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

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

#551

Post by handoflixue » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 8:59 AM UTC

SkyBelow wrote: post #321

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.…

>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. One thing that constantly annoys me is that while people are becoming well aware of how racist our legal system…

Part of the problem with addressing Sexism in policing is that "women commit violent/dangerous crimes less often than men" is a less obviously wrong statement, since there are actually really clear biological differences between the sexes, and those biological differences influence both strength and propensity towards competitive/violent engagement.

I am 100% not trying to defend this; I agree with you that there's a problem. But I've never actually seen much research that demonstrates that there's a problem, even when there obviously is one.

For instance, women can't rape men and it is instead legally classed as "forced envelopment" or something, so there's... very, very clearly a disparity, but almost no one ever hears about it. I can't think of any reliable central archive of information that isn't vividly a "Men's Rights Activist" website that screams 90s conspiracy theorists.

EDIT: If you do know of any useful sources for spreading the idea, I'd love to hear about them.

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

#552

Post by iguy » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 9:08 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #423

iguy wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously claiming that the presence of police increases the murder rate? Or are you actually asking to know by what mechanisms policing can prevent murders? Once you are talking about solving a murder, clearly that one was not prevented. It may draw detectives to the neighborhood looking for clues. It's pretty hard to argue that the causality runs from these detectives to the murder though.

> Are you seriously claiming that the presence of police increases the murder rate? No, I'm not, and I didn't say anything remotely suggesting that.

Yea I couldn't figure it out. The context of the thread was which way the causality goes from density of policing to level of crime. What were you saying then?

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

#553

Post by meheleventyone » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 9:31 AM UTC

lisper wrote: post #453

paragraft wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One starting observation I'd venture is those countries (and Canada) base their policing on Peelian principles, which establish a basis of policing and the relationship with the public. The US police culture had different roots. Edit: for reference, the list of principles that were issued to each new police officer in London from 1829 onward. 1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and dis…

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…

The UK isn’t a homogenous society like that and it also has hundreds of years of institutionalised racism to deal with. So I’m not sure that can be a reason why these principles wouldn’t work in the US.

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

#554

Post by ACow_Adonis » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 9:45 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #546

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from a notable exception in the Australian Capital, it's worth noting that in Australia you have the Federal Police (AFP) which is responsible for policing federal offences, but the states are responsible for enactment and policing of most things that Americans would consider "everyday policing". The main issue this represents in your story is that it's not correct for the most part to present an "Australian ex…

The officer had worked in Queensland, but I don’t know what branch or department. I hadn’t considered the various branches that they have. I also wouldn’t be considering his views (via me) as anything other than a possibly interesting anecdote.

So for those wanting to know a bit more context (I'm genuinely bemused that someone can get downvoted on HN for provided factual context that's relevant for comparing the various police systems, but whatever...), Queensland is a primarily tropical/humid-subtropical/semi-arid state marginally bigger than Alaska and ~three times the size of Texas. Its held to be "relatively conservative" (the most conservative by some, holding some 7 of the 10 most right-wing electorates in the country at last election) by Australian standards, and is weird from a demographics point of view because its a state (possibly the only one?) in Australia where the majority of the population lives outside of the metro capital city area, and from a politics point of view its remarkable because its the only unicameral state parliamentary system in the Australian federation.

The state had 32 years of unbroken rule by the national party of Australia, which ended, not coincidentally to the end of the rule or this topic, after an inquiry into police corruption at the end of the 80's. It is also no coincidence that the state was the founding site of Australia's one nation party. As you move further north you begin to have more isolation and contact with indigenous communities, but its also a diverse and complex state, hosting both the brisbane/gold-coast and cairns areas, hubs of tourism that ferment more "liberal-eco" attitudes in contrast to some of the rural/farming/conservative bents. There is a significant military/mining presence in the north, as well as a significant retiree community/attraction because of the climate/weather.

I'm trying to describe it as objectively as I can. Its also stunningly beautiful and I grew up there :P I'd joke and say to my american readers, it would be like using florida/texas/alabama/bahamas/california as representative of the practices of US policing, but that is an honestly terrible analogy.

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

#555

Post by thaumasiotes » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 9:51 AM UTC

stx wrote: post #418

longtimegoogler wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I don't think the answer is pull the police out of predominantly black neighborhoods, which seems to be the motivation for shutting this program down. Better training, more black officers, more rules around the use of force seem like better options. Of course, I don't really know what the people in these neighborhoods want so I am open to some alternatives, but ranting about predictive policing doesn't s…

I think the answer is to filter police who may have tendency to violence and racism out of the police force. There have been police who violate rights and the police departments keep them on even after the department or city pays huge settlements. From my understanding police are able to leave departments and not necessarily have their complaint history follow them to new departments. So if they have racked up compla…

> I think the answer is to filter police who may have tendency to violence and racism out of the police force.

If this solution ended up filtering out most black police, would racism be more or less of a problem than it is now?

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

#556

Post by concordDance » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 10:09 AM UTC

socalnate1 wrote: post #504

tpmx wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a) an incompetent or politically stymied police force b) predictive policing from prior crime data works

This was a very clever comment, and I don't think most folks understood it.

Enlighten us?

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

#557

Post by lostlogin » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 10:52 AM UTC

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #554

lostlogin wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The officer had worked in Queensland, but I don’t know what branch or department. I hadn’t considered the various branches that they have. I also wouldn’t be considering his views (via me) as anything other than a possibly interesting anecdote.

So for those wanting to know a bit more context (I'm genuinely bemused that someone can get downvoted on HN for provided factual context that's relevant for comparing the various police systems, but whatever...), Queensland is a primarily tropical/humid-subtropical/semi-arid state marginally bigger than Alaska and ~three times the size of Texas. Its held to be "relatively conservative" (the most conservative by some,…

Thanks for both of these comments.

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

#558

Post by genoapol » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 11:47 AM UTC

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #417

Misdicorl wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not convinced that systemic poverty is the cause. Plenty of poorer counties and non urban, but just a poor, areas in the USA don't have these high violent crime rates.

Most of the poor countries you mention don't have an intentionally created underclass. The economic background and the tremendous intentional income/wealth inequality in the US adds a bit more complexity.

In most countries, you won't end up in jail because you make less than $X, the US penalizes being poor. The US jail population as a % of the world's total jailed population is a clear indicator.

Also its quite interesting that American whites commit crime at a higher rate than UK blacks. There is something systemic at work here.

It seems the few decades of gutting social safety nets compounded with the trend of shutting down schools to make funds available for policing and jail building created a pipeline directly to jail for the newly undereducated and poor. A pipeline with perverse incentives that helped corporations and the US government exploit almost free ($0.25/hr) domestic prison slave labor for weapons, defense, and general manufacturing.

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

#559

Post by Misdicorl » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:28 PM UTC

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #536

Misdicorl wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poverty includes more than just household income. In particular, many of the comparative areas you mention provide: safe schools, libraries, extended family resources. Population density is also a huge driver of violent crime rates. Of course poverty isn't the only factor. But it's a hugely important one.

higher household income would mean the households are worth more aka more property taxes aka more money for education and police to keep everybody safe

The point is that people construct these comparison classes which are poor but not impoverished. And then draw all sorts of faulty conclusions

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

#560

Post by ralfd » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

whakim wrote: post #465

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This struck me as well. Systemic racism means (to me) that if you took the people out of the system, you'd still get biased outcomes based on race. In my view, it's a different matter to say that a system produces biased results because it is designed to do so, rather than it is systemic because the people operating it make biased choices where their discretion is called on. Are there actual, current examples of syst…

In many cases, I don't think you can separate "people" from "the system" because the system is a human construct in which human discretion is called upon repeatedly. For example, studies which show that young white children react more negatively to black faces compared to white faces - is this "the system"? Is is it "discretion"? I'm not sure you can differentiate the two. It's also important to note that just becaus…

> This is a good example of how the "system" produces racially-biased outcomes without any racist human input in the present day.

What is the end goal here though? The most wealthy ethnicities in the US are Asian-Indians, Jewish and East-Asians. Is that also systemic racism (against Whites) and these groups should be knocked down?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvards-asian-quotas-repeat-an...