1000 words

Introduction

The theory of African American (TAAO) has strong empirical support and predictive power. The predictions are derived from the main premise that there is a unique—peerless—worldview that African Americans (AAs) in which the unique combination of historical, contemporary, and cultural experiences shape experiences of racial discrimination and social marginalization. From this main premise, the predictions are then derived (and have substantial empirical support).

I have shown that, compared to hereditarian explanations of crime, the TAAO is a stronger theory and that we should accept it over any other theory of crime that does not make any successful novel predictions. Here, I will make an a priori argument for why we should accept the TAAO, and why it’s logically necessary to have a race-centric theory of crime.

The argument

If a group is systemically disadvantaged in terms of socioeconomic opportunities education, housing, and legal treatment then this group will have a higher chance of engaging in criminal activities due to strain or necessity. Racial discrimination, as part of systemic disadvantage, leads to feelings of frustration, alienation, and limited legal avenues for social mobility which can be criminogenic. Basically, if AAs have been subjected to centuries of systemic racism (like slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation and contemporary discrimination), then this history would logically lead to distinct social conditions.

Systemic racism leads to social exclusion and economic deprivation. Social exclusion and economic deprivation increase the likelihood of strain which, per general strain theory, can lead to crime as individuals seek to cope with or escape these conditions. The unique experiences of African Americans, including slavery, segregation, and ongoing discrimination, shapes a distinct worldview and reality which influences behavior.

Knowing this, we could argue that: If African Americans face unique forms of racial subordination, then they would experience unique pressures that could lead to higher rates of offending as a means to navigate or resist said pressures. If African American offending is significantly influenced by historical and contemporary systemic facial discrimination, then a theory that accounts for these dynamics would be inherently more plausible and necessary to explain time patters in the population.

Thus, it follows logically that a theory like the TAAO which incorporates the specific socio-historical context of African Americans would be a priori more relevant than theories which do not consider such factors (nor the predictions that, for example, the TAAO generates) or which rely on universal explanations of human behavior without accounting for racial and cultural nuances.

How is this argument a priori? It starts from the premise that AAs have been subjected to systemic racism, which is of course a historical (and contemporary) fact which isn’t derived from the observation of crime differences between groups but from known discrimination in the US from the arrival of blacks to America. So from this premise, it logically follows that systemic disadvantages would lead to specific social, psychological, and economic pressures which could influence criminal behavior. Systemic racism could cause strain which can then lead to crime and this is deduced from an existing theoretical framework (strain theory). We can also make similar logical connections with other theories (like social control theory and social disorganization theory) which would then suggest that the effects of racial subordination would naturally lead to weakened school bonds, and increased disorganization which is of course correlated with crime.

So if the premises about racial discrimination and historical subordination are true (and they are), then it logically follows that a theory explaining crime must account for such conditions. So the TAAO is necessary a priori because no GENERAL theory of crime can account for the specific historical and social context of AAs without considering racial discrimination and historical subordination. Therefore the argument is consistent with logical principles, it doesn’t contradict itself, and it’s coherent. The premises lead to conclusions about crime that follow logically from what we know about the social history of AAs. So the logical structure of the argument suggests that certain outcomes would follow from the premises of racial discrimination and historical subordination. What the argument does is use established knowledge on the history of AAs in the US to logically deduce why crime is higher in the group.

Thus, the TAAO is more relevant than race-neutral theories of crime. The a priori argument shows the necessity for a race-centric theory of crime, and why we need one to explain crime rates for AAs. Race-neutral and hereditarian theories of crime do not account for what the TAAO does, therefore, any theory of crime that does not account for the above factors should be discarded as an explanation for the phenomenon in question. So if criminal behavior is influenced by unique socio-historical and cultural factors specific to racial groups, then a general theory of crime that does not account for these factors will fail to explain and predict crime accurately for that group. We know that socio-historical and cultural factors, racial identity and community socialization are unique to different racial groups, and have been shown to influence behavior (see the TAAO full and partial tests). Therefore, a race-centric theory of crime is necessary to explain and predict crime for certain groups. So if a race-centric theory of crime is necessary to explain crime for certain groups, then we need to the TAAO to explain why blacks commit more crime in America than other races.

Conclusion

Clearly, race-centric theories of crime are essential for a thorough understanding and prediction of crime. The a priori argument above shows the necessity of such a framework, and also why we should accept a theory that accounts for the above over a theory that does not account for the above. So general theories of crime are insufficient to explain crime in all demographics, and specific theories of crime are needed. It is clear that, since the TAAO makes successful novel predictions that it therefore explains the black-white crime gap. If a theory makes successful novel predictions about a phenomenon, then the theory provides an explanation for that phenomenon. The TAAO makes successful novel predictions about black crime. Therefore, the TAAO provides an explanation of the black-white crime gap and we thusly should accept the theory. It’s only logical to accept a theory that makes successful novel predictions.