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

441–450 of 643 posts

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

#441

Post by OptionX »

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…

And what are the victims of violent crimes in those neighborhood do in the interim between the take resources from the already strained police departments and use them other for long-term measures? And I'm even assuming they even would have worthwhile results of course despite the premise that such programs would work is given in a matter of factly manner.

Put yourself in the shoes of an innocent PoC who's house just got robbed. Will not having cops available to your neighborhood to respond to the call make you feel more or less prejudiced against? Will they derive that much comfort in knowing that maybe, in one or two generations thing MIGHT be slightly less bad. And will the criminal elements, seeing the lowering in police response, not grow more bold and escalate?

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

#442

Post by sfj »

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.…

> Since racism is systemic...

Regardless of public opinion, how do we know this? Couldn't black people be just innately more violent then whites due to genetics? They certainly have dominated professional sports which indicate there are at least some differences. Wouldn't that extend to mental attributes as well, or does evolution and biology just stop at the neck?

Edit: I just died... hello ghost viewers! Such wrongthink, double plus bad

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

#444

Post by fastball »

nitrogen wrote: post #415
briandear wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rape investigation should be done by a social worker? Are they trained criminal investigators? Is a social worker familiar with the rules of criminal evidence? The job of the police is to investigate crimes and present evidence to the DA. For welfare checks or mental illness incidents, then of course a social worker or analogue could be a better choice. For investigating criminal acts, that’s specifically what poli…

It would be perfectly possible to have people who are trained to preserve evidence who are not also traditional police. E.g. a medical examiner of some kind. You want someone to work with traumatized victims delicately, and a uniformed cop with a sidearm is not the ideal presence in that case. I don't want to get into suspect present/absent/whatever; but this type of crime isn't necessarily done by a random stranger…

This hypothetical trained medical examiner won't be wearing a uniform? Seems like a uniform might be a good idea.

As to a sidearm – if I'd just been raped, someone showing up to protect me with a sidearm sounds like just the ticket.

Not sure what you are saying about a suspect not being a random stranger, that doesn't seem particularly relevant to whether or not the suspect is still there.

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

#447

Post by zepto »

iamstupidsimple wrote: post #375
thebradbain wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does a victim of sexual assault need to report to someone who has a gun? Why does a wellness check need to be performed with a gun? Why does a standard highway patrolman or cop doing routine speed traps need a gun? Why does every cop in a school need a gun? Why is the gun the constant?

> Why does a standard highway patrolman or cop doing routine speed traps need a gun? Because this is statistically the form of policing most likely to get cops shot. > Why does every cop in a school need a gun? A symptom of America's school shooting problem. When your child is being gunned down you'll probably wish the police there were armed.

School shootings where children are being gunned down are vanishingly rare.

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

#448

Post by mike741 »

merpnderp wrote: post #426
Misdicorl wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the original argument is talking about worrying response times, not conviction rates!

Crimes often leave evidence of which much is time sensitive. Responding in a timely manner to crimes are often critical to finding the perpetrators.

how often?

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

#449

Post by lostlogin »

NickNameNick wrote: post #430
lostlogin wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking with police is interesting. I talked policing with a police officer who had worked in New Zealand, the UK and Australia. These are countries that are relatively close in culture and the differences in policing described by the officer were striking. A lot of this was in relation to what the police role was and how other services cooperated (or didn’t). It would be great to have a description of system differe…

Could you expand on that? I'm really curious about what the differences were.

The guy was quite down on his time in Australia, and the aggressive policing he was expected to do. He contrasted that with his time in the UK and (particularly) in NZ the role seemed to allow more tolerance and leeway and was described by him as 'progressive'. The NZ police aim seemed to be to get compliance without police charges or fines by engaging in a less combative manner. He described quite harsh measures taken for minor disruptive behaviour and property damage (eg graffiti) in Australia. He had a low opinion of the way children were managed in all three countries. Police had little option but to lock young kids in cells when found out and about late at night in NZ. He had previously had the ability to get social services in the UK could house a child for a night. This was theoretically available in NZ, but never was in practice. So when they found a kid out in the small hours, if they couldn't find their caregivers, the kid had to go to a cell. He was very down about this. I left with the distinct impression that in order of severity of policing (for want of a better term) it went from a relatively relaxed and easy going NZ to UK then a quite severe and punitive Australia. It would be interesting to know if this is borne out by others impressions/data.

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

#450

Post by mike741 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #320
lostapathy wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody commits minor infractions of the law regularly. Putting someone under watch, by a cop who needs to report that he enforced something, is going to ensure they get picked up sooner or later. There's a saying to the effect that a good cop can find a reason to pull any car over if he follows it for just a couple minutes.

The reality is that the police can pull you over at any time for no reason at all, and you are still required to follow their orders. There is no remedy available in real-time. The law says that you must always follow police instructions. So if the police pull you over for no reason, and handcuff you on the side of the road, you must submit to the handcuffing. If they demand to search your car, you must submit to tha…

"The law says that you must always follow police instructions."

out of curiosity, which law is this or where does it say that?

Post reply on HN