Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When a crime is committed in the US, there's much ado or speculation about the race of the individual. There's often coded language about race, religion, mental health, the weapon used, the tangled relationships or the wealth involved.
They're thugs.
They're muslim.
He's a lone wolf (e.g. crazy).
He's an irresponsible gun owner.
He got rid of her for his mistress.
He collected the life insurance.
However, the media and the population rarely (if ever?) dissect why violent crime is so decidedly, overwhelmingly male. There's often discussion over what to do about those thugs, those immigrants, those religious extremists or those guns. What gets lost, is that men, regardless of race, color, religion, creed, weapon of choice or financial standing are the principal proponents of violence.
Men are half of the population yet are charged with 73% of offenses against family and children, 77% of aggravated assault, 89% of murder and 99% of forcible rape according to 2012 FBI statistics.
Are men raised differently than women, expected (even encouraged) to be more physical?
Are hormones a driving factor?
What is it about men that prevents them from controlling violent impulses?
Is men perpetuating violence ignored because it's simply accepted as nothing exceptional?
A 20F degree day during a Wisconsin winter is nothing of note. A 68 degree day is newsworthy. Is a violent man (murderer, wife beater, rapist, child abuser) just another 20 degree day?
And really, it's some small fraction of that population; most black Americans are respectable people but there's this 1% gangbanger population that packs heat and is quick to use it.
In fact if you were to ignore this small but violent fraction of the population, our general murder rates and gun homicide rates would be only slightly above those of Canada and western Europe--in other words, not a major problem. Certainly it wouldn't justify the kind of hysterical anti-gun activists that are trying to ban all firearms. They either don't know or don't care who's doing all the shooting.
And yes, there's more violence among black and Hispanic women than among white women. It's not just gender. It's cultural, economic, and ethnic factors.
The answer to your query lies in the John Laub and Bob Sampson's "Life Course Theory of Crime."
There is a dump truck load of criminological research that shows that crime is overwhelmingly male. What John and Bob (two very accomplished criminologists, both from Chicago) showed with their research of archived Harvard research notes is that crime among both sexes begins to increase around 13-14 years of age and begins to decrease around 18 years of age, which they call 'onset and desistence.' By about 21 years of age, most offenders of both genders have desisted from offending. But their research showed that crime was overwhelmingly committed by males as opposed to females. (John calls desistance at 18 - 21 years of age the result of 'a job and the love of a good woman,' because at about age 18, men tend to graduate from high school and enter serious dyad relationships.)
BTW, their research also shows that if they are still offending at age 30, they will offend for life.
But you are correct. Every single propensity study in criminology shows that men offend in overwhelming numbers over women.
However, the media and the population rarely (if ever?) dissect why violent crime is so decidedly, overwhelmingly male.
I disagree. Mens violence is more visible in THIS society. Shootings assaults and the like. You go to other places you'll see different. Women can be extremely violent and sadistic, vicious. It's just more subtle.
I disagree. Mens violence is more visible in THIS society. Shootings assaults and the like. You go to other places you'll see different. Women can be extremely violent and sadistic, vicious. It's just more subtle.
Could you site sources or point to a society that supports your supposition? Or, is it more of a personal opinion that women are "extremely violent" when compared to men?
For example, according to Victoria Australia Police crime statistics on offenders processed for the 2013/14 reporting year:
87% of homicides were committed by men.
98% of sexual assaults were committed by men.
83% of non-sexual assaults were committed by men.
92% of abductions were committed by men.
I disagree. Mens violence is more visible in THIS society. Shootings assaults and the like. You go to other places you'll see different. Women can be extremely violent and sadistic, vicious. It's just more subtle.
These criminals, jailbirds, violent offenders are products of single mothers. Fact. You want to screw up a little boy: remove the father. But that's not politically-correct talk is it?
BTW the Koran is violent and advocates violence. Read it and find out, a short book.
This kind of mentality amounts to burying our heads in the sound and denying very real trends. Statistically, some races are more prone to violent crime than others, in the same way that men are more prone to violent crime than women. To ignore one trend in favor of the other is selective logic.
Instead of denial, it would be more worthwhile to look into the factors behind this. Culture, economics, biology, etc. Once we can pinpoint the exact causes we can work towards solutions, whether they be education, housing policy, investment into deprived neighborhoods, etc.
It's obvious that the only solution is to kill all males.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.