One way to preventing such positive feedback (more policing means more crime) may be to use only reported crime or calls to the police when allocating resources to an area.
Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
51–60 of 643 posts
Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
#52Earlier 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 :)
> The law is standardized for everyone
https://www.aclu.org/other/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-fed...
Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
#53Earlier 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.
While this is absolutely true, I'm not sure it's a reasonable argument for defunding the police today. You wouldn't defund the fire department today, because in ten years buildings will average a better standard. The social issues need to be dealt with first, which could take some years. On the other hand, that the police have become what appears to be a poorly trained, violent militia is indeed a problem that should…
If fire departments were carrying out the same injustices as police, then it would be pretty reasonable to push for the same massive changes in fire departments.
Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
#54Thought 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 a…
I'm just not sure this makes the point you think it does. There are certainly some who see crime as a morally neutral way to "get one over on the system that impoverishes them", but most people find this to be an abhorrent viewpoint and have no interest in accommodating it.
Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
#55Earlier 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…
Edit: This was not a well-thought out post lol and I'm deleting it.
I’ve been to plenty of protests in low income areas, and the push to defund the police is coming from them, not the higher income areas.
Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
#56Honest 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.
Note that even you only mentioned whether answers are socially acceptable (in your view), not which one is true.
Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
#57Is it the technology or how the technology is used that is the problem? I have to add disclaimer that I am not in the US so not particularly well informed. Like all technology there good and bad aspects to it. Use it to catch a child kidnapper, the technology is great. Mistakenly identify the wrong person then not so great.
Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
#58Earlier 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.
Which other cities are you referring to in particular?
Literally every city in America, regardless of their approach to policing, has experienced a massive drop in crime rates from 1990 forward. This tends to undermine arguments that broken windows or stop-and-frisk are effective policies.
Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
#59Earlier 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 :)
[deleted]
Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first
#60Earlier 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.
Is there evidence for your claim? My impression was that the impact of those approaches/policies was found to be non-existent to relatively small (in terms of reducing crime, that is - they probably had a significant negative impact on the quality of life of the groups most affected by them).