifier I'd like to add: the majority of law enforcement, prosecutors and judges in Hawaii are Asian-Americans. There is no disparity here with respect to African-Americans in Hawaii; however, disparity does exist.
Native Hawaiians, in Hawaii, were recorded as accounting for 29% of crimes reported while only being 10% of the population. This speaks to the plight of indigenous people. More aptly, Native-Americans, where they live, can be described in a similar manner.
So no, by looking at Hawaii where there is a great deal of races to compare the question asked would be false.
However, let's contrast that with Vermont. Vermont has a ~1% African-American population, however, as of today almost 10% of Vermont's prison population is African-American - that's a startling disparity. Why is that the case? Was it always the case? In 1997, Vermont's African-American population was roughly the same, but it's prison population was also ~1%. In 2005, the prison population was ~3%. In 2015, the prison population was ~10%.
What accounts for the change? Vermont passed a series of tough on crime / war on drugs bills that resulted in disproportionate stops, charges, and convictions of African-Americans compared to Whites. A study was done of 50,000 traffic stops that showed a pattern of disproportionality to criminal law enforcement, charging and convictions.
Moving on, let's discuss California, where I live now. California has roughly a ~7% "Black" population but doesn't count biracial and multiracial individuals as "Black" so the number is thought to be significantly higher. In essence, I am not considered "Black" in California. Also, self-identification as Black is less common here than it might be in other less ethnically diverse and less liberal, for lack of a better term, areas. So someone who is half-White and half-Black, if they are very light, might identify as "biracial" or "other." Beyond that, there are several hundred thousand "Black" hispanics in California. So in general, the true "Black" population here is unknown, but likely is between 8-10%.
So let's talk crime in California. 16.6% of crimes committed in California are by "Blacks." That's between 1.6-2x disproportionate, depending upon what is "Black" with respect to population. But African-Americans are also 2-2.5x more likely to live in poverty.
Beyond that, there is a much more important factor here...
Remember, 16.6% of crimes committed in California are committed by "Blacks?"
Yet, Blacks were
5x more likely to be incarcerated for a crime than non-White Hispanics and
10x more likely to be incarcerated for a crime than White non-Hispanics. When you factor in recidivism and the very extreme laws against felons in California, it's pretty easy to identify the disparity here.
For the fourth example, instead of looking at a single state, let's look at 8 (+1) states at a glance and talk about disparity.
First, let's look at Iowa, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Wisconsin; we'll call these states Group A. These states all have an average of ~12x the Black/White incarceration rate.
Compare that to Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas; we'll call these states Group B. These states all have an average of ~3.5x the Black/White incarceration rate.
What's the difference between these groups, and how does that difference account for a massive three-fold difference in incarceration rates?
Well, Group A is more liberal, more affluent, and has a higher median income for all it's residents, including African-Americans. Group A also has higher standards of education across the board. Shouldn't they have lower incarceration rates?
The only difference, where we find massive correlation (as in, greater than the next contributor by an order of magnitude), is amount of Blacks in each state and where they live in each state.
Group B, the more conservative, Southern, poorer, less affluent states, have substantially larger Black populations. When we look at county data in a states like Misssissippi, Alabama and Georgia, this becomes obvious. In counties with
historically majority Black populations, the incarceration rates for Blacks are not disproportionate.
So the primary component here
is race, but not with respect to crime committed, but with respect to how likely someone is to be imprisoned for a given crime. There is still disparity, but that disparity is massively reduced in environments where Blacks are not victims of discrimination. This also speaks to liberal racism, which is another topic in and of itself.
And disregarding your personal beliefs on whether one should be married when they have children or not, do you agree that there is a higher incidence of out of wedlock pregnancies among African-Americans?
Yes. It is statistically equivalent to that of Native Americans 72%-69%. Again, socioeconomic factors are more relevant here, for these two races of people and for obvious reasons I think, than racial issues. When dealing with Latino people, the question of religious adherence is far more relevant. When dealing with Whites, education and opportunity as well as stable environments, housing, and access to credit / finances is more relevant.
So the incidence exists, but it's not meaningful without context.
Do you disagree that children raised without a father present are more likely to struggle psychologically than those that are raised with a strong father figure present?
Upon first approximation, yes, I'd disagree with the claim. I think the assertion is not scientifically sound.
Do you believe that fathers abandoning their children affect the children psychologically as they grow up?
Yes. But demonstrative "abandoning," as you put it, isn't present in any data that I know of.
Do you believe that a father's decision to abandon their children affects the mindset and opportunities of the children and the mother of those children?
Again you use the term "abandon" and I'm honestly confused with how to answer that.
I don't think the majority of children in single-parent homes have been abandoned. I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you believe that on the whole, people's personalities and decision-making are reflective of the way they are raised?
Yes, absolutely.
