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

The privatization of policing

compactmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 236 posts

Re: The privatization of policing

#151

Post by throwayyy479087 »

kneebonian wrote: post #34
rayiner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s interesting that Portland is seeing record homicides because it’s far more gentrified than ever. Portland had only 54 homicides in 1993, when crime was much higher nationally, and Portland specifically was much seedier. Last couple of years are close to double the 1993 peak, but population growth since then is only 50%.

No this is incorrect, I know people that left from Portland and Seattle following the "firey but mostly peaceful protests" the fact of the matter is they gutted the police, the police that remain know that if they actually do their job they're likely to be the next national outrage, and they are being told by their bosses and the politicians to do nothing. As such the criminals now know they can run wild with no prev…

[flagged]

Re: The privatization of policing

#152

Post by phpisthebest »

culi wrote: post #107
pmarreck wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because taxation to fund a public good is not theft in your world there are only private security firms. if you're not up to date on your dues, oh well, they'll happily watch you get robbed I guess. EDIT: I was unaware of the "wage theft" problem and assumed this was angling at "taxation is theft," my bad

GP was pointing out that things like wage theft is a much bigger priority over petty shoplifting. The combined value of all robberies (shoplifting, mugging, etc) in 2012 was $341 million while wage theft alone accounts for $933 million yet we spend far more trying to prevent the former and hardly do anything to prevent the latter which primarily affects minimum wage workers https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-…

Where do begin with this

First off it appears that wage theft is being enforced, as the $933 million is the amount RECOVERED for victims of wage theft, I would like the highlight that victims of property theft are almost never made completely whole, even with insurance.

Wage theft, when reported and backed up with evidence is often aggressively pursued and most states have Treble damages statues for damages which is often why it is easy to get cogency litigation started for wage theft. Based on that is likely the amount of wages stolen by employers is on par with the total value of property stolen since the recovered amount would be 3x what amount stolen in the case of wages

Futher their slight of hand in only adding the market value of the property taken instead of the economic loss suffered by the victim gives me red flags they are attempting to be dishonest in their evaluation. For example if a person has their work truck stolen they are out far more than just the value of the truck but are also out wages, income, time, etc. All of which have a value outside that of the market value for the actual property taken

Wage theft is a serious matter and should be taken seriously. Luckily in most states the Dept of Labor does take is VERY seriously and most states have enacted laws to enable victims of wage theft to not only recover their wages but 3x their wages making it very enticing for lawyers to help victims without alot of upfront costs

The whataboutism trying to derail the top of property crime enforcement has not teeth if you really look into.

Re: The privatization of policing

#153

Post by throwaway-PDX »

I live and work in Portland. The article paints a rosey picture of a nasty set of problems.

The government here is experimenting with social justice ideas. We've legalized drugs, empowered homeless camping and defunded our police.

I see and empathize with the reasons to legalize drugs, not demonize the homeless or blame people for their addictions or mental health problems... and I understand the academic case for not viewing all social problems through the lense of "how can more policing fix this."

All that said, our family is moving away... at the minimum to the suburbs if not to Idaho or Texas. Portland can't make these decisions in a vacuum, absent thoughtful national policy Portland has become a magnet for drug dealers and chronic drug users who are often homeless as well.

While the rights of all people matter, Portland is too focused on the rights of the people like the kid in the article who are from other states and come here to destroy their lives and our community. They are not focused on my rights as a taxpayer to enjoy a safe walk around my neighborhood.

We need national solutions to these issues, but until we have that I'm moving away and taking my tax dollars with me because I don't want to live in this experiment anymore. It's just not safe for my family.

Re: The privatization of policing

#154

Post by jaywalk »

mikem170 wrote: post #140
brk wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property theft and wage theft are two very different categories of theft. The average police department does not get involved in wage theft, which would be something more involving lawyers, maybe ultimately leading to an arrest warrant carried out by a police force. And of course this is another example of an "AND" decision, not an "OR" one. We can enforce and prosecute property theft crimes, which absolutely needs t…

> Property theft and wage theft are two very different categories of theft. This kind of reinforces the parent's point. They are both theft (shoplifting and wage theft), and yet so many people are ok ignoring the numerically worse problem (wage theft). The fact that the police don't get involved and lawyers are required to rectify wage theft just shows how far we as a society don't care to defend those people. Meanwh…

How would you suggest that police get involved in wage theft?

Re: The privatization of policing

#155

Post by throwaway-PDX »

idiotsecant wrote: post #115
wahnfrieden wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wage theft is a serious problem but it's an 'orderly' theft- it targets people at the bottom and the people at the top are either uneffected or benefit and life goes on as usual. Property crime is a crime against the order of things. The powerful are impacted as well as the powerless. Crime isn't the problem to be solved,necessarily, it's just a wrench in the social order where the few dominate the many. That order i…

Wage theft doesn't typically involved a gun or a knife. Property crimes, when interrupted intentionally or accidentally by the victim can easily become violent crime.

Re: The privatization of policing

#156

Post by naasking »

rootusrootus wrote: post #101
Zigurd wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Why wouldn't people who sleep rough benefit from a housing first policy?

Because the rough sleeping is not the cause of their problems, so just addressing that by itself won't make their problems go away.

The evidence disagrees. Housing-first policies in multiple countries have been a smashing successes in reducing addiction, so clearly there are some factors you're missing. For instance, theft and violence is a huge reason homeless people avoid shelters. Having a sanctuary that's somewhat secure from thieves and muggers means they actually add some stability. Stability makes their lives less shitty which reduces the urges to use to escape their shitty situation. That's just one example I've read about.

Re: The privatization of policing

#157

Post by mxkopy »

phpisthebest wrote: post #68
detuned wrote: post #47

There was a notable absence of opposing views in the article so I looked up "echelon security portland" and found a lot of objectionable actions they've taken. According to this article https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose... they've been unaccountable to the public, they've lied about what people do (pretending they've attacked them), they've lied about their use of force, and attacked people…

>>hey've been unaccountable to the public, they've lied about what people do (pretending they've attacked them), they've lied about their use of force, and attacked people in tents to displace them. So a normal police force then? This is a natural reaction when property crime goes unenforced by the government. I know this will be an unpopular take but property crime like shoplifting is not a "victimless" crime agains…

[flagged]

Re: The privatization of policing

#158

Post by jbotdev »

germinalphrase wrote: post #81
jbotdev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if the problem they’re addressing is largely petty crimes against businesses like shoplifting, you really only need private security in the business districts. Preventing crime in private homes seems like it’s a much harder task for either private or public security, given the coverage area required.

Law enforcement doesn’t prevent crime (and there is no legal expectation for them to do so). They disincentives crime by seeking to punish those who previously committed a crimes, and they disincentivize vigilante justice by offering a (ideally) non-emotional legal system alternative to retribution.

Technically this is talking about “private security” rather than “law enforcement. The primary goal of private security is typically the security of their clients, not enforcing the law. The article in particular talks about private security preventing crime by addressing root cause (e.g. helping those in need).

Re: The privatization of policing

#159

Post by quacked »

throwaway-PDX wrote: post #153

I live and work in Portland. The article paints a rosey picture of a nasty set of problems. The government here is experimenting with social justice ideas. We've legalized drugs, empowered homeless camping and defunded our police. I see and empathize with the reasons to legalize drugs, not demonize the homeless or blame people for their addictions or mental health problems... and I understand the academic case for no…

Many people who believe themselves to be anti-capitalist are in fact blinded by the capitalist myth that money can take the place of historically reliable pro-social behavior. "A good, prosperous life" is the result of many people collaborating in a trusting, honest environment, not "a community of fairly compensated people".

People playing games with social justice seem to think that they can simply pay away problems like theft and ignore the ensuing consequences of large scale societal distrust that occur afterwards. When you leave they'll be more unhappy about the loss of your money than they will about the loss of your predictable, nonviolent daily habits.

Re: The privatization of policing

#160

Post by naasking »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #39
gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you played the man and not the ball. I like that approach. You can quickly prevent a team from fielding if you break their legs.

People's associations are part of their actions and a relevant part of the context of their writing. The commenter didn't necessarily entirely dismiss the article or the argument because of it, but it is potentially valuable information to have. It's not necessary to evaluate every work completely stripped of context to engage with it honestly. Articles are written by people, with motivations for writing them, and no…

> People's associations are part of their actions and a relevant part of the context of their writing

Yes, but it's not relevant to the correctness of their argument. Are we here to talk about the argument or the author?

Post reply on HN