Michelle Alexander: White Men Get Rich from Legal Pot, Black Men Stay in Prison

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/11/27/correlation-and-causation-single-mothers-and-violent-crime/

oops. bummer. there's not even correlation.

Truth: 1

Racists and Nuts: 0

Edited March 15, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Children raised in intact families are less likely to display delinquent or antisocial behavior. They are also less likely to be victimized themselves.

• Youth Delinquency. Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to engage in delinquency than their peers living in non-intact families. Compared to peers in intact families, adolescents in single-parent families and stepfamilies were more likely to engage in delinquency. This relationship appeared to be operating through differences in family processes—parental involvement, supervision, monitoring, and parentchild closeness—between intact and non-intact families.1
• Youth Anti-social Behavior. Youths living in traditional intact families are less likely to exhibit antisocial behavior. Compared to peers living in traditional intact families (two married-biological parents), youths living in two-biological-parent blended families, twobiological- parent cohabiting families, biologicalmother- stepfather families, biological-mothercohabiting- partner families, biological-motheronly families, biological-father-cohabitingpartner families, biological-father-only families, grandparent-only families, and foster families engaged, on average, in higher levels of antisocial behavior (ranging from running away from home, being suspended from school, and substance abuse to committing minor property crime, engaging in violent behavior, and becoming arrested). This was true taking into consideration youths’ gender, race, age, and their residential and family environment.2
• Youth Property Crimes. Youths living in intact families are less likely to commit serious property crimes than peers living in singleparent families. Compared to peers in intact families, adolescents living in single-mother families were more likely to engage in delinquent acts involving serious property crimes. This was true taking into consideration adolescents’ and parents’ characteristics as well as family processes (such as parental involvement, parental supervision, parental monitoring, and parent-child closeness).3
• Youth Violent Delinquency. Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to engage in serious violent delinquency compared to peers living in non-intact families. Compared to peers in intact families, adolescents in singlemother, single-father, and mother-stepfather families were more likely to engage in serious violent delinquency, controlling for adolescents’ and parents’ characteristics as well as family processes (such as parental involvement, parental supervision, parental monitoring, and parent-child closeness).4
• Neighborhood Youth Violence. Communities with lower proportions of non-intact families tend to report lower levels of neighborhood youth violence. An increase in the proportion of single-parent families in a neighborhood was associated with a significant increase in youth violence.5
• Incarceration. Growing up without a father is associated with higher odds of incarceration later in life. Throughout childhood (from birth, infancy to age four, age five to nine, age 10 to 14, and age 15 to 17), growing up without a father was associated with higher odds of incarceration later in life. This study controlled for mother’s education, whether or not mother gave birth as a teen, race, urban and regional residence, neighborhood socioeconomic status, family income, family size, and age. Individuals who grew up in households without ever experiencing the presence of a father tended to have the highest odds of incarceration.6
• Criminal Offending. For men, marriage appears to be associated with a decreased likelihood of criminal offending. For men, marriage appeared to be significantly and negatively associated with the likelihood of criminal offending, even after taking into consideration that individuals with certain characteristics were more likely to marry than others.7
• Child Victimization. Young children living in intact families are less likely to experience child victimization. Children age two to seven living with two biological or adoptive parents were significantly less likely to experience sexual assault, child maltreatment, other types of major violence, and non-victimization type of adversity and were less likely to witness violence in their families compared to peers living in single-parent families and stepfamilies.8
• Child Victimization. Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to experience child victimization. Children age 10 to 17 living with two biological or adoptive parents were significantly less likely to experience sexual assault, child maltreatment, other types of major violence, and non-victimization type of adversity and were less likely to witness violence in their families compared to peers living in single-parent families and stepfamilies.9
• Homicide. Counties with lower proportions of non-intact families tend to experience lower rates of homicide. Counties with higher proportions of father-absent or mother-absent families tended to experience higher rates of homicide compared to counties with lower proportions of non-intact families. For example, the female homicide rate in a county with a high level of father-absent families (around 20 percent) was predicted to be 40 percent higher than a more typical county, in which 15 percent of the families had absent fathers; the male homicide rate was predicted to be 95 percent higher. Similarly, a county with a high level of mother-absent families (about 7 percent) was predicted to have a female homicide rate that was 24 percent higher and a male homicide rate that was 40 percent higher than a more typical county in which the average percent of mother-absent families was about 5 percent.10

1. Stephen Demuth and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41, No. 1 (February 2004): 58-81.
2. Robert Apel and Catherine Kaukinen, “On the Relationship between Family Structure and Antisocial Behavior: Parental Cohabitation and Blended Households,” Criminology 46, No. 1 (March 2008): 35-70.
3. Demuth, “Family Structure, “: 58-81.
4. Demuth, “Family Structure,”: 58-81.
5. Chris Knnoester and Dana L. Haynie, “Community Context, Social Integration into Family, and Youth Violence,” Journal of Marriage and Family 67, No 3. (August 2005): 767-780.
6. Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14, No. 3 (September 2004): 369-397.
7. Ryan D. King, “The Context of Marriage and Crime: Gender, the Propensity to Marry, and Offending in Early Adulthood,” Criminology 45, No. 1 (2007): 33-65.
8. Heather A. Turner, “The Effect of Lifetime Victimization on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents,” Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 62, No. 1, (January 2006), pp. 13-27.
9. Ibid.
10. Jennifer Schwartz, “Effects of Diverse Forms of Family Structure on Female and Male Homicide,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 68, No. 5 (December 2006), pp. 1291-1312.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Have you read any of the cited sources to see if the person who summarized them as you list interpreted them accurately?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Children raised in intact families are less likely to display delinquent or antisocial behavior. They are also less likely to be victimized themselves.

• Youth Delinquency. Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to engage in delinquency than their peers living in non-intact families. Compared to peers in intact families, adolescents in single-parent families and stepfamilies were more likely to engage in delinquency. This relationship appeared to be operating through differences in family processes—parental involvement, supervision, monitoring, and parentchild closeness—between intact and non-intact families.1
• Youth Anti-social Behavior. Youths living in traditional intact families are less likely to exhibit antisocial behavior. Compared to peers living in traditional intact families (two married-biological parents), youths living in two-biological-parent blended families, twobiological- parent cohabiting families, biologicalmother- stepfather families, biological-mothercohabiting- partner families, biological-motheronly families, biological-father-cohabitingpartner families, biological-father-only families, grandparent-only families, and foster families engaged, on average, in higher levels of antisocial behavior (ranging from running away from home, being suspended from school, and substance abuse to committing minor property crime, engaging in violent behavior, and becoming arrested). This was true taking into consideration youths’ gender, race, age, and their residential and family environment.2
• Youth Property Crimes. Youths living in intact families are less likely to commit serious property crimes than peers living in singleparent families. Compared to peers in intact families, adolescents living in single-mother families were more likely to engage in delinquent acts involving serious property crimes. This was true taking into consideration adolescents’ and parents’ characteristics as well as family processes (such as parental involvement, parental supervision, parental monitoring, and parent-child closeness).3
• Youth Violent Delinquency. Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to engage in serious violent delinquency compared to peers living in non-intact families. Compared to peers in intact families, adolescents in singlemother, single-father, and mother-stepfather families were more likely to engage in serious violent delinquency, controlling for adolescents’ and parents’ characteristics as well as family processes (such as parental involvement, parental supervision, parental monitoring, and parent-child closeness).4
• Neighborhood Youth Violence. Communities with lower proportions of non-intact families tend to report lower levels of neighborhood youth violence. An increase in the proportion of single-parent families in a neighborhood was associated with a significant increase in youth violence.5
• Incarceration. Growing up without a father is associated with higher odds of incarceration later in life. Throughout childhood (from birth, infancy to age four, age five to nine, age 10 to 14, and age 15 to 17), growing up without a father was associated with higher odds of incarceration later in life. This study controlled for mother’s education, whether or not mother gave birth as a teen, race, urban and regional residence, neighborhood socioeconomic status, family income, family size, and age. Individuals who grew up in households without ever experiencing the presence of a father tended to have the highest odds of incarceration.6
• Criminal Offending. For men, marriage appears to be associated with a decreased likelihood of criminal offending. For men, marriage appeared to be significantly and negatively associated with the likelihood of criminal offending, even after taking into consideration that individuals with certain characteristics were more likely to marry than others.7
• Child Victimization. Young children living in intact families are less likely to experience child victimization. Children age two to seven living with two biological or adoptive parents were significantly less likely to experience sexual assault, child maltreatment, other types of major violence, and non-victimization type of adversity and were less likely to witness violence in their families compared to peers living in single-parent families and stepfamilies.8
• Child Victimization. Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to experience child victimization. Children age 10 to 17 living with two biological or adoptive parents were significantly less likely to experience sexual assault, child maltreatment, other types of major violence, and non-victimization type of adversity and were less likely to witness violence in their families compared to peers living in single-parent families and stepfamilies.9
• Homicide. Counties with lower proportions of non-intact families tend to experience lower rates of homicide. Counties with higher proportions of father-absent or mother-absent families tended to experience higher rates of homicide compared to counties with lower proportions of non-intact families. For example, the female homicide rate in a county with a high level of father-absent families (around 20 percent) was predicted to be 40 percent higher than a more typical county, in which 15 percent of the families had absent fathers; the male homicide rate was predicted to be 95 percent higher. Similarly, a county with a high level of mother-absent families (about 7 percent) was predicted to have a female homicide rate that was 24 percent higher and a male homicide rate that was 40 percent higher than a more typical county in which the average percent of mother-absent families was about 5 percent.10

1. Stephen Demuth and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41, No. 1 (February 2004): 58-81.
2. Robert Apel and Catherine Kaukinen, “On the Relationship between Family Structure and Antisocial Behavior: Parental Cohabitation and Blended Households,” Criminology 46, No. 1 (March 2008): 35-70.
3. Demuth, “Family Structure, “: 58-81.
4. Demuth, “Family Structure,”: 58-81.
5. Chris Knnoester and Dana L. Haynie, “Community Context, Social Integration into Family, and Youth Violence,” Journal of Marriage and Family 67, No 3. (August 2005): 767-780.
6. Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14, No. 3 (September 2004): 369-397.
7. Ryan D. King, “The Context of Marriage and Crime: Gender, the Propensity to Marry, and Offending in Early Adulthood,” Criminology 45, No. 1 (2007): 33-65.
8. Heather A. Turner, “The Effect of Lifetime Victimization on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents,” Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 62, No. 1, (January 2006), pp. 13-27.
9. Ibid.
10. Jennifer Schwartz, “Effects of Diverse Forms of Family Structure on Female and Male Homicide,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 68, No. 5 (December 2006), pp. 1291-1312.

You ought to reveal your sources. What you're quoting here is an offspring of Jim DeMint's Heritage Foundation. Folks with a rather strong agenda. Not the kind of source that will provide you with much in terms of actual facts. Don't think so? Well, they says so quite openly themselves: Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Well, no you did not, because I just found your #6 and read the abstract. In FACT, the abstract says the EXACT OPPOSITE thing.

Father Absence and Youth Incarceration

Cynthia C. Harper

University of California San Francisco

Sara S. McLanahan

Princeton University

This study measured the likelihood of youth incarceration among adolescent males from father-absent households, using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (N5 34,031 person-years). At baseline, the adolescents ranged from 14 to 17 years, and the incarceration outcome measure spanned ages 15 to 30 years. This study tested whether risk factors concentrated in father-absent households explained the apparent effects of father absence. Results from longitudinal event-history analysis showed that although a sizable portion of the risk that appeared to be due to father absence could actually be attributed to other factors, such as teen motherhood, low parent education, racial inequalities, and poverty, adolescents in father-absent households still faced elevated incarceration risks. The adolescents who faced the highest incarceration risks, however, were those in stepparent families, including father–stepmother families. Coresidential grandparents may help attenuate this risk, although remarriage and residential instability increased it. Social policies to support children should broaden beyond an emphasis on marriage to address the risks faced by adolescents living in stepfamilies as well.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

You ought to reveal your sources. What you're quoting here is an offspring of Jim DeMint's Heritage Foundation. Folks with a rather strong agenda. Not the kind of source that will provide you with much in terms of actual facts. Don't think so? Well, they says so quite openly themselves: Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Links are posted, and everything has footnotes. I know you libs don't have an agenda. Just all straightforward denial.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Links are posted, and everything has footnotes. I know you libs don't have an agenda. Just all straightforward denial.

Links are posted? Where? You did most certainly not post a link to your source in the post into which you pasted what you copied from said source.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Links are posted? Where? You did most certainly not post a link to your source in the post into which you pasted what you copied from said source.

Since you don't click links and just shoot from the hip, the link appears here. I thought it would help to post it though you may need someone to help you read it:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/485715-michelle-alexander-white-men-get-rich-from-legal-pot-black-men-stay-in-prison/?p=6882038

Edited March 15, 2014 by ExExpat

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Since you don't click links and just shoot from the hip, the link appears here. I thought it would help to post it though you may need someone to help you read it:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/485715-michelle-alexander-white-men-get-rich-from-legal-pot-black-men-stay-in-prison/?p=6882038

You may want to save your stupid insults. I actually quoted from one of the links posted previously. Went right over your head, yes? Be that as it may, you clearly failed to provide the link to the blurb you pasted into the post above. So you pasted numerous links in previous posts. That does not correct the error you made when you posted material from a source without providing a link to said source.

[Karee 4,191]

For the almost two decades that I have lived in this country, I keep hearing - year after year - how crime is in decline. And yet prisons are filling up at a rapid pace. Shouldn't there be fewer incarcerations if there is ever less crime committed? Something doesn't add up. And if you're going to tel me that we have less crime because we incarcerate more, that old hat has long been debunked, too. Now what?

From your link:

“It seems like the more we expand the prison system, the fewer benefits we get in terms of crime reduction,” says Marc Mauer, one of the authors of the study released today by the Sentencing Project, a research group that advocates alternatives to incarceration.

[Karee 4,191]

oops. bummer. there's not even correlation.

Truth: 1

Racists and Nuts: 0

I can post some graphs as well:

By looking at the above graphs, one could surmise that the violent crime rate is down due to the rise in firearm ownership as well as the level of criminals that are locked up, and unable to commit crimes.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Janelle is back in the house! We've missed you sister. I stayed out of this thread because as a kid raised by his mom only, I know it's more about your personal decisions rather and which path you choose to take.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Conservative source alert!!

These graphs depict individual and family responsibility. Anything that does not point to white people and US government responsibility has no merit! Find another source.

I can post some graphs as well:

By looking at the above graphs, one could surmise that the violent crime rate is down due to the rise in firearm ownership as well as the level of criminals that are locked up, and unable to commit crimes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can post some graphs as well:

By looking at the above graphs, one could surmise that the violent crime rate is down due to the rise in firearm ownership as well as the level of criminals that are locked up, and unable to commit crimes.

Problem with your surmise is that while there are indeed more firearms in the population, firearm ownership rates are actually down. That means that a smaller share of the population owns more firearms. That's not a rise in firearm ownership, that's the gun aficionados stockpiling firearms while a growing part of Americans actually stays away from firearms. The second part of your surmise, again, was shown to be incorrect already. But nice try. Thanks for playing.

[LibCampFireClub 635]