I'm not sure that this question is on topic here, but I guessed that I would have a better chance of getting a good answer here than at Economics SE (and Sociology SE doesn't exist).
I've seen a few articles (for example, this and this) arguing that "Black-on-Black crime" is no more notable than "White-on-White crime". I've been trying to quantify this. The graph below from the US Department of Justice supports this argument, showing that when only people below the poverty line are considered, there is little difference between the rate at which Black people are victimized by violent crime and the rate at which White people are victimized. However, I'd like to see a similar plot not for victims, but for perpetrators. Do the race and economic status of perpetrators of violent crimes follow the same trends? I realize that there are also racial disparities in policing of crimes, which might bias the results, but I'd still like to see the data. Is there a reason that it doesn't exist (the race or economic status of the perpetrator is often unknown)?
To clarify, I know that that the rate is higher for Black-on-Black murders versus White-on-White murders when economic status is not considered as a variable, but my question is: How do crime rates compare between Black and White populations of similar economic status, particularly for those below the poverty line?