Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

61–70 of 643 posts

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

#61

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…

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

I hear what you are saying but disagree to a point. How many of these people getting arrested for the serious crimes have pre existing arrests / convictions for minor crimes? Once you have a couple of minor arrests and you are in the system, finding a career and advancing yourself becomes increasingly difficult. I would make an uneducated assumption that if they had not gotten the minor infractions and had a future perhaps the major infractions would not have happened. With that said there are always going to be bad people that require police intervention. Further adding to this if you grow up in an environment where there is a high criminal element you may be more predisposed to it, starting with minor infractions like marijuana use and then you are arrested and the self fulfilling prophecy repeats.

Massively increased policing has created the environment in which many of these people are born and turn to crime. If you are constantly treated like a criminal, you may come to think of yourself as one.

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

#62
post #43

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.

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 vict…

But how does the level of policing in an area affect murder rates? I don't know the answer, but from statistics I've seen, it seems pretty clear that police are not exactly great at solving murders.

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

#63
> Used by police across the United States for almost a decade, predictive policing relies on algorithms to interpret police records, analyzing arrest or parole data to send officers to target chronic offenders, or identifying places where crime may occur.

The promise of the software made in a sales pitch or on the website, is a far cry from the reality of what such software delivers. That's fine when it's business, the cost of a mistake is a p&l hit. But here we are talking about people's lives, far stricter processes should be in place, more similar to getting approval for a new airplane or medicine. To be clear, predictive policing is replacing detectives/experts with software, like a kind of robo-policing, where decisions to investigate are generated by a system and handed to cheaper uniformed police who lack the context behind the decision support system they are now serving, because software becomes a black box.

Any consumer who has ever dealt with even state-of-the-art call centers, knows that humans do a far better job at real-world operations.

This is a premature application of software.

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

#64
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”?

There are a few things going on. One is that police can choose what crimes to enforce, and city police tend to enforce crimes committed by lower income people. For example lower income people are more likely to be street level drug dealers, other crimes are more likely to be committed by higher income people.

Then in looking for dealers, police go to lower income neighborhoods. If you look for something you will end up finding it, if you don't look you won't find it. This leads to things like pretext traffic stops, where someone is stopped for a minor violation that wouldn't normally get someone stopped. The police can then detect something else, like the smell of drugs or drug paraphernalia in the car, which they use as cause to search the car. In searching the car they find something that can lead to criminal charges.

This leads to lower income people receiving fines for minor traffic violations, and minor drug violations, at a higher rate the higher income people. The same lower income people struggle to pay those fines more, which puts them in a worse place, possibly leading to more desperate crimes.

Policing is punitive, and doesn't help solve underlying problems. Imprisoning and fining poor people doesn't help them or society.

I don't think this is as much of a racial issue as people make it out to be, it just happens that in the US the low income urban housing projects are predominantly non-white. Low income people in rural areas are less likely to be over policed because there are physically less police per squeal mile in rural areas. And with less people in rural areas, things are more likely to go unnoticed.

If you look at somewhere like the UK, where low income urban council estates (housing projects) are often predominantly white, you see the same over policing, profiling, and pretext stops. But instead of profiling young black males in hoodies driving around a lower income neighborhood, they profile young white males in hoodies driving around a lower income neighborhood.

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

#65

Is 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.

> Is it the technology or how the technology is used that is the problem?

Both, and they aren't perfectly separable.

> Use it to catch a child kidnapper, the technology is great. Mistakenly identify the wrong person then not so great.

This "ends justify the means" calculus has not, historically, been the disposition of the US justice system. We have many constitutionally enshrined rights that indisputably make it more difficult to catch child kidnappers.

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

#66
post #39

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.

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 s…

One of the things I recently started thinking about is how most of the "wacky hijinks" in TV Shows and Movies would almost definitely result in your arrest today.

Many of the "innocent pranks" and "fun times" that my grandparents and parents would tell me about from their youth, also have components that have been made illegal now.

Almost every Senior Prank has some component of B&E / vandalism.

I've just found it odd how the media we consume seems to exist in this completely different world, where baristas live in massive apartments they could never afford and most of the fun and excitement of the story comes from situations that in real life would most likely end in your arrest.

It seems like decades of being "tough on crime" and having a "war on drugs" has created a society where everyone is always breaking some law. That means that we are all at the mercy of Law Enforcement officers as they use their "professional discretion" to decide who is breaking it enough.

This is an older article but still relevant as ever https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/03/how-the-suprem...

Do you have an air freshener in your car, the police can pull you over for it. Then claim they smell alcohol or marijuana and search your person and vehicle. As long as they stopped you "in good faith" because they thought, even incorrectly, that they could stop you for obstructed view, then it's cool with the courts.

It seems like we are overdue for a correction. While every crime statistic has pointed to the fact that we live in the safest time in history, we continue with zero-tolerance tough-on-crime policy making that does nothing to make us safer.

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

#67

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…

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

[deleted]

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

#68

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…

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

I agree up until you say "few good people living in those neighbourhoods" it's the other way around .. you'd be amazed at how few people are generally responsible for crime in any given area.

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

#69

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…

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

Except we are [0]. Here's the breakdown of why people are in jail (numbers rounded)

- Drug offenses: 46%

- Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 20%

- Sex Offenses: 11%

- Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 6%

- Immigration: 5%

- Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses: 5%

- Robbery: 3%

- Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses: 3%

So drugs vs (WEA + BLPO + R + HAAKO) is 46% vs 39%. Last I checked 46 > 39, so yeah we are talking about things like pot.

[0] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...

__EDIT__: It appears that the parent has removed their comment, so let me add context. Here I'm responding to the parent's claim that you can outright dismiss drug related crimes because it is all about violent offenses. I'm just trying to show that drugs play a big role and thus dismissing them is naive.

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

#70

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…

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

> We’re talking rape, burglary, murder, vandalism, and assault... Conversely, low-income neighborhoods have tons of hardcore crime like I’ve described.

Tons?

Rape seems an unnecessarily emotional grab here, since most rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows and aren't restricted by income.

Vandalism happens everywhere as well.

> It’s always the people in the white upper-class neighborhoods who think the police are the problem.

My mom grew up poor and told me to not trust the police and certainly not let them in the house without a warrant.

> ...because they celebrate...

Who is "they", in this context?

"Tons." "Always." "They." Your language suggests an agenda that you're presenting in absolutes.

Post reply on HN