The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs has actually produced a whole series of spreadsheets here. They are referenced in article by Laurence Auster in Frontpagemag.com The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States.

… In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. …

The same pattern occurs with male rape. Human Rights Watch reportsMale Rape in US Prisons.

…Past studies have documented the prevalence of black on white sexual aggression in prison.(213) These findings are further confirmed by Human Rights Watch’s own research. Overall, our correspondence and interviews with white, black, and Hispanic inmates convince us that white inmates are disproportionately targeted for abuse.(214)

… African Americans typically face sexual abuse at the hands of other African Americans, and Hispanics at the hands of other Hispanics. Some inmates told Human Rights Watch that this pattern reflected an inmate rule, one that was strictly enforced: “only a black can turn out [rape] a black, and only a chicano can turn out a chicano.”(215) Breaking this rule by sexually abusing someone of another race or ethnicity, with the exception of a white inmate, could lead to racial or ethnic unrest, as other members of the victim’s group would retaliate against the perpetrator’s group. … The causes of black on white sexual abuse in prison have been much analyzed. Some commentators have attributed it to the norms of a violent black subculture, the result of social conditioning that encourages aggressiveness and the use of force.(217) Others have viewed it as a form of revenge for white dominance of blacks in outside society.(218) Viewing rape as a hate crime rather than one primarily motivated by sexual urges, they believe that sexually abused white inmates are essentially convenient surrogates for whites generally. …

I am not aware why this pattern of crime should be markedly different in the UK; it is similar to the comparison of non-sexual violent crime. Such crime patterns are typically attributed to poverty; however I am not aware how rape can be so excused. Is this why it is largely excluded from public discourse?

Here are the statistics on rape and the race of victims and offenders:

Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations,
based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender:

Rape/Sexual assault:
Number of white victims 111,490
Offenders:
white on white 44.5% (49,613)
black on white 33.6% (37,460)

Number of black victims 36,620
Offenders:
white on black 0% (0)
black on black 100% (36,620)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0502.pdf
(page 30 of 38)

This data is from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) so it includes crimes regardless of whether or not they were reported.

And since I’m assuming that you are not saying that white men committed no rapes at all – i.e. there are some figures somewhere showing that white men raped a certain number of white women – I’m not actually sure what your point is. That it is worse that black men raped white women than white men raped white women?

Apologies if the allusions are something you find tiresome – but no £5 from me! Curiously before I met her I took practically no interest in immigration questions.

It is simply that going through the various processes and issues with her immigration is something that I have taken a personal interest in.

I make no apologies for speaking from experience, it does just brass me off a bit when hacks come up with their rubbish as though immigrants are all the same and represent some sort of wide ranging risk-cum-whipping-boy of convenience. It’s cobblers and the really sad thing is that the hacks probably know it is.

My wife comments that she does not want to write on these boards as there is too much unpleasantness on them for her tastes, but thanks you for the suggestion.

Regardless – best of luck to you.

US Department of Justice website: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

2005 – Table 42: Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender (PDF file)

If I had a fiver for every time MaidMarian mentions his/her foreign-born wife I’d be quite well off by now.

She turns up on every CiF thread, and I think its time she got to have a go on the computer herself.

Do they refer to, say, recorded crime which is a fraction of actual crime? Does it refer to, say, convictions, an even smaller percentage?

According to that figure you have not-really-quoted, you could argue that, apparently, the US justice is so inequitable that no white men were convicted of raping/sexually assaulting black women.

Is this racist?

Apparently for the year of 2005 in the US that while 37460 white women were raped/sexually assaulted by black men, no black women were raped/sexually assaulted by white men.

Or was that racism?

Not wanting to be one to plug my own blog – but before you complain to the PCC have a look at my post here:

http://tinyurl.com/3fgl63

I got a copy of the original stats from the Met – and they don’t even measure foreign nationals and only cover the numbers of people accused.

The Telegraph story has clearly been churned from an earlier Daily Mail story that used the same figures.

Unless some “per capita” figures are shown, the figures are of little worth regardless of whether they have been extrapolated correctly or not.

‘Ethnic group’ is not, per se, the same as, ‘immigrant,’ or, ‘foreign national.’

A vital distinction here.

‘Whatever a particular newspaper’s “motives” might or might not be, *pretending* the numbers are not what they are is not the most constructive way to respond.’

I don’t disagree with that but context is all.

There is a qualitative difference to my mind between the dog-whistle, ‘immigrants in Poland wake up and say, “I’m off to rape DT readers’ daughters,”‘ inference and more generalised, disinterested crime reporting.

They are editorialising stats, and immigrants are a soft target. Would it be OK to say that drivers are more likely to break the law and produce raw figures that do no account for, say, parking offences?

‘….and does anyone feel better if a criminal is british?’

One of the arguments peddled for a World Without Borders is that immigration is good for immigrants (and, indeed, it is, insofar that a brain drain does not occur in the dustbowl they leave behind).

My problem with this is simple: How can it be good for everyone (i.e. you and me) when some ethnic groups commit more crime than others?

You talk about ‘feelings’ and tit-for-tat statistical battles.

For me, however, it’s about the quality of life… (or do vulgar libertarians not care about that anymore?)

Of course not.

Would / does the Telegraph ignore indigenous criminality? Hardly!

But *if* immigration increases crime, that is a legitimate matter for discussion, including by the Telegraph!

Whatever a particular newspaper’s “motives” might or might not be, *pretending* the numbers are not what they are is not the most constructive way to respond.

Are you saying (DT style) that being an ‘immigrant’ intrinsically makes someone more likely to be a violent rapist/serial fraud etc and that various other factors in society that affect all individuals to a greater or lesser extent subject to circumstances don’t matter?

Of course every group in society is not equal. But by that token not all immigrants are equal.

Stats can, of course, cut the other way. My immigrant wife helps the 82 year old woman next door out twice a week. She does it because she has the time, likes the neighbour, its convenient etc. The British neighbour on the other side does not help out. Is that a statistical demonstration that immigrants in my street are more 100% more likely to help out pensioners?

Of course not because the wider factors that affect the individuals behind the stats matter.

There is a perfectly good argument that immigration should be reduced somehow and that deportation should be made far easier. Simplistic recitals of stats with the aim of whipping up hate do not do that argument any justice. ‘Equality’ is a straw man here.

‘They are hate-mongering, simple as that, and making a political point.

No it’s not. Crime, like anything else, is a probabilistic affair best described by statistics. Liberals don’t like this, because their favourite verbal abstraction of ‘equality’ is undermined by brute statistical reality.

Coz, you know… if every group is equal, well, that sweeps a lot of unpleasant problems under the rug, dunnit?

Fortunately, one school of liberalism has actually taught us some valuable lessons over the centuries: the anti-abstract British tradition of Roger Bacon, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell with its emphasis on realism, common sense and the analytical method.

Torygraph readers, for all their faults, are a lot less abstract than the irrational, Rousseauian Left.

Where I said, ‘concern for crime,’ I should have said, ‘disinterested presentation of crime statistics.’

That better reflects what I was getting at.

Submit in haste, repent….

Is the DT article really a concern for crime or is it dog-whistle for, ‘immigrants in your neighbourhood are to a single one there to violently attack you/steal from you/rape your daughter and it is all Gordon Brown’s personal fault.’

It is an open invitation to hate. I’m not a statistician and I am not questioning the facts. I do however know hateful sentiment when I see it.

The DT may be genteel hatemongers – but hate is still hate.

Sorry to your mates.

It is the Ministry of Truth calculation which is the “crock of shit”.

MaidMarian – that may well be the case, though I know a few Telegraph hacks and they are *human* too!

However, their *numbers* – which is what this post was about – are not that misleading.