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

511–520 of 643 posts

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

#511

Post by metrokoi »

cblades wrote: post #353
metrokoi wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. How can recognizing an obvious fact be racism? Aren't you also racist for recognizing that crime is higher among black populations? It's racist to treat a black individual as if they have committed a crime or treat th…

>But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. More likely to be convicted of a crime. That's a subtle but very important distinction.

Yes, but we only have evidence to believe that black people do on average commit more crime because they are convicted of more crime. The theory is that blacks commit the same or less crime but only convicted of it because of some type of predatory policing, but that is only a theory and there is no widespread studies or statistics to support this theory. It may well be true, but until there is proof we cannot assume that it is not the case.

I do appreciate the correction and it is an important distinction.

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

#512

Post by metrokoi »

lostapathy wrote: post #251
metrokoi wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? What are these minor infractions that would get picked up on? Likely drug or gun charges. Most people don't own guns illegal or use illegal drugs. The only common infraction I can think of is speeding, but that's not what these criminals are being picked up for. Cops don't follow a single individual around waiting for them to go 5 over the speed limit.

It's not like cops can pull you over for simple possession of weed in your glove box. They pull people over for a traffic infraction and then find the weed, illegal gun, etc.

Like I said, most people do not own weapons illegally or use illegal drugs, even weed. Most people don't smoke weed, even in legal states.

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

#513

Post by Talanes »

banads wrote: post #341
snowwrestler wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why is the money given to the police the only allocation you are wanting to drain for this cause?

Police spending is inadequately large because the threat of a police walk-out scares city governments than the threat of any other department striking.

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

#514

Post by lisper »

adamsea wrote: post #498
lisper wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that these principles work great in a homogeneous society where everyone has some kind of stake in the societal outcome. If you take people with a particular skin color and enslave them and otherwise systematically discriminate against them to varying degrees over the course of 400 years then these principles break down. It is going to take a long, long time -- probably multiple generations -- for Amer…

Dude you have it backwards because the police in the US historically functioned to support slavery. I bet you didn’t intend it to be but your argument basically blames the victim, when it’s the oppressor who is guilty of a crime - not the oppressed. It’s the fault of the oppressor for oppressing, that is the blocker to progress, not the response of the oppressed. The police are what need to change because they were a…

I have no idea how you could construe what I wrote as disagreeing with you.

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

#515

Post by metrokoi »

ncallaway wrote: post #283
metrokoi wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? What are these minor infractions that would get picked up on? Likely drug or gun charges. Most people don't own guns illegal or use illegal drugs. The only common infraction I can think of is speeding, but that's not what these criminals are being picked up for. Cops don't follow a single individual around waiting for them to go 5 over the speed limit.

I'll give a partial list and refer to the RCW since that's a state I'm familiar with. Again, the entire point is the driving code is long and complicated. There are many many reasons you can be stopped. Explore the entire RCW yourself on driving rules here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61 . I encourage you to read the entire section and ask yourself if you ever have a driving trip longer than 3 blo…

I think you misinterpreted my comment, friend. I never said or impled that cops don't pull people over for speeding. I said they don't target a single individual and follow them around waiting for them to speed. This was the part of the parent comment I was responding to:

>Putting someone under watch

That does not mean following a single individual a cop may encounter on the road that looks sketchy and wait for them to speed. It means staking out outside "Joe Blow who lives as 12345 Address St."'s house because Joe Blow is part of a demographic that is predicted to be more likely to be involved with gang activity, and waiting for him to get in his car and speed. The difference is an "unknown" or "random" individual vs. a "known" or "pre-planned" individual, because that is what the parent comment was discussing. I apologize if my original comment was unclear! I say this respectfully, it may be beneficial to more carefully examine the context of comments so that discussions may be more productive in the future.

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

#516

Post by wang_li »

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…

Most of our money doesn’t go to police. A search online reveals that in 2019 the US spent $300 billion on protection and security, which is police, fire department, and other related services. We spent $1.2 trillion on education.

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

#517

Post by pininja »

kebman wrote: post #482
r00fus wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From studies I’ve read it is noted that most of those calls could be handled by a social worker or other non-violent responder. The problem is the police budget has dwarfed and subsumed all non-violent requests as well.

Domestic issues are often met with social workers where I'm from. They gain early detection and access, by registering and treating social issues such as poverty, health or mental related issues. A lot of people then have their lives changed for the better, so they never fall into crime. On a whole, this is good for society, since it gets the benefit of less crime and violence, and so society becomes safer. On top of…

Where is this wonderful place, and when can I move there?

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

#518

Post by joshuamorton »

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.

Perhaps, but school resource officers have a poor track record of addressing school shootings.

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

#519

Post by okareaman »

zpallin wrote: post #153
franksvalli wrote: post #149

Just for the record, in 2011 Santa Cruz was proud to be the first in the US to try predictive policing: https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2011/01/14/crime-predictio... https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/06/20/santa-cruz-cons...

So, it means Santa Cruz has a track record for being on the cutting edge of policing technology?

PredPol is headquartered there: "PredPol Inc, the Santa Cruz-headquartered firm that pioneered the technology, said that it supported the city resolution’s requirement that predictive policing “will not perpetuate bias”, among other criteria."

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

#520

Post by unishark »

whakim wrote: post #477
mov_ wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, redlining may now be illegal in the United States, but middle class white Americans have been benefiting from nearly a hundred years' worth of wealth accumulation through housing that black Americans were locked out of. This is a good example of how the "system" produces racially-biased outcomes without any racist human input in the present day. I think this is describing how the system includes moment…

I don't think it's just the "strictest, most technical" sense. It's a significant example of how "if you took the people out of the system, you'd still get biased outcomes based on race." (or, if you prefer, an example of where "an entirely non-racist staff would still produce racially-based biased outcomes")

This seems to fit with the charge that you are arguing momentum is racist. They were born in a poor household. That household is poorer than it would otherwise be because of racism in prior generations (but which no longer exists today) leading to a lack of inheritance among other things. This is your evidence of systemic racism.

Along those same lines I suppose we also suffer from systemic genocide, systemic famine, systemic war, and every other crappy thing that happened to people in history and were not somehow complete corrected for by a counter redistribution of wealth and status.

Post reply on HN