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

391–400 of 643 posts

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

#391

Post by throwaway0a5e »

basch wrote: post #141
erichocean wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting Minneapolis is a…success story? I honestly can't tell, but if so, BLM would like a word…

Did you read the article. Minneapolis, for close to 50 years, has been an example of how to do low income housing better than everyone else. Policy within the last decade has eroded this gain. It has gotten worse since these policies have rolled back. Is it perfect? No. Does low income housing alone prevent police from fracturing families and communities by enforcing drug law? No.

> It has gotten worse since these policies have rolled back.

And standards of living going backward are (rightfully) a great way to piss people off and make them willing to riot at the drop of a hat.

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

#392

Post by cptskippy »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #232
bhntr3 wrote: post #184

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 agree that, in general, you're going to have biased training data (with a bias that's difficult to measure) and so inherently policing recommendations will be biased. This is particularly problematic when it comes to arrests for crimes that are inherently 'selective' in their enforcement. Eg; drug-related crimes, public intoxication, loitering, trespassing. But the fact is... violent (fatal and nonfatal) crimes do…

> There's a worrying trend in the conversation these days that has shifted from "there's a serious problem with racism in how police go about their job" to "we need less police".

The conversations aren't about less police, they're about defunding the police and putting that money to better use. If the police choose to reduce their numbers in order to afford riot gear, tear gas guns, armored personnel carriers, warrior training, and all the other BS well then there won't be armies of them assaulting the public.

> Folks in neighborhoods living with the constant threat of gang violence don't have the luxury to sit in their aeron chairs and argue about defunding the police. They face the very real threat of themselves or their loved ones being shot on the streets and statistically not by police.

Throwing police at the problem of gang violence hasn't solved it. It hasn't made the neighborhoods safer. If overwhelming violence quelled violence, why has the Taliban outlasted two first world armies back by trillions of dollars?

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

#393

Post by Misdicorl »

chaostheory wrote: post #364
Misdicorl wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horseshit. Police response to violent incidents in 'problematic' neighborhoods is already extremely slow. The threat of gang violence is not mitigated by police response. The threat of gang violence is mitigated by providing much better options for people who would otherwise join gangs. Police presence is immaterial to the lack of gangs in affluent neighborhoods.

This could be one of the reasons why https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/675359781/americas-growing-co... https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national-politics/the-... It will only get worse. I wonder if AI and robotics will need to be used in the future assuming that the police shortage trend continues or gets even worse?

Or we could address the root problem behind the vast majority of crime; systemic poverty.

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

#394

Post by vmception »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #386
mnm1 wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, black people use drugs at slightly lower rates than whites. This is common knowledge or should be. Here's 3 of the top 6 google links for "illicit drug use by race": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377408/ https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004723521...

We're talking about violent crime... drug prosecutions and other nonviolent crime are notorious for selective enforcement. A bullet fired, a body, etc. are much harder to hide.

and my immediate reply to you was that its not about violent crime

It doesn't exist in isolation

There is no “culture that commits violent crime”

There is a marginalized population from overpolicing for nonviolent crimes

It cascades

It can be fixed by acknowledging this component

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

#395

Post by a1369209993 »

treis wrote: post #360
cgriswald wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In both cases it doesn’t actually work. In the case of the data-backed nonsense it’s been used to justify holding people past their prison sentence. In this case it’s demonstrably worse . In the general case anything that’s “sciency” but doesn’t actually work leads to bad outcomes because people are far more likely to buy into it or at least less likely to call out obvious BS.

>In the case of the data-backed nonsense it’s been used to justify holding people past their prison sentence. I'm not sure why you assume that it's keeping people in prison and not being used to let them out.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23655017 (your GGP) and supposedly originally https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7... :

> In America this is being used to decide whether to keep them in jail even after they have served their full sentence.

That may not be true, but the reason why they assume that is that basch and/or the BBC said that.

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

#396

Post by nimbius »

bhntr3 wrote: post #184

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.…

Disclosure: I have been incarcerated in the United States for a drug crime. The sentence amounted to a three year stint and a 2 year parole for cannabis.

1. Cops arrest you based on success. If they can make sure you're a slam dunk at trial, then you're in handcuffs. Arresting the poorest black people will always result in a win for their career record. Simply put,racism is almost designed to be part of the system.

2. Bingo. Building more police stations in poor neighborhoods puts a jackboot to anyone who complains about the closures of public health clinics, social workers and psych wards. It can only ever be deemed a success because critics are 'superpredators' and not just incredibly poor or unfortunate. Political dissent from poverty gets bureaucratically disguised as rote criminality.

Cops at any level, even the sec, are incredible reticent about the idea of policing what they see as either too delicate, productive, or successful.

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

#397

Post by momokoko »

cptskippy wrote: post #392
alfalfasprout wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that, in general, you're going to have biased training data (with a bias that's difficult to measure) and so inherently policing recommendations will be biased. This is particularly problematic when it comes to arrests for crimes that are inherently 'selective' in their enforcement. Eg; drug-related crimes, public intoxication, loitering, trespassing. But the fact is... violent (fatal and nonfatal) crimes do…

> There's a worrying trend in the conversation these days that has shifted from "there's a serious problem with racism in how police go about their job" to "we need less police". The conversations aren't about less police, they're about defunding the police and putting that money to better use. If the police choose to reduce their numbers in order to afford riot gear, tear gas guns, armored personnel carriers, warrio…

> Throwing police at the problem of gang violence hasn't solved it. It hasn't made the neighborhoods safer.

That is not true. We have solid data from New York during the Giuliani era and more recently Camden, NJ. Whether or not we agree with how they accomplished that is another matter.

For example in New York a massive increase in arrests for nonviolent crime and much more proactively policing in order to check for warrants etc.

The truth is that nothing works in isolation. In New York we also saw a migration of younger professionals back into the city which reduced crime by forcing out poorer residents via gentrification.

The reality is that in any nation with a high prevalence of gun ownership combined with a large portion of the population without enough to provide for themselves and often, due to criminal records, no other choice but to commit crimes to provide for themselves.

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

#398

Post by [deleted] »

snowwrestler wrote: post #306
alfalfasprout wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that, in general, you're going to have biased training data (with a bias that's difficult to measure) and so inherently policing recommendations will be biased. This is particularly problematic when it comes to arrests for crimes that are inherently 'selective' in their enforcement. Eg; drug-related crimes, public intoxication, loitering, trespassing. But the fact is... violent (fatal and nonfatal) crimes do…

If we want to stop neighborhood gang violence in the long term, we need to work on why people join gangs, and what they are fighting over. We can't do that with police, who generally don't come into the situation until after it's too late and things have gone wrong. But if most of our money is going to the police, then what resources are available to do the longer-term work on gangs and neighborhoods? In software dev…

[deleted]

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

#399

Post by longtimegoogler »

snowwrestler wrote: post #306
alfalfasprout wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that, in general, you're going to have biased training data (with a bias that's difficult to measure) and so inherently policing recommendations will be biased. This is particularly problematic when it comes to arrests for crimes that are inherently 'selective' in their enforcement. Eg; drug-related crimes, public intoxication, loitering, trespassing. But the fact is... violent (fatal and nonfatal) crimes do…

If we want to stop neighborhood gang violence in the long term, we need to work on why people join gangs, and what they are fighting over. We can't do that with police, who generally don't come into the situation until after it's too late and things have gone wrong. But if most of our money is going to the police, then what resources are available to do the longer-term work on gangs and neighborhoods? In software dev…

Seems flimsy to me. I can't see how this would produce the type of funding for social programs and schools.

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

#400

Post by Gibbon1 »

bhntr3 wrote: post #184

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.…

> 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.

This comment reminds me of something I saw earlier this morning. A bunch of redlining maps in various cities in California.

Made think of something other than, Black and Hispanic people couldn't get loans in the neighborhoods they lived in. Yadda yadda.

The flipside is whites couldn't get loans in those neighborhoods either. Which meant if you were a middle class white person you couldn't buy a cheaper house in a mixed neighborhood. You were pretty much forced to buy in a neighborhood where covenants excluded Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

The system was designed to enhance segregation.

More to your point when you have system that explicitly or implicitly categorizes people and uses that to single them out of punishment or harassment that's group punishment. That's usually considered a no no by civilized people.

Post reply on HN