Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

newsnationnow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#31

Post by SkeuomorphicBee »

> For example, in Kansas City a bus stop at a particular intersection was attracting drug sales and loitering. So the police called the local transportation authority and had the bus stop moved.

> “I think within a week, maybe not even that, that immediately cut down on the loitering and foot traffic,” Capt. Jonas Baughman told the local press.

As an outsider, I have no words for how absurd this is to me. The fact that "cut down on the loitering and foot traffic" is somehow presented as a good thing is beyond surreal and infuriating. It is really difficult to comprehend a free society where standing still in a public space is a crime, and where the priority of police is to make people walk less and not hang out in public spaces.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#32

Post by jimmygrapes »

drewcoo wrote: post #7

Hasn't "broken windows"[1] been debunked? Isn't this that bunk? This is pure cop-aganda garbage. [1] https://phys.org/news/2019-05-evidence-broken-windows-theory...

I haven't read the original meta-analyses in full, but I often hear it parroted that "the broken window theory is debunked". Based on what I have read about this so-called debunking, I am far from convinced. Maybe I just don't understand the actual claims on either side.

The way I understood the original idea is that when something is in a continuous state of disrepair, two things happen: the effort to repair it decreases, and more disrepair follows. A knock-on effect of disrepair is that the perception of value decreases, which can spiral into lowered socio-economic standing in that region... and AFAIK there's little argument about whether low socio-economic status is an important factor for potential criminal behavior (just argument about why and what specific behavior).

I get the feeling the debunking of the theory is misinterpreted by many to mean "broken places don't cause broken people, if anything it's the other way around" which may in fact be true but is missing a lot of nuance.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#33

Post by TheCoelacanth »

baxtr wrote: post #30
squarefoot wrote: post #11

"This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws." Translation: "We can't put an article online without cramming it with cookies, analytics and other annoyances that serve no other purpose than profiling users; we actually don't want to protect your data, but they caught us with the pants down and enact…

Thanks to the EU, the internet is more balkanized than before.

Thanks to assholes who can't dream of not sucking up all the private data they can get their hands on, not thanks to the EU.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#34

Post by anigbrowl »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #31

> For example, in Kansas City a bus stop at a particular intersection was attracting drug sales and loitering. So the police called the local transportation authority and had the bus stop moved. > “I think within a week, maybe not even that, that immediately cut down on the loitering and foot traffic,” Capt. Jonas Baughman told the local press. As an outsider, I have no words for how absurd this is to me. The fact th…

Also tough shit if you were used to catching the bus there and now have to find and probably walk farther to another stop.

There used to be 'beat cops' whose job was to just walk around neighborhoods and be familiar with them; not the most efficient approach to policing, but also not the most intimidating or heavy-handed. Now you only see police outside a cruiser if they're doing crowd control, managing a crime scene, or doing community outreach, as a form of PR.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#35

Post by superjan »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #31

> For example, in Kansas City a bus stop at a particular intersection was attracting drug sales and loitering. So the police called the local transportation authority and had the bus stop moved. > “I think within a week, maybe not even that, that immediately cut down on the loitering and foot traffic,” Capt. Jonas Baughman told the local press. As an outsider, I have no words for how absurd this is to me. The fact th…

A great example of positive action was the story of the Oakland Buddha. Intended to discourage littering but in the end cleaned up the entire neighberhood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Buddha https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-15-hes-neutral/

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#36

Post by ipnon »

Five Points was once the worst neighborhood in the United States. It was razed and replaced with Columbus Park. Now its a safe center of the community in Manhattan's Chinatown.

Gangs in Chicago were concentrated into a few high-rises owned by the public housing administration until the 1990s. The buildings were razed in an effort to curtail the rampant crime within them. The unintended consequence was that the once unified gangs were displaced throughout the broader Chicagoland area, and were able to grow immensely without the constraint of their former static, well-monitored domiciles. This effect of housing displacement leading to increases in both the frequency and geographic distribution in crime has been documented in other cities like Atlanta.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#37

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

Is it just my imagination, or does it seem like there's a weirdly quasi-commercial element around the push for "risk-based policing"? On one hand it's presented as simply being a scientific(-ish) approach that can be used to get better results than traditional methods, but on the other hand it's treated almost like a brand name, with a book titled "Risk-Based Policing" having an official website at riskbasedpolicing.com, with the implication being that you're not really doing Risk-Based Policing [TM] unless you study the anointed materials.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#38

Post by O__________O »

littlestymaar wrote: post #26
O__________O wrote: post #16

Topic reminds me of the book, A Burglar's Guide to the City: https://www.amazon.com/Burglars-Guide-City-Geoff-Manaugh/dp/... Which started out as a blog: https://bldgblog.com/ Unlike the book, this city appears to think the solution to all their problems is to remove the architectures causing issues, instead of trying to make city planning and management choices that enable positive behavior; successful areas don’t h…

> what’s next, make warrentless, no knock searches legal For 60% of the US population, this is already the case. Not by police, but border agents have been granted warrantless hone access by the supreme court this month: https://nitter.net/anildash/status/1534639563167105025#m

Maybe next time you see random post on Twitter you should research it before sharing. In the case, ruling had to do with an assault and the right to sue, not warrantless entry; victim was an informant and reported a crime, law enforcement responded, which is completely legal, unless I am missing something; obviously assaulting someone is not.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#39

Post by j5155 »

dqpb wrote: post #28
phailhaus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify is one of a handful of music streaming products out there, and an absolute juggernaut that gives you access to basically all music and podcasts. By contrast, there are thousands of news sites, and subscribing to one of them only gives you access to their content. There is absolute no way "News Nation" is going to get enough dedicated subscribers to subsidize their reporting.

> There is absolute no way "News Nation" is going to get enough dedicated subscribers to subsidize their reporting. That’s exactly why there should be a Spotify for text.

Are you describing Apple News plus?

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#40

Post by antiterra »

superjan wrote: post #35
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #31

> For example, in Kansas City a bus stop at a particular intersection was attracting drug sales and loitering. So the police called the local transportation authority and had the bus stop moved. > “I think within a week, maybe not even that, that immediately cut down on the loitering and foot traffic,” Capt. Jonas Baughman told the local press. As an outsider, I have no words for how absurd this is to me. The fact th…

A great example of positive action was the story of the Oakland Buddha. Intended to discourage littering but in the end cleaned up the entire neighberhood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Buddha https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-15-hes-neutral/

2009-2014 sounds a lot like tech gentrification years for Oakland, no?
Post reply on HN