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

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

#641

Post by p49k » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 8:08 AM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #632

p49k wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also a nascent movement so it’s not surprising that many people don’t understand it. There are many successful policies that began with very low public support.

Yeah but the policy proposals spelled out earn actual majority support in polls, instead of tiny-minority support. It's a terrible self-defeating name/slogan.

I'm sorry but I find this kind of nitpicking in bad form. People are going out and taking action to bring attention to a problem in what is obviously the best way they can do so. If you have an idea about improving marketing, why not spend that energy helping/proposing something and volunteering?

Aside from that, I think there is more to consider than just what will appeal to public opinion; dry attempts to shift one’s words to match opinion polls is how many politicians lose elections by coming off as pandering. There is a sense of urgency and emotion in the original phrase that might be important in the broader picture and in the long term.

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

#642

Post by collinmanderson » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #492

banads wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For myriad of reasons, we know clearly that controlling for no other factors, crime is higher among black populations. So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. What about controlling for poverty? That seems to be largely ignored in this discussion, even though it was a central tenent of Dr. Kings mission before he was assassinated. "We…

It's not left out. It's well studied. It's not the only factor, but one of the big ones. The problem is, median black net worth is one-tenth that of median white net-worth. Why is that? You can come up with a bunch of near and intermediate causes, but they will all mostly boil down to systemic racism both past and present. More specifically, government housing is only available in dense urban environments. As is publ…

> the fact that over-policing seriously hinders economic prosperity

I'm replying to an old discussion, but if you see this comment, do you have a source for this? Thanks.

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

#643

Post by jirdperson » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #198

jirdperson wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is somewhat tangential to your point, but I think catching more “criminals” (I.e. people who break laws, which is virtually everyone at some point - though many won’t even realize it and are unlikely to face consequences) can certainly lead to an increase in crime. In the US, at least, contact with the criminal justice system can significantly reduce social and economic opportunities and increase the likelihood…

"catch[ing] more criminals" was a quote from above. But I used it when discussing murder, not jaywalking. I agree that being locked up once surely makes going straight harder (because employers are wary) and going crooked easier (as you now have more contacts). This is a real problem we should try to address. But I'm not convinced that looking the other way at violent crime is at all the right approach. However, ther…

> I agree that being locked up once surely makes going straight harder (because employers are wary) and going crooked easier (as you now have more contacts).

It's not just a question of "going straight" - most "criminals" aren't professionals who have to make a discrete decision to stop their hypothetical "life of crime." Even if we ignore the types of "crime" that essentially involve engaging in normal behavior and being unlucky enough to get caught (ex. jaywalking, driving after having a few drinks at happy hour, or smoking marijuana) and look at violent crime, you'll find that a significant percentage of that is the result of social/psychological/economic instability and is directed at those within the social network of the individual involved. Many of these crimes are so-called "crimes of passion" or the result of some form of mental illness - in neither case is an individual likely to stop, think carefully, and rationally conclude that committing a violent crime is in their best interest.

You can lock someone like that up to prevent them from repeating actions that harm those around them, but you can only do that retroactively (which does little in material terms for victims). Given that less than half of crimes committed each year (including violent crime) are even reported to the police, and that a majority of crimes which are reported to the police aren't solved, it seems much more proactive to work towards a solution that prevents people from ending up in the type of situation that produces criminals to begin with. Proactive policing can easily be at odds with that goal if it throws petty criminals into unmanageable situations that preclude them from having a "normal" life. We can't forget that poverty itself is hugely correlated with crime.

> But I'm not convinced that looking the other way at violent crime is at all the right approach.

I don't think anyone is proposing "looking the other way" with regard to violent crime. I'm certainly not. I think it would be beneficial to make prisons more humane, in that it would increase the chance of rehabilitating them, but I don't think enacting some real-life version of "The Purge" is a reasonable course of action.

> However, there is no way this is the main causal link between policing & crime.

Oh, I definitely agree. My intention was to point out an edge case, not imply that police are the main source of crime.