Citation

Junger M. Br. J. Criminol. 1990; 30(4): 493-502.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1990, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, Publisher Oxford University Press)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In this paper I reply to most of the remarks made by Bowling (1990). Bowling seems to have no confidence in either self-report data or arrest data. He argues that blacks (or ethnic minorities) are no more involved in crime than autochthons but that they are discriminated against by the police (and by society at large). Finally, he seems to argue that there is no association between family integration and crime among blacks. My answer to Bowling is divided into four sections. First, Bowling distorts what I did in looking for correlates of crime. He seems to argue that it is unacceptable to situate the causes of crime, in part, in the lack of family integration of respondents. In my study social control was used to look for factors which relate to crime in every ethnic group included in my study. I do not think this is looking for criminogenic black family structure'. Secondly, I explain that self-report delinquency data are not equally valid for different ethnic groups. The differences occur between whites and blacks on the one side (low level of discrepancies) and Turks and Moroccans on the other side (high level of discrepancies); and not between Dutch on the one hand and other ethnic minorities on the other hand as Bowling states. Thirdly, for an explanation of the occurrence of discrepancies I have looked at social control variables and not as Bowling indicates, at culture'. Fourthly, Bowling does not have any confidence in arrest data. He argues that blacks (or ethnic minorities) are no more involved in crime than autochthons but that they are discriminated against by the police (and by society at large). I will state that there is a large body of studies in many West European and North American countries which show that racial discrimination does not in any important way influence arrest data.