Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a big part of what the article is about; so long as only the police can levy penalties against people for breaking the law, there will be police corruption.
What I would like to see is serious incentives for police officers to turn in their colleagues and give IAB unlimited power to spy on every aspect of officers' lives.
Game theory’s cure for corruption
81–90 of 119 posts
Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption
#82> In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. > They were everybody. Attributed to John Peel in his establishment of London Metropolitan Police: “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police , the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention…
Believe you mean Sir Robert Peel, John Peel is an entirely different guy.
Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption
#83Have everyone empowered to dispense justice is an interesting proposition, but there's a big difference between insects and people. People aren't all logical, analytic creatures, especially when they operate in groups. They tend to act on emotion rather than logic and it often isn't clear which information is factual and which is rumor. People tend to be susceptible to groupthink, and often go with the crowd. Having…
We are already seeing this with the "reddit affect" where some poor soul gets targeted by "Hey this guy didn't tip me on a busy Friday night," and it all turns out to be bullshit. Even if it wasn't, thousands of angry netizens shouldn't be picking on lone individuals.
There's also an element of bikeshedding here as an average Joe can understand being stiffed and be unreasonably angry about it, but perhaps cannot understand the intricacies of sexual assault or financial fraud. This is why police, lawmakers, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges are all trained, educated, and regulated in some fashion. This stuff is much harder than it looks. Anyone who has ever lived in a HOA knows exactly what happens when average Joes are given the authority to enforce random things. Its death by a million paper cuts and everyone is miserable and hates each other in the end.
We tried the snitch society in communist regimes (and still have it in places like Cuba and N Korea) and its hellish.
>Anyone who received too many independent reports would be investigated – police included."
Except the police have a powerful union behind them. 100 reports against me will lead to my arrest or a beating or whatever. 100 against a cop will merit nothing, maybe a rubber-stamped investigation that always leads to 'innocent.'
Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption
#84An interesting article; still, I tire of seeing so many articles introduce and anchor game theory based on the PD or one particular configuration of it. The PD is frequently overblown, misunderstood, and misapplied. Game theory is much more than the PD.
I think it is also worth mentioning that game theory isn't the only game or theory in town when it comes to thinking about society and collective action. For example, systems dynamics is also quite interesting; see Thinking in Systems: A Primer by Donella Meadows.
To get a handle for police corruption, I'd argue a theory probably should explain how and why:
* corrupt police do/don't get caught
* corrupt police do/don't rat each other out
* police are/aren't monitored
* police are/aren't incentivizedRe: Game theory’s cure for corruption
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hunter-gatherer societies that did fit this model could be considered to be the ultimate totalitarian organizations. Extremely strict rules controlling every aspect of the life of the members, from birth to death, and no deviation ever tolerated, under pain of banishment or even death.
Over most of human hunter-gatherer prehistory, the population was not generally resource-constrained. (Rather, it was constrained over the long term by catastrophes, which could be related to resources, diseases, genetics, culture, or some combination.) Therefore, most of the time, banishment did not lead to starvation or even necessarily isolation. One just walked for some time, until one was alone or in more accept…
Do you have a reference for that? It doesn't jibe with my understanding of banishment, but my readings are from agricultural traditions. More specifically, outlawry under Germanic law, where someone was judge to be outside of the protection of the law. Full outlawry on Iceland effectively meant banishment from Iceland or death. (See https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/documents/innervate/09-... .)
I found https://books.google.com/books?id=9ZkIAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA81&ots=... which says:
> By the end of the last ice age .... To be cast out of a band .. usually meant total banishment from the society and eventual death, either by starvation or as a result of aggression by members of another society (Salisbury, 1962).
And here's a reference concerning Aboriginal use of banishment, from http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter2.html :
> As in European societies, some crimes required the complete removal of the criminal from society. In most Aboriginal societies, this meant banishment. In such close, family-oriented societies, where survival depended upon communal cooperation, such sanctions were considered a humane alternative to death, no matter how traumatic they may have been to the offender.
Further, http://rsc2012hscls.wikispaces.com/file/view/Law+Reform+Coun... :
> Exile or banishment has been described as an extremely harsh punishment and was not embraced by all Aboriginal societies.
This does not sound compatible with your conjecture that pre-agricultural era banishment was not a real threat.
Further, I do not follow the logic to "Therefore, most of the time, banishment did not lead to starvation".
Consider this non-real scenario. Humans can survive only be eating buffalo meat. There are huge numbers of buffalo compared to humans, so there is a food surplus. However, it takes 10 people to kill one buffalo. In that scenario, exiling someone leads to certain death as a lone human cannot hunt a buffalo. While the human species is not resource-constrained, a single human is.
Similarly, in Intuit cultures there were strong specializations between male and female roles. For example, it was women who were trained in how to sew the skins to make clothes against the harsh weather, while the men learned hunting skills. If a male were banished, I wonder if he might not have the skills to survive on his own.
Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption
#86" Imagine a city where police commit blatant traffic violations and never ticket one another. The authorities could decrease power inequalities by developing an online system in which all citizens are able to anonymously report dangerous drivers. Anyone who received too many independent reports would be investigated – police included. " This makes sense to me. It infuriates me as a biker and pedestrian when police da…
I also always look both ways crossing one way streets as I've almost been clipped by a police car going the wrong way down one.
Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption
#87" Imagine a city where police commit blatant traffic violations and never ticket one another. The authorities could decrease power inequalities by developing an online system in which all citizens are able to anonymously report dangerous drivers. Anyone who received too many independent reports would be investigated – police included. " This makes sense to me. It infuriates me as a biker and pedestrian when police da…
I also always look both ways crossing one way streets as I've almost been clipped by a police car going the wrong way down one.
Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If we had a system where a mass of people decided via some sort of upvoting/downvoting, it would be a "tyranny of the majority", where minorities would be oppressed... Maybe. But isn't it an experiment worth trying? Does anyone really know what would happen in a modern, secular, money-driven society if you gave people more authority to enforce the law?
This happens in cyberspace all the time (just look at any HN discussion about airport security): what reason do we have to believe that in meatspace people would behave differently?
Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption
#89By the way, this is one of the greatest article I have ever read in hacker news. Loved it.
Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption
#90> In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. > They were everybody. Attributed to John Peel in his establishment of London Metropolitan Police: “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police , the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention…
Interesting. I wonder what it would be like if Police Duty was mandatory service that everyone was required to perform, either like Jury Duty is supposed to work, or as a mandatory service for young people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militsiya#Conscripted_police