Convicted? Yes. Arrested? Sure. Commit? I don't know, maybe, but I bet if you factored in economic status there'd be a lot of evening out; i.e. poor people commit more serious crimes, black people are disproportionately poor, therefore more black people commit more serious crimes.

This is untrue. From my prior research, virtually every analysis concludes the opposite - that income alone cannot explain the difference in crime rate between black and white Americans. Most studies show income as 30-60% of that regression, which is huge, but when comparing similar income brackets, African Americans have a higher crime rate than whites in almost all of them under $100k. To cover the full difference, it's necessary to bring in other factors (in particular, the rate of single parent households). Please cite a source for the claim you have made or retract it.

It doesn't make much sense to cite the proportion of black people convicted of a crime by US law enforcement as evidence refuting the claim that the US law enforcement's interaction with people changes according to their race. The proportion of black people convicted of [category] crimes could be high for many reasons, including actually higher incidence of such crimes among blacks, racial prejudices at various points along the legal path of alleged criminals, and any combination of those or other factors.

Have you tried to confirm this hypothesis, by for example looking at studies that examine the crime rate by both socioeconomic status and race?

More likely to be convicted of a crime. That's a subtle but very important distinction.

There's probably someplace in the world this is true (e.g., I suspect its true in several sub-Saharan African countries), but its not either in general, or in the US in particular.

Not correct. Blacks don't disproportionally break laws. The problem is that non-violent crimes in America are disproportionally enforced. Several Thousand, probably close to a million cases of illegal white collar crime go unenforced every year. Stuff like insider trading, corruption, fraud, laundering, etc. Crimes that white people are more likely to break simply are not regularly enforced. Non-violent crimes like drug possession in Black urban areas are highly enforced, while whites in suburb areas use drugs at the same rate, are not enforced. There is a bias in the enforcement laws

We know that's not the case. Violent crimes have victims. Whatever the explanation is, blacks in the US commit more violent crimes than whites by a factor of four. We're not playing in the margin of error here.

They’re a uniquely violent demographic and it’s unsurprising that their arrest statistics don’t match other demographics.

The statistical differences are a result of that underlying difference in rate — rather than anything about the police. No change in police policy except ignoring violent felonies committed by blacks can fix the underlying per capita imbalance.

And no — that’s not a race thing, as shown by recent African migrants and other immigrants. It’s a cyclic poverty and crime thing… but that doesn’t change that there’s a correlation between violent felonies and race.

A correlation that gets carried forward into arrest statistics.

Not a great example; the direct correlation between being black and being a criminal is much, much larger than the indirect correlation from being black to being a criminal through being poor.

Which is to say, if blacks were criminal at the rate predicted by their poverty rate, they would be much, much less criminal than they actually are.

Maybe it's because black people cause a disproportionate amount of crime.

It sounds like you are the racist here.

There is no obvious causal reason to link violent offenses and non-violent offenses. In fact, in my experience, I would expect an inverse causal relationship. I know quite a few ... people ... who would pick your pocket, steal from your house, etc. but would never actually physically assault somebody.

Your statement might be true, but some data is required.

Even within the same income bracket, the black homicide rate is an order of magnitude larger than the white one (and after 1975, the homicide rate of the richest blacks is larger than of the poorest whites):

https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/16/racial-differe... , table 6

How is this even possible? Aren't black responsible for more than 50% of the murders despite being only 13% of the population? These stats don't add up.

Criminal statistics are a record of who is arrested and prosecuted, not a record of who commits the most crime. If a black criminal is more likely to be arrested than a white criminal, then the statistics will reflect that.

Wow, why is that so high?

Given the existing biases is the systems involved, black people are more likely to be identified by the existing biased system as having committed a crime, because they are more likely to be investigated if suspected (or even without a reasonable basis I of suspicion) of having committed a crime, more likely to be prosecuted given the same degree of evidence, more likely to be convicted given the same degree of evidence, and (as a result of all that) more likely to have a criminal history which subjects them to additional law enforcement scrutiny and systematic bias on top of that more directly due to race.

The degree, if any, to which black people are more likely to actually commit crimes is difficult to tease out since all statistics on this area are affected, directly and indirectly, by these systematic biases.

(On top of that, there's the bias from the fact that things have been made crimes, or more sever crimes, specifically, in whole or in part, because black people were, at the time, more likely to do them.)

[citation needed]

It is true that a black man is more likely to be prosecuted for murder but that’s a wholly different statistic.