Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by skciva » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

dx87 wrote: post #26

danielhlockard wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that non-white neighborhoods are policed heavier, and as a consequence they "catch more criminals" in those neighborhoods.

That wouldn't explain things like murder and other violent crimes. It's not like people are regularly getting murdered in the suburbs, but nobody bothered to check.

I think there are a lot of factors that go into a persons environment that influence something like murder rates.

Also, depending on what you consider a violent crime, lack of reporting / local police department's doing something about the report can very well have skew crime rates in certain areas.

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

#42

Post by baron_harkonnen » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

kadabra9 wrote: 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”?

This is not an "honest question". It's an intentional attempt to give equal weight to a fundamentally racist hypothesis to its alternatives.

If you want to posit that low-income, black communities are inherently violent and need violence to keep them in line then at least don't be coward with your views.

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

#43

Post by iguy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

danielhlockard wrote: post #7

kadabra9 wrote: 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 would argue that non-white neighborhoods are policed heavier, and as a consequence they "catch more criminals" in those neighborhoods.

More policing may indeed catch more minor crimes that would otherwise go unobserved.

But the morgue has a pretty close to 100% set of data on murder victims. It's hard to argue that those are caused by catching more criminals. (And in fact, murders in high-crime neighborhoods are less likely to be solved. If anything, murders are caused by this failure to catch first-time murderers, before their second go. Their victims are also, usually, residents of the same bad neighborhoods.)

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

#44

Post by fastball » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #35

alacombe wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I need any legitimate citation for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

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

#45

Post by tehjoker » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

rickyplouis wrote: post #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…

In practice, it's a method of entrenching racist practice. Certain groups are profiled and criminalized, and therefore have criminal records so more police are sent to predicted "hot zones" which results in a feedback loop.

What is never said is that crimes are socially determined. Which is more harmful? Shoplifting by a poor person or wage theft by a business owner? Clearly the latter as an actual person who can't afford it is harmed. Wage theft is hugely more prevalent but is treated as a civil issue rather than a crime. Poor people trying to get one over on the system that impoverishes them lands them in jail while the people that own the society get away with doing whatever they want.

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

#46

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #18

basch wrote: 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.

[deleted]

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

#47

Post by 14 » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

kadabra9 wrote: 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”?

The problem as I see it is if you watch someone long enough they will break some law eventually, be it minor, which can then escalate things. For example if the person could not afford a fine they may end up in jail. So now you have to police disproportionately patrolling these neighbourhoods pulling people over. It’s unfair and certainly leads to hardships for some. Next a big issue I have is what defines a “crime” as they say? Because a poor man selling a bag of marijuana on the corner to make some grocery money will go to jail if caught but the business man can pay the fee and open a dispensary and profit immune to police. A poor man soliciting sex off the street jail, a rich man hiring an escort no issues. So they laws are discriminatory and the “crimes” these communities are supposedly breaking is questionable.

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

#48

Post by rgoddard » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #18

basch wrote: 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.

The drop in crime happened nationwide during this same time in places which did not include NYC. [1] The timing of this seemed to have been more coincidental with the drop in crime.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500104506/broken-windows-poli...

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

#49

Post by jimbob45 » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #19

kadabra9 wrote: 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 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…

Edit: This was not a well-thought out post lol and I'm deleting it.

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

#50

Post by sambull » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #37

thenewwazoo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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+?

We only use lead in aviation fuels now.. so probably not.