Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 643 posts

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

#181

Post by Digit-Al »

kortilla wrote: post #116
wonderwonder wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course poor neighborhoods are going to have higher crime. Unless you have been truly poor you won’t understand the sense of desperation that can lead to bad decisions. You grow up in a food scarce household with a parent addicted to painkillers with no guidance on what a path to a successful future is and crime becomes a lot more palatable. Getting in the game starts to look like the only possible way to “make it”…

I agree. Every time there is an article like this you get the same arguments, the same discussions, and the same comments. Back and forth, back and forth, over and over again.

But if you actually bother to do some reading on the subject the conclusions are overwhelmingly clear. Over and over again social programs show very clearly that if you improve education and give people better opportunities to escape the poverty trap and better themselves you reduce crime.

The formula is simple really: if you give people opportunities to make an honest living then they will, for the most part, make an honest living; if you don't give people the opportunity to make an honest living then they will, for the most part, make a dishonest living.

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

#182

Post by WrongThinkerNo5 »

With what seems to be nothing but criticism of policing policies, I would love to know what the ideal or even acceptable policing policies are, presuming that any policing will be accepted.

The most simple minded can be critics, but what is the alternative? What happens when the lawless mob and criminals want to break and enter your home and take your things and burn down your life? It's easy enough when it's the "others" stuff and homes and lives. But this is clearly a breakdown of equality under the law … equal laws that are equally enforced with equal penalties. Is that objectionable to anyone? I thought we are striving for equality. You cant achieve equality when some get away with breaking the law and others don't; and some get light sentences and others have even the clear case against them dropped. That's not equality.

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

#183

Post by jeffbee »

erichocean wrote: post #164
jeffbee wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, the crime rate in that county (and in Cambridge and Lowell) reflects the same plunging nature as the rest of the state and nation, since 1990 peak. Take the big CSV from the github I posted, combine it with the FBI UCR data, and try to find a correlation between incarceration rate and crime rate.

I have, it's the main topic I study. I've just never met anyone with the view that increased incarcerations rates are not associated with decreases in crime (specifically, violent crime), and I don't think the data supports that either. I literally have no idea how you came to that conclusion given the stats available to researchers over the last 40 years. I'm not suggesting that there aren't other ways to decrease c…

It’s clear that incarceration rates are associated with falling violent crime, to the extent that one went up and the other went down, but the existence of large jurisdictions that enjoyed the latter without the former casts doubt on the idea of causation.

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

#184

Post by bhntr3 »

The problem with predictive policing is in the name. Inference (ML) predicts the future from the past. If the past is racist, then inference will create a racist future. Since racism is systemic[1], especially when it comes to policing, predictive policing is actively working against an anti-racist future.

There may be statistical ways to factor out systemic racism. There are two reasons I don't think that works:

1. I don't see how one evaluates the correctness of the process that controls for racism. What is ground truth for anti-racist policing?

2. These systems are likely snake oil and the vendors of these systems are (possibly inadvertently) profiting off racist policing. If cops arrest more black people per capita, then send the cops to black neighborhoods and have them follow black parolees. The system works (according to an objective function which maximizes arrests.) Remove racism and send the cops to white neighborhoods. Now the cops don't arrest as many people. The system fails. So I think it's likely that if you remove racist policing from predictive policing, you get the null hypothesis.

I'd be happy to hear a counterargument from someone who has actual statistics on this though.

[1] If you don't believe this, you're in the minority now: https://www.vox.com/2020/6/11/21286642/george-floyd-protests...

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

#185

Post by tootie »

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…

NYC has used analytics since 1993 and it's widely credited as contributing to the incredible drop in crime. I don't buy for a second that ending these kind of programs will help anything. Certainly we can decrease brutality by sending police into areas with no conflicts but that defeats the whole purpose of policing. We need effective and aggressive law enforcement as much as ever. We need to root out the worst abusers and show them that bad behavior will be punished severely.

https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/compstat-crime-reduction...

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

#186

Post by daenz »

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…

It is mind-blowing how misleading this is. You should really consider editing your post. The majority of people in state prisons are there for VIOLENT CRIMES, and the plurality of people in local jails are there for violent crimes.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

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

#188

Post by ruddct »

mistersquid wrote: post #110
wonderwonder wrote: post #19

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…

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 aki…

Wait until you hear about Elijiah McClain, who was tackled then choked/injected with ketamine until he went into cardiac arrest and was eventually pronounced brain-dead. He had 911 called on him for walking while 'looking sketchy'.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/who-was-elijah-mcclain.html

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

#189

Post by jirdperson »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #54
tehjoker wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not who you responded to, FYI.

That said, crimes are simply whatever those in power deem them to be. Not only does this imply an obvious disconnect between legality and morality, but for groups not adequately represented by those in power, it can make living within the law virtually impossible. Take the gay community, for example. It was only in 2003 that the US Supreme Court struck down state laws banning sex between same-sex partners. At the time, 14 states still had such laws on the books - 11 still do today (even though they’re now unenforceable, they’ve resulted in multiple arrests since the 2003 ruling).

A few decades earlier, gay sex was essentially illegal throughout the entire US. Do you have any interest in accommodating the viewpoint that gay Americans being gay Americans before the past 20-50 years (depending on the state they resides in) were morally acceptable, despite habitually engaging in criminal activity? Or would that be considered abhorrent?

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

#190

Post by wonderwonder »

kortilla wrote: post #116
wonderwonder wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course poor neighborhoods are going to have higher crime. Unless you have been truly poor you won’t understand the sense of desperation that can lead to bad decisions. You grow up in a food scarce household with a parent addicted to painkillers with no guidance on what a path to a successful future is and crime becomes a lot more palatable. Getting in the game starts to look like the only possible way to “make it”…

I agree with you but my question is does increased police presence lead to a poor neighborhood. Take for example a middle class white neighborhood. If there was a sudden and very visible increased presence over years, arresting people for minor offences, watching everyone and questioning everyone, would that neighborhood become a poor neighborhood. I think it would. I think people who could would move out, property values would drop and the people who could not move out would have a higher predisposition to crime as they were worked into the system.
Post reply on HN