Live data from Hacker News

Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

reuters.com

31–40 of 643 posts

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#31
post #6
post #3

Honest question here. Are these neighborhoods “over policed” because their residents commit more crimes, or do the residents commit more crimes because their neighborhood is “over policed”?

Only one answer is socially acceptable, regardless of what statistics indicate. And we are building a dangerous world by going down this unscientific path. I am genuinely concerned that this will bleed into ML science and we may find ourselves collectively pursuing a rabbit hole of bad science in a vain attempt to reconcile empirical data with ideology.

This preference for ideology instead of data reminds me of weird stuff that would happen with science in the Soviet Union. You had things in the Soviet Union like Lysenkoism[1] where a kook got power and explained his science in ideological terms and his theories, unsupported by data, were adopted and defended to the detriment of agricultural production. Workers adopted the theories because people were so afraid of criticizing the dominant ideology that they adopted whatever "science" was mandated in order to avoid being purged. Disagreement with official science was considered proof that one was a political subversive.

"More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the campaign to suppress scientific opponents."

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#32
Thought it would be relevant but a few years back California was also in the news for building a gang database of children as young as one year old (for which they've since acknowledged as a mistake).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/calgang-california-gang-databas...

The phrasing of "predictive policing" sounds fairly harmless, but in practice it is a way of finding out which kids are going to be future criminals, thus robbing them of their self-determination.

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, law and order has to be standardized for everybody, regardless of background. Pot was decriminalized in many states already. Are there other things you would like to decriminalize? There are avenues for those, but it’s not a fast turn-around, those things take time.

The law is standardized for everyone, its enforcement that is the issue. There are clear differences in enforcement for different races and different wealth levels. My example occurred many moons ago before pot was decriminalized any where. I am old :)

Yes agreed, enforcement has to be standardized as well. Justice should be blind, except to the law. The pendulum swinging though has me worried, where dangerous crimes are currently unenforced.

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#34
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to learn more about this. What I am reading suggests this is the wrong frame. What if all the money spent over-policing these neighborhoods was instead spent on social services to support the people living there? Would that decrease the crime rate more or less than the policing? I'm not sure, but I'm becoming more convinced by this line of argument...

Food for thought, more than 50% of the federal budget is already spent on social services.

Police are funded by the municipal or county government, not the fed

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#35
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to learn more about this. What I am reading suggests this is the wrong frame. What if all the money spent over-policing these neighborhoods was instead spent on social services to support the people living there? Would that decrease the crime rate more or less than the policing? I'm not sure, but I'm becoming more convinced by this line of argument...

Food for thought, more than 50% of the federal budget is already spent on social services.

I need any legitimate citation for that.

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#36
post #11
post #3

Honest question here. Are these neighborhoods “over policed” because their residents commit more crimes, or do the residents commit more crimes because their neighborhood is “over policed”?

I'm trying to learn more about this. What I am reading suggests this is the wrong frame. What if all the money spent over-policing these neighborhoods was instead spent on social services to support the people living there? Would that decrease the crime rate more or less than the policing? I'm not sure, but I'm becoming more convinced by this line of argument...

I thought that this book[1] was an enlightening read into the topic.

It outlined that the conventional thinking about crime falls into two broad categories: "heroes/villains" (there are bad people that just do bad and need to be stopped) vs. "victims/survivors" (criminals are effectively created by poor circumstances / just want to feed their families, etc).

The author argues (with research to back it up) that the truth is neither / both / there are other factors at play, on of the more interesting factors just being "opportunity".

[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Truth-About-People-Things/...

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there evidence for this though? The great crime decline in cities like NYC were due to increased policing and the “broken window” policy, along with stop & frisk.

That is what its proponents would want you to believe, except that it's not borne out by evidence. There were similar drops in other cities that didn't violate the civil rights of the citizens. And that's putting aside the question of whether it's right to deny people their rights in order to deter crime.

It’s a challenging problem, but the way things are currently going, do you want a 70’s NYC in 2020+?

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there evidence for this though? The great crime decline in cities like NYC were due to increased policing and the “broken window” policy, along with stop & frisk.

That is what its proponents would want you to believe, except that it's not borne out by evidence. There were similar drops in other cities that didn't violate the civil rights of the citizens. And that's putting aside the question of whether it's right to deny people their rights in order to deter crime.

Which other cities are you referring to in particular?

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to sit on my friends porch when I was in college before pot was legalized, smoking. We are white people in a white area. If we had been black I have no doubt the increased police presence would have resulted in us getting arrested. There are tons of other stupid things I did when younger where if there had been more cops around I would have gone to jail. More police means more people are arrested for the same…

Unfortunately, law and order has to be standardized for everybody, regardless of background. Pot was decriminalized in many states already. Are there other things you would like to decriminalize? There are avenues for those, but it’s not a fast turn-around, those things take time.

In our society, everyone is a lawbreaker. There are so many laws that surely everyone is guilty of breaking some law. This results in police being able to discriminate by selectively enforcing laws. Since everyone is probably doing something illegal, police do racist things by profiling people who are 'probably doing [something illegal]' without sounding racist.

It's a common pattern in societies where the laws are so invasive and numerous that everyone breaks them. We need reasonable laws that are equally and fully enforced to reduce this particular outlet of racism.

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#40
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or crime is a function of income inequality, and ways to fight it are police (reactive) or preventative social spending (proactive.) it's like arguing over fire departments vs electrical code. neglecting the latter leads to more of the former. Even things like urban planning, where you put your low income housing. If you build low income housing in high income areas, it prevents ghettos from forming.

Is there evidence for this though? The great crime decline in cities like NYC were due to increased policing and the “broken window” policy, along with stop & frisk.

To some degree. Compare London and Paris: both large, multicultural cities.In Paris, the separation between rich and poor is very clear when it comes to housing location.In London, social housing is often buit even in very expensive areas. London doesn't have no go zones, however, large,purpose built social housing estates sometimes become 'city within the city' and the bigger the estate,the bigger the problems.
Post reply on HN