Re:Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. f...
by joshuamorton on Sunday June 28, 2020 @02:41AM
(#23667124)
> Dude, what has the obviously political and administrative policy of "stop and frisk" to do with the racial composition of NY cops? I'll tell you: Nothing!
That's exactly my point. When I said that Larry Elder's video mentions a number of true but irrelevant facts, this is what I meant. The fact that the police force is relatively diverse doesn't actually matter if the policies and culture of the police perpetuate systemic injustice and violence.
> And for good reason, because AFAIK it was wildly successful, and made New York a lot safer for most people.
Not really, crime in NYC didn't fall at a rate particularly faster than anywhere else. Freakonomics has a good chapter on this that suggests that the general drop in crime may have been caused by social policies across the US that helped stabilize the black community, notably the legalization of Abortion. Yeah, the legalization of Abortion in 1973 caused a drop in crime in the mid 90s.
> Naturally. Don't you think it's completely logical that people who also commit far mor crimes, also get into far more tussles with the police?
No, because the study controlled for other factors including violence of the person the police was interacting with. The conclusion of the paper (which if you'd read, you'd already know) was that police were more likely to escalate force with a black person compared to a white person exhibiting the same behavior. The caveat to this was that as the level of force increased, the racial disparity decreased. So while police were significantly much more likely to grab or manhandle a black person than a white person (again, controlling for the behavior), they were only mildly more likely to tase a black person and statically equivalently likely to shoot people of all races.
> That's because there is no opposite here... Abuse ≠ Legitimate use of force.
No, like I said this was controlling for the behavior of the civilian. So police were more likely to use force on black people for exhibiting the same behavior.
It's also worth mentioning here that crime is in many ways socially constructed. And the US justice system does a lot of things to make poor (and especially poor black) people admit to crimes that they didn't commit[0].
District Attorneys and police work together to put the most people behind bars (in some cases because they have quotas to meet, again watch 13th for more here), and they can do so most effectively by overpolicing poor communities.
This is for two reasons, one, yes, those communities often have more crime occurring in them, but two the people in them can't defend themselves. So if you're innocent put charged with a crime, you are forced to take a plea bargain or be stuck in jail (unless you can afford bail, which affluent people can, but poor people can't). So you admit to a crime which you didn't commit just so that you can get out of jail and maintain your employment.
Notice how this means that even innocent people are admitting to crimes they didn't commit, because it's actually in their best interest to do so. Notice how this means that crime numbers in some of these over-policed communities could be artificially inflated since even people are admitting to crimes they didn't commit.
> One way to do it, is to ask for policies that open up for more social community work, where the first responder to economical, drug related or abusive behaviour stops being the police, but rather a social worker, or some other community representative. It's just a suggestion. Should be right down your lane since you are a left winger!
Yes, this is the entire idea of Defund The Police, an idea being pushed by BlackLivesMatter[1].
> Were these fears unfounded then?
It doesn't matter. People being afraid isn't an excuse to enact literally explicitly racist laws.
That's exactly my point. When I said that Larry Elder's video mentions a number of true but irrelevant facts, this is what I meant. The fact that the police force is relatively diverse doesn't actually matter if the policies and culture of the police perpetuate systemic injustice and violence.
> And for good reason, because AFAIK it was wildly successful, and made New York a lot safer for most people.
Not really, crime in NYC didn't fall at a rate particularly faster than anywhere else. Freakonomics has a good chapter on this that suggests that the general drop in crime may have been caused by social policies across the US that helped stabilize the black community, notably the legalization of Abortion. Yeah, the legalization of Abortion in 1973 caused a drop in crime in the mid 90s.
> Naturally. Don't you think it's completely logical that people who also commit far mor crimes, also get into far more tussles with the police?
No, because the study controlled for other factors including violence of the person the police was interacting with. The conclusion of the paper (which if you'd read, you'd already know) was that police were more likely to escalate force with a black person compared to a white person exhibiting the same behavior. The caveat to this was that as the level of force increased, the racial disparity decreased. So while police were significantly much more likely to grab or manhandle a black person than a white person (again, controlling for the behavior), they were only mildly more likely to tase a black person and statically equivalently likely to shoot people of all races.
> That's because there is no opposite here... Abuse ≠ Legitimate use of force.
No, like I said this was controlling for the behavior of the civilian. So police were more likely to use force on black people for exhibiting the same behavior.
It's also worth mentioning here that crime is in many ways socially constructed. And the US justice system does a lot of things to make poor (and especially poor black) people admit to crimes that they didn't commit[0].
District Attorneys and police work together to put the most people behind bars (in some cases because they have quotas to meet, again watch 13th for more here), and they can do so most effectively by overpolicing poor communities.
This is for two reasons, one, yes, those communities often have more crime occurring in them, but two the people in them can't defend themselves. So if you're innocent put charged with a crime, you are forced to take a plea bargain or be stuck in jail (unless you can afford bail, which affluent people can, but poor people can't). So you admit to a crime which you didn't commit just so that you can get out of jail and maintain your employment.
Notice how this means that even innocent people are admitting to crimes they didn't commit, because it's actually in their best interest to do so. Notice how this means that crime numbers in some of these over-policed communities could be artificially inflated since even people are admitting to crimes they didn't commit.
> One way to do it, is to ask for policies that open up for more social community work, where the first responder to economical, drug related or abusive behaviour stops being the police, but rather a social worker, or some other community representative. It's just a suggestion. Should be right down your lane since you are a left winger!
Yes, this is the entire idea of Defund The Police, an idea being pushed by BlackLivesMatter[1].
> Were these fears unfounded then?
It doesn't matter. People being afraid isn't an excuse to enact literally explicitly racist laws.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
[1]: https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/