Crime Rises in Medford

[broadzilla]

In 2006, for example, 3,190 thefts were reported. By 2012, thefts had risen to 3,885. Robberies climbed from 42 in 2006 to 70 in 2012. There were 1,039 assaults in 2006; 1,580 in 2012

There were 1,914 drug-related offenses reported in 2012, a 73 percent increase over the 1,105 offenses reported in 2006

In 2006, one homicide was reported, along with 1,039 assaults. Those numbers rose to five homicides and 1,580 assaults for 2012.

Drug addiction is an expensive habit, one that leads to theft as addicts search for ways to pay. In 2006, Medford saw 493 burglary cases, 3,190 thefts, 42 robberies and 203 car thefts. In 2012, there were 502 burglaries, 3,885 thefts, 70 robberies and 247 car thefts.

What's missing, though, is the population increase numbers.
What was the population in 2006 compared to 2012?

I agree that these numbers are important to understand the issue. Would you agree that the ethnicity percentages of the new members of the population might also be a necessary tool?

To answer your query...from diversitydata.org....

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS AND DIVERSITY:
Population by Race/Ethnicity

2000 2010
Hispanic 12,126 21,745 (79.32% increase)
Non-Hispanic White 160,795 170,023 (5.74% increase)
Non-Hispanic Black 674 1,227 (82.05% increase)
Non-Hispanic American Indian 1,782 1,874 (5.16% increase)
Non-Hispanic Other Race 198 229 (15.66% increase)
Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial 3,820 5,242 (37.23% increase)
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pac. Islander 1,874 2,866 (52.93% increase)

In looking at the numbers compared to the 18% overall population increase, the trend is that there has been a very large influx of Hispanics, Blacks, and Pacific Islanders.

What does this say about crime in our area?


(note: red highlighting to emphasize higher increases than the general population increase of 18%.)

What does this say about crime in our area?

It says yer about to get called a racist

Probably...but I'm not...I am going strictly by the numbers. Not my fault the numbers are racist.

[broadzilla]

Pretty much.

Or at least xenophobic.

Clone said that you have to know population increases.
Larry said that we might look at population increases in different ethnicities.

I am just giving you all the numbers. You can read them whatever way you like.
It's not my fault that the greatest increases in population were in the categories of Hispanic/Black/Pacific Islander.

[tvguy]

I thought it odd that when discussing reasons for the rise in crime in this article, no one mentioned the high unemployment and lack of jobs.
Poverty can lead to hopelessness and hopelessness can lead to more substance abuse and crime in general.

I'm sure that is a factor but I don't think it's any where near a cause for the rise in crime as the simple fact that there is more meth coming in now than ever before.

The drug cartels have found new ways to make better meth than ever and on a HUGE scale. In what they call "SUPER labs".
This shit is now coming in to this country in huge quantities like never before.
They are making this stuff by the TON. Earlier this year in Mexico there was a bust in Mexico where they confiscated 15 tons of pure meth.

Wow. Interesting, albeit discouraging and startling numbers.
I heard a person last week on our local radio station (I live in Jo. Co.) talking about the stated facts that Oregon is number one in drug abuse in the country and Josephine County is number one in Oregon. (something to be proud of, eh????) But, according this person, opioid drugs are the biggest culprit in Jo. Co., although I would think Pot would be right up there as well.
That said, I know that Meth is rampant as well. I didn't verify this information, but found it interesting none the less.

I don't have any stats but I remember reading lately that there is also a huge increase in Heroin use.

Yes, that is what I am hearing as well. The person on the radio show said there are 150 people a day driving to Medford to use the Methadone clinic. And, I am sure it is safe to assume there are about 3 times that many that are not seeking treatment via the clinic.
As she put it, many are starting out on Vicodin or other such opioid, and then finding heroin to be cheaper, so getting into that.

Also The amount of prescription drug abuse is at an all time high.

[Larry]

In 2006, for example, 3,190 thefts were reported. By 2012, thefts had risen to 3,885. Robberies climbed from 42 in 2006 to 70 in 2012. There were 1,039 assaults in 2006; 1,580 in 2012

There were 1,914 drug-related offenses reported in 2012, a 73 percent increase over the 1,105 offenses reported in 2006

In 2006, one homicide was reported, along with 1,039 assaults. Those numbers rose to five homicides and 1,580 assaults for 2012.

Drug addiction is an expensive habit, one that leads to theft as addicts search for ways to pay. In 2006, Medford saw 493 burglary cases, 3,190 thefts, 42 robberies and 203 car thefts. In 2012, there were 502 burglaries, 3,885 thefts, 70 robberies and 247 car thefts.

What's missing, though, is the population increase numbers.
What was the population in 2006 compared to 2012?

I agree that these numbers are important to understand the issue. Would you agree that the ethnicity percentages of the new members of the population might also be a necessary tool?

To answer your query...from diversitydata.org....

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS AND DIVERSITY:
Population by Race/Ethnicity

2000 2010
Hispanic 12,126 21,745 (79.32% increase)
Non-Hispanic White 160,795 170,023 (5.74% increase)
Non-Hispanic Black 674 1,227 (82.05% increase)
Non-Hispanic American Indian 1,782 1,874 (5.16% increase)
Non-Hispanic Other Race 198 229 (15.66% increase)
Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial 3,820 5,242 (37.23% increase)
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pac. Islander 1,874 2,866 (52.93% increase)

In looking at the numbers compared to the 18% overall population increase, the trend is that there has been a very large influx of Hispanics, Blacks, and Pacific Islanders.

What does this say about crime in our area?


(note: red highlighting to emphasize higher increases than the general population increase of 18%.)

It says to me that SOME of the increase in crime is moving in, not indigenous.

[tvguy]

What's missing, though, is the population increase numbers.
What was the population in 2006 compared to 2012?

I agree that these numbers are important to understand the issue. Would you agree that the ethnicity percentages of the new members of the population might also be a necessary tool?

To answer your query...from diversitydata.org....

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS AND DIVERSITY:
Population by Race/Ethnicity

2000 2010
Hispanic 12,126 21,745 (79.32% increase)
Non-Hispanic White 160,795 170,023 (5.74% increase)
Non-Hispanic Black 674 1,227 (82.05% increase)
Non-Hispanic American Indian 1,782 1,874 (5.16% increase)
Non-Hispanic Other Race 198 229 (15.66% increase)
Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial 3,820 5,242 (37.23% increase)
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pac. Islander 1,874 2,866 (52.93% increase)

In looking at the numbers compared to the 18% overall population increase, the trend is that there has been a very large influx of Hispanics, Blacks, and Pacific Islanders.

What does this say about crime in our area?


(note: red highlighting to emphasize higher increases than the general population increase of 18%.)

What does this say about crime in our area?

It says yer about to get called a racist

Probably...but I'm not...I am going strictly by the numbers. Not my fault the numbers are racist.

Yes it is, you dared to mention it so by default you are now a racist

[PonderThis]

Pretty much.

Or at least xenophobic.

Clone said that you have to know population increases.
Larry said that we might look at population increases in different ethnicities.

I am just giving you all the numbers. You can read them whatever way you like.
It's not my fault that the greatest increases in population were in the categories of Hispanic/Black/Pacific Islander.

Yes, I know ethnicity is important to you and Larry. What is it do you suppose there is about one race that makes them any more criminal than another, I wonder.

[tvguy]

Pretty much.

Or at least xenophobic.

Clone said that you have to know population increases.
Larry said that we might look at population increases in different ethnicities.

I am just giving you all the numbers. You can read them whatever way you like.
It's not my fault that the greatest increases in population were in the categories of Hispanic/Black/Pacific Islander.

Yes, I know ethnicity is important to you and Larry. What is it do you suppose there is about one race that makes them any more criminal than another, I wonder.

Instead of fishing or baiting why don't YOU tell us What you think it is? OR deny that it's true.

[PonderThis]

I think all humans behave similarly when they're treated similarly.

(It might take 7 generations to iron all the kinks out.)

[tvguy]

I think all humans behave similarly when they're treated similarly.

(It might take 7 generations to iron all the kinks out.)

You need to look at cultures of people. And stop making excuses. The lopsided crime rates of blacks and Hispanics compared to whites is do to a culture they perpetuate with rationalization. It has nothing to do with anyone's race.
People like you contribute to them with your constant apologizing and excuse making.

[Scar]

I agree that these numbers are important to understand the issue. Would you agree that the ethnicity percentages of the new members of the population might also be a necessary tool?

To answer your query...from diversitydata.org....

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS AND DIVERSITY:
Population by Race/Ethnicity

2000 2010
Hispanic 12,126 21,745 (79.32% increase)
Non-Hispanic White 160,795 170,023 (5.74% increase)
Non-Hispanic Black 674 1,227 (82.05% increase)
Non-Hispanic American Indian 1,782 1,874 (5.16% increase)
Non-Hispanic Other Race 198 229 (15.66% increase)
Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial 3,820 5,242 (37.23% increase)
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pac. Islander 1,874 2,866 (52.93% increase)

In looking at the numbers compared to the 18% overall population increase, the trend is that there has been a very large influx of Hispanics, Blacks, and Pacific Islanders.

What does this say about crime in our area?


(note: red highlighting to emphasize higher increases than the general population increase of 18%.)

What does this say about crime in our area?

It says yer about to get called a racist

Probably...but I'm not...I am going strictly by the numbers. Not my fault the numbers are racist.

Yes it is, you dared to mention it so by default you are now a racist

I don't see it as racist. In America life is better and safer where the populations of mexicans and negros are smallest.

[PonderThis]

But that's not true everywhere, is it? Only here.

So obviously it's not the people. It's something about this country and how we're treating them different.

[gapper]

Again, I believe a lot can be said for the unemployment rate and sense of hopelessness. It would be interesting to see the stats on the ethnic breakdown of the unemployed in the region. And, I am talking all of the unemployed, not just those showing up on the state's records.

I remember back in around 98 or 99, attending a public forum at my daughter's high school, North Valley High, and a GP police officer telling us that the gangs and other miscreants were migrating here from California in big numbers, and we needed to aware that our world was changing right before our eyes, in terms of being a sleepy little slice of rural America. His predictions are proving all too true. Also, as much as some seem to want to ignore reality, I believe there is a culture that has been passed on through more than one generation involving the gang mentality that has come from down south and is more commonly found in Hispanics and blacks.

(and now, by pointing out another demographic fact of life, I suppose I can look forward to being labeled both a racist and a Californian hater by the judgers in our midst?? )

[PonderThis]

There's an easy way to avoid being labeled a racist, simply don't divide people into racial categories. Treat them all the same, and watch what happens.

As it is now, you and some others here are simply setting the stage for everytime you encounter someone of a different ethnic group, you'll stereotype them just a little more, want to hire them a little less, want your daughter to go out with one less, and so on and so on and that's how these things get perpetuated.

[gapper]

There's an easy way to avoid being labeled a racist, simply don't divide people into racial categories. Treat them all the same, and watch what happens.

As it is now, you and some others here are simply setting the stage for everytime you encounter someone of a different ethnic group, you'll stereotype them just a little more, want to hire them a little less, want your daughter to go out with one less, and so on and so on and that's how these things get perpetuated.

Presuming you are talking to me, you are dead wrong!! The fact is, different people of different cultures are different. That, is simply a fact.

I DO NOT make the judgements you attempt to impose on me and others simply adding facts to a conversation. In fact, it is YOU that are judgmental and bigoted. I resent you labeling and putting me in a box YOU want to put me in. You don't know me except from posts on an internet site. You are being the judgmental one.

I accept people as they are and learn what they are as I go. And with that, I have learned that you are a judgmental person that thinks he knows better than others, and likes to judge from some imagined holy tower of knowledge and character.

You illustrate a huge amount of arrogance in your false judgement of me and others. Ponder that, jerk.

[chuck white]

There's an easy way to avoid being labeled a racist, simply don't divide people into racial categories. Treat them all the same, and watch what happens.

As it is now, you and some others here are simply setting the stage for everytime you encounter someone of a different ethnic group, you'll stereotype them just a little more, want to hire them a little less, want your daughter to go out with one less, and so on and so on and that's how these things get perpetuated.

I think we should group them by the length of their nose.
I've noticed short nose people commit more crime then us long noses.

[tvguy]

There's an easy way to avoid being labeled a racist, simply don't divide people into racial categories. Treat them all the same, and watch what happens.

As it is now, you and some others here are simply setting the stage for everytime you encounter someone of a different ethnic group, you'll stereotype them just a little more, want to hire them a little less, want your daughter to go out with one less, and so on and so on and that's how these things get perpetuated.

It's not stereotyping to point out what BZ pointed out. It's a fact.

As a matter of fact BZ or Gapper nor I stereotyped no one.

simply don't divide people into racial categories.

Why not? If one is surmising that the increased crime rate has something to do with the types of people moving here than divide people into categories whether racial or cultural is NECESSARY.

You act as if simply stating a fact encourages racism, that's bullshit.

Blacks commit crime in our country at an incredibly higher rate than whites. REGARDLESS of the reason this HAS TO BE considered the next time one of you Anti American jack wads wants to compare the USA to Sweden or Japan.

[gapper]

There's an easy way to avoid being labeled a racist, simply don't divide people into racial categories. Treat them all the same, and watch what happens.

As it is now, you and some others here are simply setting the stage for everytime you encounter someone of a different ethnic group, you'll stereotype them just a little more, want to hire them a little less, want your daughter to go out with one less, and so on and so on and that's how these things get perpetuated.

I think we should group them by the length of their nose.
I've noticed short nose people commit more crime then us long noses.

If you've got stats and facts to prove it, please share them. Stats speak louder and with more credibility than "I've noticed".

[PonderThis]

Quote:
"You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."
— Former Education Secretary and Drug Czar William Bennett

"What was false? Well, as a matter of fact, is it not a fact that the per-capita crime rate among blacks is higher than whites? What is false here?"
— Brit Hume, reporter and commentator, Fox News Sunday, October 02, 2005.

"Statistics have long been kept on crime, breaking it down in various ways, including by race and ethnicity. Some identifiable groups, considered as a group, commit crime at a rate that is higher than the national rate. Blacks are such a group. That is simply a fact."
— Andrew C. McCarthy, former federal prosecutor, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, National Review On-line, September 30, 2005 [1]

But here's the truth!

THE REALITY OF RACIALLY DISPARATE YOUTH CRIME? While some have denounced the comments by former Education Secretary and Drug Czar William Bennett, they unfortunately believe his comments are based in fact. Those who believe that African American or Latino youth are more ;criminal" than any other ethnic groups are simply wrong. The real facts tell us much more than stereotypes, or musings—both of which obscure the well-documented disparate treatment accorded African Americans compared to whites within the justice system. These comments on racially disparate crime also overlook the area of "corporate crime."

For over a decade, the Justice Department has been working to reduce the racial disparity seen in juvenile arrests and juvenile imprisonment, a fact that underscores the existence of racially disparate arrests and sentences. African American youth arrest rates for drug violations, assaults and weapon offenses are higher than arrest rates for white youth—even though both report similar rates of delinquency.

FEDERAL LAWMAKERS RECOGNIZE YOUTH OF COLOR ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. Since 1992, when the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was amended, the federal government has acknowledged that youth of different races and ethnicities are treated differently by the justice system. As such the federal government has promoted policies to ease those disparities. [2] The Republican Congress reauthorized the JJDPA in 2003.

THE IMPACT OF THE "RACE EFFECT." In a seminal meta-analysis conducted by researchers Carl Pope and Richard Feyerherm for the Justice Department, two-thirds of the studies of state and local juvenile justice systems they analyzed found that there was a "race effect" at some stage of the juvenile justice process that affected outcomes for minorities for the worse. Their research suggested that "the effects of race may be felt at various decision points, they may be direct or indirect, and they may accumulate as youth continue through the system." [3]

LARGEST DISPARITIES FOUND IN DRUG ARRESTS, IMPRISONMENT. Some of the greatest disparities in the juvenile justice system's response to youth of color involve the number of youth arrested, and prosecuted for drug offenses. While African American youth comprise 17% of the youth population [4], African American youth represent 27% of all drug violation arrests, and comprise 48% of the youth detained for a drug offense.

"Contrary to popular assumption, at all three grade levels African American youth have substantially lower rates of use of most licit and illicit drugs than do Whites."
— Monitoring the Future Survey, 2004.

African American Youth Are Treated Differently By the Juvenile Justice System

* Drugs. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, among youths aged 12 to 17, the rate of current illicit drug use was 11.1 % among whites, and 9.3% among African Americans. [5] In a previous year, the same survey found that white youth aged 12 to17 are more than a third more likely to have sold drugs than African American youth. [6] The Monitoring the Future Survey of high school seniors shows that white students annually use cocaine at 4.6 times the rate of African Americans students, use crack cocaine at 1.5 times the rate of African Americans students, and use heroin at the same rate of African Americans students, and that white youth report annual use of marijuana at a rate 46% higher than African American youth. [7] However African American youth are arrested for drug offenses at about twice the rate (African American 314 per 100,000, white 175 per 100,000) times that of whites, [8] and African American youth represent nearly half (48%) of all the youth incarcerated for a drug offense in the juvenile justice system. [9]
* Weapons. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, in 2001 whites and African Americans reported similar rates of carrying a weapon (whites 17.9%, African Americans 15.2%), and similar rates of carrying a gun (whites 5.5%, and African Americans, 6.5%). [10] African American youth represent 32% of all weapons arrests, and were arrested for weapons offenses at a rate twice that of whites (69 per 100,000, versus 30 per 100,000). [11]
* Assault. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, African Americans report being in a physical fight at a similar rate (36.5%, versus 32.5% for whites), but were arrested for aggravated assault at a rate nearly three times that of whites (137 per 100,000, versus 48 per 100,000).

"The existence of much larger racial and ethnic differences in arrest rates than in self-reported violence is a matter of great concern. On the one hand, there is no reason to expect similar distributions, because these measures were designed to assess different aspects of violence. But if both measures are valid and reliable, the discrepancy suggests that the probability of being arrested for a violent offense varies with race/ethnicity."
—Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General, January, 2001. [12]

[PonderThis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/..._8398.html

ARE Blacks A Criminal Race? Surprising Statistics

The growing controversy over Bill Bennett's comments have mainly centered on whether or not he was calling for some kind of Black genocide. Clearly he was not. Mr. Bennett does not believe in abortion under any circumstances, and certainly not as a tool for racial extermination.

Unfortunately, this false debate has obscured the deeper issue - whether or not Blacks contribute disproportionately to the crime rate. Media coverage, conviction rates and "common knowledge" (stereotypes) all suggest that Blacks commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to our numbers in society. Conservatives embrace this assumption, and call for tougher laws. Liberals embrace the same assumption, though squeamishly, and instead call for more social programs.

The better question for public debate is this: do the actual government statistics bear out the claim that Blacks contribute disproportionately to the crime rate? Or is this largely a stereotype, which is driven by the disproportionate rate of ARRESTS and CONVICTIONS of Black people? And does the over-focus on Black crime conceal an alarmingly high crime rate within the white population?

I will be writing more about this later, but I could not resist sharing with you some statistics pulled together by one of the best minds on the subject. Jason Zeidenberg works at the Justice Policy Institute. Here is his memo on the topic, addressing both illegal drug use and some violent crime. (I'm sure lots of people can produce contrary numbers. Nevertheless, I think this memo provides invaluable insight and a great point of departure for discussions.)


|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


"You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."
— Former Education Secretary and Drug Czar William Bennett

"What was false? Well, as a matter of fact, is it not a fact that the per-capita crime rate among blacks is higher than whites? What is false here?"
— Brit Hume, reporter and commentator, Fox News Sunday, October 02, 2005.

"Statistics have long been kept on crime, breaking it down in various ways, including by race and ethnicity. Some identifiable groups, considered as a group, commit crime at a rate that is higher than the national rate. Blacks are such a group. That is simply a fact."
— Andrew C. McCarthy, former federal prosecutor, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, National Review On-line, September 30, 2005 [1]

• • •

THE REALITY OF RACIALLY DISPARATE YOUTH CRIME? While some have denounced the comments by former Education Secretary and Drug Czar William Bennett, they unfortunately believe his comments are based in fact. Those who believe that African American or Latino youth are more ;criminal" than any other ethnic groups are simply wrong. The real facts tell us much more than stereotypes, or musings—both of which obscure the well-documented disparate treatment accorded African Americans compared to whites within the justice system. These comments on racially disparate crime also overlook the area of "corporate crime."

For over a decade, the Justice Department has been working to reduce the racial disparity seen in juvenile arrests and juvenile imprisonment, a fact that underscores the existence of racially disparate arrests and sentences. African American youth arrest rates for drug violations, assaults and weapon offenses are higher than arrest rates for white youth—even though both report similar rates of delinquency.

FEDERAL LAWMAKERS RECOGNIZE YOUTH OF COLOR ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. Since 1992, when the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was amended, the federal government has acknowledged that youth of different races and ethnicities are treated differently by the justice system. As such the federal government has promoted policies to ease those disparities. [2] The Republican Congress reauthorized the JJDPA in 2003.

THE IMPACT OF THE "RACE EFFECT." In a seminal meta-analysis conducted by researchers Carl Pope and Richard Feyerherm for the Justice Department, two-thirds of the studies of state and local juvenile justice systems they analyzed found that there was a "race effect" at some stage of the juvenile justice process that affected outcomes for minorities for the worse. Their research suggested that "the effects of race may be felt at various decision points, they may be direct or indirect, and they may accumulate as youth continue through the system." [3]

LARGEST DISPARITIES FOUND IN DRUG ARRESTS, IMPRISONMENT. Some of the greatest disparities in the juvenile justice system's response to youth of color involve the number of youth arrested, and prosecuted for drug offenses. While African American youth comprise 17% of the youth population [4], African American youth represent 27% of all drug violation arrests, and comprise 48% of the youth detained for a drug offense.

"Contrary to popular assumption, at all three grade levels African American youth have substantially lower rates of use of most licit and illicit drugs than do Whites."
— Monitoring the Future Survey, 2004.

Table 1: African Americans Make Up Nearly Half the Youth Detained for Drug Offenses, But Use Drugs at the Same Rate as Whites



Source: Crime in the United States, 2001. (2002) Washington, DC: U.S. Justice Department, Federal Bureau of Investigations. Puzzanchera, C., Finnegan, T. and Kang, W. (2005). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations" Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezapop/; Sickmund, Melissa, Sladky, T.J., and Kang, Wei. (2004) "Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/

African American Youth Are Treated Differently By the Juvenile Justice System
Drugs. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, among youths aged 12 to 17, the rate of current illicit drug use was 11.1 % among whites, and 9.3% among African Americans. [5] In a previous year, the same survey found that white youth aged 12 to17 are more than a third more likely to have sold drugs than African American youth. [6] The Monitoring the Future Survey of high school seniors shows that white students annually use cocaine at 4.6 times the rate of African Americans students, use crack cocaine at 1.5 times the rate of African Americans students, and use heroin at the same rate of African Americans students, and that white youth report annual use of marijuana at a rate 46% higher than African American youth. [7] However African American youth are arrested for drug offenses at about twice the rate (African American 314 per 100,000, white 175 per 100,000) times that of whites, [8] and African American youth represent nearly half (48%) of all the youth incarcerated for a drug offense in the juvenile justice system. [9]
Weapons. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, in 2001 whites and African Americans reported similar rates of carrying a weapon (whites 17.9%, African Americans 15.2%), and similar rates of carrying a gun (whites 5.5%, and African Americans, 6.5%). [10] African American youth represent 32% of all weapons arrests, and were arrested for weapons offenses at a rate twice that of whites (69 per 100,000, versus 30 per 100,000). [11]
Assault. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, African Americans report being in a physical fight at a similar rate (36.5%, versus 32.5% for whites), but were arrested for aggravated assault at a rate nearly three times that of whites (137 per 100,000, versus 48 per 100,000).
"The existence of much larger racial and ethnic differences in arrest rates than in self-reported violence is a matter of great concern. On the one hand, there is no reason to expect similar distributions, because these measures were designed to assess different aspects of violence. But if both measures are valid and reliable, the discrepancy suggests that the probability of being arrested for a violent offense varies with race/ethnicity."
—Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General, January, 2001. [12]

For More Information, contact the Justice Policy Institute

[1] http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/m...301104.asp
[2] In the JJDP Act of 2002, Congress required that States participating in the Formula Grants Program "address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice system" (see section 223(a)(22)). See http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dmc/
[3] Pope, Carl E. and Feyerherm, William. (1995) Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System: Research Summary, (second printing). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, D.C.
[4] Howard N. Snyder's Juvenile Arrests 2001. (December, 2003). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, D.C.
[5] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005). Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-28, DHHS Publication No. SMA 05-4062). Rockville, MD
[6] National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1999. Washington, D.C.: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Table G. 71, 2000.
[7] Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2005). Demographic subgroup trends for various licit and illicit drugs, 1975-2004. (Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper No. 61). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. 411 pp. "Contrary to popular assumption, at all three grade levels African-American youth have substantially lower rates of use of most licit and illicit drugs than do Whites." Johnston, L. D., O'Malley,
[8] Arrests of youth, by race, from Crime in the United States, 2001. (2002). Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigations.; Population of youth from Puzzanchera, C., Finnegan, T. and Kang, W. (2005). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations" Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezapop/
[9] Sickmund, Melissa, Sladky, T.J., and Kang, Wei. (2004) "Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/
[10] Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance —- United States, 2003 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, June 28, 2002 / 51(SS04);1-64
[11] Arrests of youth, by race, from Crime in the United States, 2001. (2002). Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigations.; Population of youth from Puzzanchera, C., Finnegan, T. and Kang, W. (2005). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations" Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezapop/
[12] Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General (2001). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/yo...ifferences

[tvguy]

South American gray fox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
South American gray fox[1]
Conservation status

Least Concern (IUCN 3.1)[2]
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Lycalopex
Species: L. griseus
Binomial name
Lycalopex griseus
(Gray, 1837)
Distribution of the South American gray fox
Synonyms

L. gracilis (Burmeister, 1861)

A chilla in Pan de Azucar National Park in the coast of Atacama Desert.

The South American gray fox (Lycalopex griseus), also known as the Patagonian fox, the chilla, or the grey zorro, is a species of zorro, the "false" foxes.
Contents

1 Range and habitat
2 Description
3 Diet
4 Reproduction
5 References
6 External links

Range and habitat

The South American gray fox is found in the Southern Cone of South America, particularly in Argentina and Chile. Its range comprises a stripe, both sides of the Andes Mountain Range between parallels 17ºS (northernmost Chile) and 54ºS (Tierra del Fuego).

In Argentina, this species inhabits the western semiarid region of the country, from the Andean spurs (ca. 69ºW) to meridian 66ºW. South from the Río Grande river, the distribution of the fox widens reaching the Atlantic coast. In Chile, it is present throughout the country. Its presence in Peru has been mentioned; to date, however, there has been no confirmation of it. The South American gray fox was introduced to the Falkland Islands in the late 1920s early 1930s and is still present in quite large numbers on Beaver and Weddell Islands plus several smaller islands.

The South American gray fox occurs in a variety of habitats, from the warm, arid scrublands of the Argentine Monte and the cold, arid Patagonian steppe to the forest of southernmost Chile.
Description

The South American gray fox is a small South American canid, weighing 2.5–4 kg (5–9 pounds), and measuring 43–70 cm (17–27 inches) in length.
Diet

Its diet consists mainly of rodents, birds, and rabbits.
Reproduction

It breeds in late austral fall, around March. After a gestation period of 2 months, 2–4 kits are born in a den. Not much else is recorded about its lifestyle.
References

^ Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Order Carnivora". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
^ Jiménez et al. (2008). Pseudalopex griseus. In: IUCN 2008. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved 06 May 2008. Database entry includes justification for why this species is of least concern

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (May 2008)

González del Solar, R. and J. Rau (2004) Pseudalopex griseus. In C. Sillero-Zubiri, M. Hoffman and D. Macdonald (eds.) Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group. Pp. 56–63. (Available at http://www.canids.org/species/Chilla.pdf)
IUCN (2004): Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs

External links