News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first. Parent comment

Re:Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. f... by daenz on Friday June 26, 2020 @02:49PM (#23655505)
It is mind-blowing how misleading this is. You should really consider editing your post. The majority of people in state prisons are there for VIOLENT CRIMES, and the plurality of people in local jails are there for violent crimes.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. f... by godelski on Friday June 26, 2020 @03:18PM (#23655854)
But you're also missing the point. I was responding to a comment that said we should dismiss drug related crimes. Maybe that is missing now that the person removed that comment but essentially they said

> we're not talking about drug, we're talking about violent crime.

So my response was more in the lines of "we can't dismiss drugs when they are a big factor."

Note: this is also why HN tries to prevent editing, because now the context of what I was responding to is completely lost.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. f... by daenz on Friday June 26, 2020 @03:22PM (#23655894)
>Here's the breakdown of why people are in jail:

Your stats are not why people are in jail nor prison. Your stats represent an extremely narrow selection of prisoners meeting the "federal" criteria. Your information is misleading to make it look like most people in jail are due to drug offenses, which is factually untrue.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. f... by godelski on Friday June 26, 2020 @03:29PM (#23655972)
My point is that outright dismissing drug related charges is ludicrous. But it appears that the parent edited their comment to the point of removal so this context was lost. I have edited my response to clarify.
[ Parent | on HN ]