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

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

#101

Post by jirdperson » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

jasonv wrote: post #14

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”?

We have data on the incarceration rates of Americans as a whole, versus other countries. I think the current activist climate is in response to the fact that the status quo is built on the premise that all that befalls the troubled populations in the US is always because they deserve it, and they brought it upon themselves. And therefore, all the prevailing cultural/ policing/ political/ fiscal positions that have be…

In a hyper-connected world awash with data, holding such a perspective seems akin believing that the earth is flat.

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

#102

Post by fsckboy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

riazrizvi wrote: post #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, t…

> This is a premature application of software.

maybe, but you have no idea yourself so your fear does not carry enough weight to carry that statement. It's basically like you are saying "it's too early to try Bayesian policing" when in fact Bayesian policing might be a great idea, and it was a great idea 10 years ago too.

Conditional probability, if there have been a lot of rapes in a 2 block radius, do you think it might be a good idea to look in that radius? If you try that and the crimewave continues but moves 2 blocks away, do you think there might be information to glean from that?

considering individual cops as bees in a hive, can individual bees make good Bayesian decisions about where to fly next? No, the information needs to be consolidated centrally. Who's better at Bayesian calculations, people or computers?

I'm sure there is all sorts of defective software out there, just like there are all sorts of other lazily/cheaply produced products that don't live up to our needs. That doesn't mean it's too early to try improvements.

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

#103

Post by adjkant » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #84

drhayes9 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pol…

I was more upset that the parent was implying that his neighborhood would have equal arrest numbers if the police had been more present on account of his pot smoking. I hope everyone can see what a stupid argument that is and that’s the hill I’m willing to die on here.

That very specific qualm doesn't mean that increased police presence helps though in the higher crime neighborhood. See my previous response, but basically all things can be true.

It can (and evidence supports that) at ac basic level:

1. There are more crimes committed in one neighborhood than another

2. Increasing police presence in the higher crime neighborhood does not decrease the occurrence of such crimes

3. Increased police presence leads to unjustified disproportionate enforcement of smaller violations being broken equally by both neighborhoods

Your original reply goes much farther than simply claiming less natural crime, and then adds a lot of armchair sociology without backing. When you ask rhetorical questions and follow with "I don't know", you are implying without evidence and it's not a constructive argument that appears in good faith.

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

#104

Post by alexashka » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 6:01 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”?

It's a false dichotomy.

Point a) Some neighbourhoods have more police in them, because they have more criminal activity. They are almost always poor neighbourhoods. We want there to be more police, the same way we want more doctors in places where the sick people are (hospitals).

Point b) Police officers have mandatory quotas - to fulfill those quotas, they go to places where they're more likely to make arrests, the same way fishermen go fishing where the fish are more likely to be.

Because police work based on quotas, they'll bust people for whatever is easiest to catch while satisfying the quota criteria.

If you want to be informed on this subject in more detail, the best resource I've found is interviews with Dr Michael Wood, he has a youtube channel and has been on Joe Rogan a couple of times.

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

#105

Post by wonderwonder » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #84

drhayes9 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pol…

I was more upset that the parent was implying that his neighborhood would have equal arrest numbers if the police had been more present on account of his pot smoking. I hope everyone can see what a stupid argument that is and that’s the hill I’m willing to die on here.

Given a long enough timeline of increased arrests, police presence and assumption of guilt, why would my neighborhood not eventually have the same number of arrests and crime. Unless your argument is that there is something physically different in the other neighborhood that drives them towards crime. If that's your argument and I am having a hard time seeing what else it could be then I think we are done here.

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

#106

Post by kortilla » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #69

jimbob45 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tal…

> so yeah we are talking about things like pot.

Only if you want to talk about the non-violent half to paint a picture that it’s pointless.

For the sake of discussion, assume pot is legal and those drug arrests didn’t happen. Low income areas still have higher rates of violent crime.

Is your argument that drug criminalization is causing other violent crimes?

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

#107

Post by rhizome » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

jasonv wrote: post #14

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”?

We have data on the incarceration rates of Americans as a whole, versus other countries. I think the current activist climate is in response to the fact that the status quo is built on the premise that all that befalls the troubled populations in the US is always because they deserve it, and they brought it upon themselves. And therefore, all the prevailing cultural/ policing/ political/ fiscal positions that have be…

That's called the Just-World Hypothesis, and I don't know that anybody professes it as a policy framework, though regular people do and I think it could be said to underlie a lot of prejudices and bigotries in people who do affect public policy, but it has to be hidden unless you're Steve King (R-IA). Victim-blaming is very common in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

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

#108

Post by danans » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #36

joshgel wrote: 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...

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 tr…

I don't think your comment should be downvoted (perhaps something about the book/author itself?). The heroes/villains trope has been heavily overplayed by US culture and before 2016, by politicians of all stripes.

I've heard the police department captains in the area I live describe the scenario as a "war", "wolves and sheep", etc.

That's not to say there aren't really heroic cops or that there aren't really bad criminals, either. But the idea that either of them exist and act independently from their surrounding context, whether that is a corrupt police union or an impoverished struggling community, is very shortsighted.

If anything, that set of tropes needs to be taken down several notches, and the corruption and poverty/inequality need to be addressed directly. We've tried the approach of militarization of police and mass-imprisonment for non-violent offenses. It hasn't worked.

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

#109

Post by MikeAmelung » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #69

jimbob45 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tal…

Don't even know why I'm going to bother, but most of those drug offenses are trafficking crack/cocaine and meth, a large percentage of them also involve weapons. It's not people who were smoking weed on the porch.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf

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

#110

Post by mistersquid » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 6:03 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…

The report you linked to is astonishing, not just for the violence committed against someone who, at the time he was questioned, was not in violation of the law, but also for the degree of force used considering the crime being investigated.

To wit:

> wrongly detained him after identifying him as a suspect in a panhandling case.

Slammed to the ground for being suspected of panhandling? (To my mind, panhandling is akin to free speech.)