Or is your explanation for that „that males commit more crimes“?
You might want to be careful applying this logic to the black incarceration rates, then.
Or is your explanation for that „that males commit more crimes“?
You might want to be careful applying this logic to the black incarceration rates, then.
Prisons are, however, disproportionately located in majority-white areas. Prison gerrymandering allows majority white communities to count Black prisoners from outside their community in their census while stripping them of their ability to vote. It gives the white community more power and resources, and takes not only from the prisoner their right to vote, but from the prisoner's community a census taker. The Census is literally how representatives in the House are allocated and per-capita funding is divided.
Those reasons seem a lot more convincing to me than a concerted effort to shave a few fractions of a percent off census data.
You have no idea the sheer magnitude of the problem we have here.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619...
2. https://apps.urban.org/features/long-prison-terms/demographi...
Also, pretty much all of the US is „majority female“, even if it‘s just by 1.6%.
- Males commit more crimes than females
- Males are more easily, and longer incarcerated than females on the same evidence.
- Blacks commit more crimes than whites
- Blacks are are more easily, and loner incarcerated than whites on the same evidence
“careful?”, I'll be frank that I smell the stench of U.S.A. culture war identity politics where facts that should obvious to everyone are not examined on their veracity, but on “What team might the messenger be playing for?”. — what is there to be “careful” about what seems to be the obvious?
So first, the 3/5 compromise:
When the constitution was being drafted, there was a disagreement between the free and slave states (actually, I'm not sure if there were any free states, or if at the time the North was just not reliant on slave labor and essentially winding it down).
The north wanted slaves to not count towards your state's population for the purposes of apportioning house representatives. Since slaves could not vote, they argued, they shouldn't count towards your representation in the federal government.
The south, on the other hand, wanted slaves to count towards the state's population for apportioning house representatives. Since slaves still required the same resources to survive as non-slaves, they argued, they should be counted.
This ultimately led to the "3/5 compromise": slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of apportioning house representatives.
Now, fast forward to the federal abolishment of slavery, the 13th amendment. It explicitly says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." So it is very squarely placing prisoners in the same historical context as slaves, and they were thought of and reasoned about as such.
So in the end, it seems straightforward to me that the state of slavery and prisons in America deliberately reduces the representation of black people. This is by design. While it does effectively increase the representation of women, there's far less of an argument to be made that it's an intentional feature of the system.
NOTE: In checking these sources, I discovered that the 14th amendment (actually the 14th this time) says that voters who have become ineligible to vote shouldn't be counted towards your representation. Maybe it was superceded by a later amendment?
SECOND NOTE: Here's an NPR article mentioning the prisons-count-as-population-for-representation concept: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/12/31/761932806...
The implication of your comment is that there is something inherent in males that makes them more likely to end up in prison. Are sure you want go down that road?
That‘s the point I‘m trying to make.