Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database
vice.com
vice.com
Yikes. I understand the positive spin is the police care about the wellbeing of at-risk people with these visits. But wouldn't it also be true that anything and everything the police observe and believe as a result of such a visit could also be used against the resident or others in the home?
I'm torn on the article. The Canadian government isn't China and we have had quite a few pretty public cases here in Germany where lack of inter-agency coordination led to serious harm in the context of our CPS equivalent. OTOH, at least from that article, this program doesn't seem to get the oversight required for such a task.
At any rate, the lack of transparency and contractually forbidding people from talking about the program is a weird and all to common move these days.
In my experience with the RCMP at least, yes. They might give you attitude about it, though. I have received a veiled threat or two though (which materialized to nothing).
The larger your surface area the more likely you will have problems.
It makes sense. Law enforcement is looking for someone to blame for crimes. You interact enough you might just fit a profile.
Police never lose pay for misjudging anyone.
This is an important point.
Police are a bureaucracy with all the same incentives and problems inherent to that structure.
They are seldom penalized for being wrong (even if someone gets shot/killed as a result) but they do miss out on promotions for not closing enough cases (or writing enough citations).
Detectives under pressure will absolutely name weak suspects to achieve these ends and let the courts sort it out.
Your local mafia clan are also nice people as long as you play by their rules (you can study organized crime in favelas where it is an ordering element similar to police).
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-...
I'm on your side. Please don't make our shared side weaker by using poor arguments.
A "sceptics" link is hardly refutation. These sites attract professional "minor detail pickers" and "technically-correct" pedants, who more often than not miss the forest for the trees.
The message is not the exact number of felonies per time period, it's that people can have all kind of laws broken and given causes to be arrested without them knowing it.
Even if it's 1 felony per month or 1 per year it's still more than enough, and that's the point of "thee felonies a day".
But in this scenario the police are unprompted at your door and their first ask is to come into your house.
If the police just want to talk to you because they're concerned about you personally they'll just ask to talk to you in a place they wouldn't otherwise need a search warrant signed by a judge to enter.
"Their first ask is to come into your house" is based on a quote Vice took out of context (and then blew up into a nice big sub-headline to give it a bit more 'emotional weight').
The second part .. if the police is concerned about you they ask to talk to you where they meet you. For the type of person where this intervention happens this will probably be their home most of the time.
I always wonder where people get this idea that the police (and law enforcement in general) are all crooks breaking/bending the law to get you, but will have a problem to get a warrant if that's really what they want. Maybe too many crime shows?
Bitter experience. Never underestimate the dishonesty of a cop.
Or rather, the lack of incentive for a person in a position of power, to not use that power for their own interests and at their whims.
No, police aren't all out to get you. But you'd be dumb even in Iceland not to have some basic situational awareness and consider how that interaction started out. You didn't come to them on the street, they sought you out at your home.
So if the police knock on your door open up and talk to them there. If they just want to talk you you they'll be happy to do that there. If they seem more interested in going inside your house than having a chat with you at the door perhaps they're really there for something else.
Hedging against that by doing something that costs you maybe 5 seconds ("let's just chat here") is just common sense.
The police can wait outside in case they’re needed.
Police are decidedly not mental healthcare professionals.
The police gets to do that kind of rather unpleasant jobs. Not their fault.
But some are. Some will plant drugs on you.
The one knocking on your door now, is it a good cop or a bad cop?
False in my experience. Maybe I haven't found the right countries.
[0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/19/canada-police-fail-indig...
From my experience in India, Unless you are rich, you should try to stay away from police as much as possible, cause they can really fuck your life up.
The police have immense power, you do not.
What do you have to gain from interacting with the police? Now, compare this to what you stand to lose by interacting with the police.
The rule is simple: don't interact with the police. They are not your friends, anything you do or say can and will be used against you at a whim.
Do not romanticize other countries, please.
It would make their job more difficult, it doesn't automatically follow that they would be less effective. They might be as effective with less data if most of the data was noise, or be more effective by concentrating their efforts on fewer interactions and getting much better results from that, or become as effective or better by having to work harder. Or it might push them to develop different and better techniques.
The job of the police is to help me. To do that effectively they have to sometimes talk to me. It is therefore in my interest to talk to them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
You are in for a big, big surprise. Hope your naivety does not get you in too much trouble.
Policing means arbitrating in a dispute even when no laws have been broken, helping those in our community incapable of helping themselves (accident victims, people whose meds are off). It doesn't really mean the regular use of violent force or even the threat of an immediate death penalty to gain compliance with a personally conveyed order. Tht's not justice and it's arguably not even law enforcement.
This is the bottom line. 90% of police that I have personally interacted with (even when I've been in the wrong) have been absolute professionals and, I believe, genuinely good people. The other 10% are why I'm polite but cautious.
Maybe I've only seen the uglier parts of the world, but that statement is what seems to be the exception rather than the norm, and a dangerously naive assumption.
As for other things they want to talk about, that's fine, as long as you bear in mind the following. First, in many countries police has to investigate any suspicion of a criminal offence even if it is unrelated to the initial investigation. In many countries, police has no leeway about that even if they claim the opposite. Second, the police often investigate someone as a mere witness before formally charging the person for a crime, because that's easier to start with.
People rarely see themselves as the bad guys. To understand people's motivations it's usually helpful to understand that they are just trying to do what they think is is best.
It's just that the disconnect between what is best for you, and what is in the interest of a member of the police often enough doesn't align, and this is the case everywhere, not specific to the US.
IMHO, policing based on mass surveillance goes way too far.
You specified western Hemisphere, which includes only the eastmost edge of Europe, but still leaves (half) of the UK, France and also Canada and Ireland. US police is hardly going to beat those on many positive metrics.
Odd choice of geographic region for such a comparison in any case.
The latter is like competing with your college football team against a selection of mostly primary schoolers and declaring you're doing fine.
That's just not an aspirational goal or useful comparison.
The punishments can vary so much.
Private prisons create this profit incentive to jail more people.
Prisions should be a cost center not a profit center.
I wholeheartedly agree that 6% of the prison population (128,063 people!) is a situation worthwhile of positive change. But I remain skeptical that it's those damn private prisons that are ruining everything. Mostly I think it's debacles like the drug war that need real immediate attention and change before things will significantly improve.
[0]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/11/u-s-private...
[1]https://www.bjs.gov/content/keystatistics/csv/Total_correcti...
[2]https://www.criminaljusticeprograms.com/articles/private-pri... again citing the BJS.
Nope. I can't agree with this, as much as I wish I could. It's an easy fallacy to think the U.S. is the exception when it comes to power mad, duplicitous and hostile bullies in the police force since they're the ones getting the bulk of the media coverage. We have them in Canada, too. Yes, they're fewer in numbers, but that's not to say we don't have them. It's easy to assume other countries or cultures are innocent of a problem just because they have a lower, or perhaps invisible, prevalence of that problem.
Source: I'm a Canadian (who used to think exactly this way) with family members in the emergency services, including one estranged, asshole bully of a cop who'd happily harass someone and construct a charge if they looked at him the wrong way.
In my opinion, a police that's feared rather than trusted, is a sign of a police state or totalitarian regime. If that's not what the country wants to be, then it's a problem that needs to be fixed.
> In my opinion, a police that's feared rather than trusted, is a sign of a police state or totalitarian regime. If that's not what the country wants to be, then it's a problem that needs to be fixed
The assumption is that if the police is feared / overly militaristic, then by definition that country must 'want' to be a police state. Given that Americans overwhelmingly, if asked, would not want to live in a totalitarian or a police state, then either we're not really a police state, or we're not capable of controlling how our police operates. I don't think the latter is true; we obviously have political control over our police. So is it possible that maybe we're not the jackbooted thugocratic police state that we're portrayed to be?
If you have control over your police, then please exercise it.
I think the problem that's holding Americans back, also evidenced in this discussion here, is that they've learned to accept this hostile relationship with the police as normal. It's not. It's harmful, and should be unacceptable.
> So is it possible that maybe we're not the jackbooted thugocratic police state that we're portrayed to be?
I certainly hope so. I've never been to the US; I'm just going by what Americans themselves are telling me about their country. And some of the things they're saying is that you should fear the police, not talk to the police, etc. It's not a single person claiming this; I hear this every single time this topic comes up. So I'm inclined to take it as true.
Ah, this makes sense then :)
Definitely visit the US...I can tell you that the Americans who travel tend to lean heavily "liberal" in their politics (in other words, anti-police), which would explain that your perception of American life is definitely skewed in favor of this view.
Note that yes, of course, we do have major problems with our police, especially with regard to militarization of the police and abuse of power, especially in poor communities. But the actual reality of the relationship between Americans and the police is nuanced and complicated, not as obvious as your well-traveled American friends would have you believe :)
I would love to, as soon as the situation in the US has become a bit more sane and less xenophobic. Again, too many stories of even US residents getting denied access or getting held for hours trying to enter the country legally.
However, I get my view about the US mostly from the internet. From discussions like these, from new stories, from even law enforcement experts telling people not to talk to the police.
I know different people have different views on the police, but on the whole, putting all those different perspectives together, the total picture doesn't look great. It's probably totally fine for a middle class white person from a decent neighbourhood, but the fact that it's good for some demographics but bad for other groups, that honestly doesn't make the big picture any better, even if I happen to fit in the demographic that's probably the safest.
For what it's worth, I've traveled to many, many countries, and I've never encountered in real life what I expected based on the internet or stories or anything else. Our country has problems like any other but I hope you get to form a fair impression.
My main complaint is that they are being used as tax collectors instead of counties solving their issues through other means.
Safest way to not give them any ideas is to minimize interaction.
As a Canadian, I disagree with this sentiment.
There are unfortunately situations in which "already gone wrong" may include your genetics at conception. As a society we acknowledge that is not a valid criteria for police intervention, but we're still working on some of the implementation details.
Who is "we"? I know it doesn't include me, because I was never consulted on the matter.
-No!
-How many laws and regulations are there currently to follow?
-???
-Then how can you be sure you follow them all?
The police are not your friends and unsolicited interaction with the Police can only harm you, not help. Their priority is not to help or protect anyone but the government system.
* Gleefully wear masks and remove their name tags during the G20 summit and harass me for daring to work on a Saturday - friends of mine were arrested for being in the area and kept in cages (later there was a large lawsuit involved).
* They've happily accepted carding minorities in this city for a decade, ignored the cries of a community where a serial killer (Bruce McArthur) was preying on them and in fact had him in custody but let him go.
* Persecuted the LGBTQ community for decades with bathhouse and related arrests
And on a personal note the several times I've needed their assistance they have gone out of their way to victim-shame and victim-blame me. I was assaulted and robbed and the police on the phone laughed out loud at me asking if I should go in to a station or come to me. This is just the recent-most experience, my entire 20 years of adult life in Ontario has been peppered by experiences like this. And full disclosure I'm a white straight male, I cannot imagine what it would be like to be an underrepresented group dealing with the police.
So TLDR they are 100% neutral. I'm not sure after all these years what their actual guiding mission or statement is but it sure fucking isn't protecting and serving and I would never speak to them or open my door to them without a warrant and a call to a lawyer.
This is a massive problem in itself. The police should be your friend. When it's not, that in itself is a massive condemnation of the way the police functions.
The point of police is not to give untrained regular people unchecked power over others.
"I would have zero problem". "Based on my interactions". "I would describe them".
That's the phrasing I used, very specifically and on purpose in fact. Is that a problem?
If you just meant to say that the police are your personal friends, that's fine I guess, but the comment you replied to didn't really rule that out in the first place.
The part where you're a drug addict and they've come to see if you want to go to rehab is a big potential upside.
"The police are not your friends"
Yes, the absolutely are. Despite the potential downsides.
I live in a shifty neighbourhood and visibly recognize the police staffers (I see them often, they come into the cafe etc.), there's a clinic across the street from me that deals with 'all kinds' ... in my view, a lot of policing is basically social work. That said I live in Canada.
I certainly wouldn't want that kind of visit from police officers whose primary concern is to find a reason to arrest or shoot you, but if police is honestly trying to help and prevent problems, it's an entirely different matter.
Police culture, policy and accountability matters a lot in a case like this.
[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-canadian-police-are...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/03/30/football_player_...
https://globalnews.ca/news/1608030/new-video-shows-another-c...
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/07/30/toronto_cop_ch...
I'm not denying these incidents are terrible; they are. And even if you do address them and punish the perpetrators, you'll still occasionally have police officers that do the wrong thing. But that doesn't mean it's pointless to hold police accountable, or to train them better.
My goal is not merely to not get fucked by the police, my goal is a better, safer society.
Police have power. You can't have functional police that don't have power, so fundamentally police are dangerous.
[1]https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/19/canada-police-fail-indig...
[2]https://aptnnews.ca/2019/05/13/were-you-turned-on-by-this-at...
[3]http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/808540/Constitutional+Adminis...
My brothers an OPP constable in rural Ontario (and incidentally married to a teacher). They were not happy with the messing about, especially the Taverner case. From what I understand Blair was a highly respected officer as well and is generally considered to have fallen on his sword to prevent the insertion of a corrupt top official.
Anyway I forgot about the SIU stuff. I’m going to have to pick his brain about it.
My rule of thumb built up over years of annoyance & bullshit is: if you don't know who it is, or aren't expecting anything, ignore it; 99.9% of the time someone unexpected/unknown on the phone or at your door are just going to be wasting your time and attention. (trying to sell you something/con you/religious recruitment/generally be weird/mad etc)
My friend decided to move there. Maybe you should too. You do gain a certain peace of mind from being able to open your door without risk or trouble.
I'm genuinely confused. If you read this, maybe you'd like to elaborate. Cheers!
Agree with the program or not, this is not spam.
And there’s a really thin line between having the choice to answer your door, and being compelled to for no legitimate reason.
I'd let concerned EMTs into my house, but I'd rather keep concerned cops out.
It's something that I also communicate to my friends (although I would never not open the door for them, for obvious reasons). My reasoning is kind of like "I've been fulfilling my societal duties all week goddammit, if I want to be alone in my cave for a few hours just leave me be!"
I get maybe 4 sales knocks a year, I just say not interested and close the door!
I always answer the door and the phone.
Wtf? Yes of course I do. Do you not have a doorbell?
Someone selling is remarkably rare, JW show up trying to sell religion every couple of years - we try and scare them off claiming devout satanism or spaghetti based religion. :)
That's about it. Maybe police if some had an accident, or something in the local area happened.
Random person knocking at the door at 1am results in me answering the door with one of the USSR's most prolific exports within arms reach in case anybody needs the ol' East Houston treatment. They might be having an emergency and need help but it's also wise to be conscious of who's knocking. If there's three dudes on my porch and a fourth sitting in a running car then I'll ask them what they heck they want without opening the door.
I don't answer the door for anyone in a uniform unless I'm expecting them. If the government needs to tell me something or interact with me in any legitimate capacity they'll send a letter.
I also pick up the phone. 99% of the time it's a recruiter. Less enthusiastic about those odds, but it's occasionally useful.
If you live in an area that regularly has people literally trying to con you door to door, that's an issue with where you live. It's not normal for many people.
Summarizing:
1. There is no way it can help.
2. If your client is guilty (or even innocent), they might admit guilt with nothing in return.
3. If your client is innocent, they can still make some small mistake or tiny mistruth that can be used to convict by seeding doubt.
4. If your client is innocent, and does not make any small mistake or tiny mistruth, what is said can still be used in court to convict.
5. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, the police can still mis-remember the conversation and result in a conviction.
6. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, and the clients statements are videotaped so it cannot be mischaracterized, the police can still augment the conversation from their personal knowledge and result in a conviction.
There's more, it goes on and on and on. Don't talk to police if you are being questioned about something, whether you did it or not.
In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy.
Also, in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you, for example it will be more difficult later to introduce exculpatory evidence that you were supposed to know of at the time you refused to speak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
Fun fact: because of their French (and to a lesser degree, Spanish) influence, Louisiana's laws still follow a civil law system.
[1] https://www.apprendre-le-droit.fr/anglais-juridique/what-is-...
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incar...
Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the country and has one of the highest contracted private prison quotas in the country (96% occupancy).[1] And until recently, Louisiana had some of the harshest mandatory minimum drug sentencing requirements.[2] They still have harsh mandatory minimums for other offenses. If you're looking for an explanation for Louisiana's criminal justice issues those factors are the far more likely explanations than the existence of a civil law system.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Department_of_Publ...
[2] https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/03/pspp_louisi...
Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.
When they're talking to you, they're your enemy.
If you have read any of the anonymous blogs by those on the Job, they almost always tell you to either keep your mouth shut or say as little as possible ─ this was the wisdom imparted by 'Nightjack' before he got outed and had to delete his blog, subsequently going on to win accolades and the Orwell Prize.[1]
https://web.archive.org/web/20090426201221/http://nightjack....
The section on consenting to searches was the most interesting. E.g. you could consent to a search of your home thinking "I've done nothing wrong so come on in" only to find out someone (relative, maintenance person etc) left something illegal in your home without your knowledge.
I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video and instead just spoke privately with an officer and gave minimal details. However I fear that others less inclined about their rights or why they wanted to record would be screwing themselves.
Essentially I had a false report made against me and there was no evidence. If I said anything incriminating in a video statement by accident I would have just made evidence for them. No one advised me of this. It felt like I should have brought a lawyer with me.
Edit: This was in an Ontario based police department.
Realize too that a great many officers now don body cameras. If you aren't willing to say it on video, do not say it. No matter what they tell you, police officers are not capable of private conversations. Every conversation with a cop is a conversation between a person and a government. It might be recorded. The cop can take notes. They cop can get back to their car and relate the conversation to a camera, creating very powerful evidence. There is no concept of privacy when talking to police.
Me being in the police officers messy office just having a conversation about an incident is much different from giving them a video statement. I am referring to a case where the only evidence against myself would be what I say. As such there is not much to go on if it's just some notes the officer took while informally talking with me in their office. They have no one else with them to back up what was said or anything to prove what I said is accurate/true.
Since nothing was recorded not much could be done.
>> Since nothing was recorded not much could be done.
That's where you are incorrect. The cop was taking notes. The cop can take the stand to testify as to what you said. During that testimony he may refer to his notes. Hearsay rules are complicated but it is safe to say that anything said to a cop can, one way or another, be used in court.
How does the rule about not talking to police work? What about when police are canvassing the neighborhood and they are knocking on every door? Are you supposed to talk then? What about when you have info of a crime? What about when you want to report a crime? Any of these situations is potentially a way for police to twist your words.
The important bit is "if the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all". Every person has to do their own personal risk assessment, and maybe you don't always know whether you're under suspicion, but if the police want to talk to you and you have any reason whatsoever to think that you're under suspicion, you're rolling the dice by agreeing to talk to them without a lawyer.
Remind anybody else of precrime from minority report?
...however there is an important distinction with Minority Report in that people were convicted of crimes based on premonitions. If this data was instead used to support at risk people - like how disruptive kids at school are often given support to help enable them to grow into better people - then I'd be more sympathetic with the motives. For example "at risk" people might be those from less affluent or educated backgrounds who might be resentful but they might just need a little help to realise they too have opportunities and potential.
The problem is, once you have this data, it becomes increasingly small steps from using it to enable those who need help the most to abusing it to persecute those who are already neglected by society.
Wow, 'better people' - that's loaded and almost completely unspecified here. That's ripe for abuse.
"become christian, god will make you a better person"
"do as you're told, obey orders, you'll be a better person"
"don't disrupt the teacher even if they're wrong, people don't like 'clever' people"
I could go on all day. That's the thin end of a dangerous wedge. I don't like conformists.
I'm not saying everyone should conform, I'm just saying some people need more help than others to make a life for themselves. Sometimes it's because of substance abuse, sometimes it's because of mental, physical or sexual abuse as a kid that leads them into a pattern of bad behaviour. Sometimes it's just circumstances or a mental attitude that is less dramatic than the aforementioned. But in each case it's better to work with them to help enable them to lead happy lives rather than ignore them, outcast them and then incarcerate them because they had nowhere else to turn.
If people are just disruptive because they're smart then they're just disruptive because they're smart. They're not an "at risk" group. By "at risk" we're talking people who turn to crime because they felt it was their only option in life. What I was talking about is supporting them so they realise they do have options. If they then choose crime, well that's then their choice. But in many instances people actually don't want that when they realise they have options in their life.
I agree with your original post, and this one too (will upvote both) but I am really wary of the potential for abuse that trying to help people become 'better' people can become.
A really ugly actual example from about 1969:
"Because homosexuality has been considered an endemic and deep-rooted condition since times of antiquity, hopes for its alleviation, until very recent times, have been faint. But lately, since other resistant mental aberrations have been overcome by new methods, somewhat drastic treatments are being used and advocated for the homosexual in some quarters."
And I emphasis, this is just one example, I could produce others in other fields.
All I'm saying is be very careful about the meaning of 'better'. Anyway, I do actually agree with you overall.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-apologizes-for-forced...
Read this <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/11/nathan-filer-s...
Extract, slightly edited:
" A colleague of mine explained his options, such as they were. But that’s the bit that stayed with me. "Do I have to beg you? [he had asked]"
It’s why I struggled to keep my hands from shaking as he was eventually held down on his bed and I administered the injection. He didn’t put up a fight. We weren’t preventing and managing violence and aggression. From Amit’s perspective, I don’t doubt we were perpetrating it. In that moment, however good my intentions, I was knowingly participating in his suffering. "
Read the story. I feel that it's likely they were doing the right thing, even against the patient's will. If that were me I'd probably agree, though not at the time (thank god that's not my life, I count myself so lucky).
But taking your question in a different direction, what would you prefer, that the government does not get involved in such cases? That we leave it to, say, private (profit-driven) companies?
Fuck no, never.
Providing help to people before there is a crisis sounds so nice and helpful, but due to the inherent drastic negative consequences of entering into the system, it ends up merely moving the punishment for not fitting in forward of the crisis. Thus, trying to be pro-active ends up harming people and/or reinforcing the mentality that you try to cope at all costs without help until you reach a breaking point.
For example, we all want to help people who are suicidal, right? But if someone's behavior triggers a response to such apparent potential, then very traumatic and non-helpful things can take place, including the temporary and/or permanent loss of freedoms.
I'd be interested to read the figures you have on why support systems like these don't work in practice because all studies I've read suggest otherwise. Whether it be programmes that offer ex-convicts jobs and thus reduces their likelihood of re-offending; or support at an earlier age such as special schools for kids who are frequently expelled from the mainstream schools and how they've reduced the rates of young offenders.
The key is really to give people alternative options rather than "protecting" them by removing options.
Your suicidal point is a separate topic though. That's a mental illness rather than an action someone chooses or is lead into.
What are you saying, and what do you think should happen if someone is suicidal? Please think very carefully before answering.
Edit: have you any experience with desire for suicide, or any experience with anyone you know well who wanted to, or succeeded in suicide?
Literally all I'm saying is suicide is a separate topic because it's a mental illness rather than an action someone chooses or is lead into.
> what do you think should happen if someone is suicidal?
I don't really want to get into an off topic discussion about mental health which is why I didn't go into more detail in my previous post. However if you want more information about mental health then you can visit https://www.mind.org.uk/
> Please think very carefully before answering.
The tone of your posts are very antagonistic. I can't tell if this is intentional or not but it isn't pleasant to read.
> have you any experience with desire for suicide, or any experience with anyone you know well who wanted to, or succeeded in suicide?
Yes
This point, however, is wrong. I don't think it being wrong changes your argument at all.
> suicide is a [...] a mental illness rather than an action someone chooses or is lead into.
Lots of people who die by suicide do not have a history of mental illness and would not meet a definition of "mentally ill" at the time of their death. They die because of rapid onset despair rather than mental illness. They are "capacitous" - they know what they're doing and why they're doing it and they know the consequences and they've made the choice.
https://twitter.com/AASuicidology/status/1097907434402779137
https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/939820235946971138
https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/981608114112946177
I also disagree with how you're interchanging "history of mental ill health" with "mental illness" because it's not always something one is born with.
Lastly I don't think those twitter links are the best examples of your point because they are ostensibly saying "It's not a forgone conclusion; more research is needed." Which I absolutely do agree with.
However, to get back to point, I do agree that not everyone who has suicidal thoughts, or who is suicidal, is mentally ill. I was being rather terse in my earlier post and in doing so had obviously mislead. So apologies for that.
> suicide is a separate topic because it's a mental illness
DanBC replied succinctly. I can't add to it.
I'm getting badly uptight because ISTM you may have defined suicide into something you are morally required to intervene in, and prevent. From your orig post: "...given support to help enable them to grow into better people..."
I'm afraid of people who may try to help me and make things worse. See my post about how helpful were towards gays not too long ago.
Suicide has been attractive to me and is becoming attractive again. I DO NOT WANT any fucker trying to affect my choices 'for the better'. I'm afraid that may be you. I'm afraid you may have fallen exactly into the trap of defining 'better' outcomes in a way that disrespects the choices of others.
From my fear, and partly my perceived presumption on your part but mostly from fear, comes anger borne not of aggression but defensiveness, hence the tone of my reply. In short, you scared me.
I'm not mentally well right now (perhaps you'd care to look back over some of my prior posts) and I misjudge things, so please understand I'm struggling with what I may have mis-perceived in your words. You may not be saying at all what I read.
You're obsessing over one sentence, pulling it apart and taking it completely out of context - even after I have already clarified what I meant.
I have repeatedly made the case that support for "at risk" people (in terms of criminal activity) should be non-interfearing and in a way that offers them choice. This is the exact opposite of the example you gave regarding the persecution of homosexuality.
I've also said I'm not even going to engage in a debate about mental illness. I've supplied a link for you to read up on - if you want to know more. However if you do have suicidal thoughts then please do talk to someone - trust me, it helps. And even if you're not suicidal but generally feel like your mentally unwell, talk to someone. If you don't feel comfortable talking to a friend then there are also support contact details on that charity I linked to (https://mind.org.uk). They wont interfere nor intervene. At least not unless you ask them to.
I actually agreed with some of your posts and upvoted 2 of them (edit: including the original one I replied to initially!) When I was concerned about was the fine balance between helping and suddenly forcing 'for their own good', hence in my original post I said "That's ripe for abuse". I was not initially criticising you, just saying it's frightningly abusable; be cautious.
Then you posted this "That's [suicide is] a mental illness". Now it seemed you opened the door to 'helping' whether they liked it or not. Maybe you didn't but that's how I read it, and it did not play well with me. I don't think you got how badly that scared me. Well, that's ok.
On the whole I agree with you. /Pace/
It's not the pivotal point and it's not subjective. There is an intended meaning which the author of that post, namely me, specifically wrote. That was then clarified in every subsequent post where you've repeatedly argued a contradictory meaning.
Furthermore I would consider myself uniquely qualified to comment on what was meant in that post - and all other posts by me - because I specifically wrote them. So arguing with me - the author of those posts - about the meaning of those posts is just absurd beyond comprehension. Please stop it.
> When I was concerned about was the fine balance between helping and suddenly forcing 'for their own good', hence in my original post I said "That's ripe for abuse". I was not initially criticising you, just saying it's frightningly abusable; be cautious.
You don't need to tell me this - I wrote literally that in my very first post (and again in a subsequent post too). Hence why I keep saying that you're taking that sentence of out context when parade it around in isolation like you have.
> Then you posted this "That's [suicide is] a mental illness". Now it seemed you opened the door to 'helping' whether they liked it or not.
No, I did not. I specifically and repeatedly said "I'm not going to argue about mental illness" - even after you directly asked me to talk about mental illness. I did suggest maybe you could benefit by talking to someone if you were sincere about your own mental health problems but I'm not forcing you to do that either (though I would recommend it - talking does genuinely help).
> Maybe you didn't but that's how I read it, and it did not play well with me. I don't think you got how badly that scared me. Well, that's ok.
Again, I think I - of all people - am uniquely qualified to tell you what I meant and if I tell you that you've misunderstood me, then you have misunderstood me.
Sometimes. It can equally be something someone chooses with full faculty.
"It is" as opposed to "sometimes it can be" makes me uncomfortable in the manner of DanBC's comment. A sweeping generalisation of cause can lead to a sweeping generalisation of response. Neither is helpful.
Is it always a mental illness? I have to say that I hate the circumstances that lead people to suicide, and I don't think that I'd ever follow that course, but don't the reasons for suicide range from mental illness (eg depression) all the way to self determination (eg suffering from a terminal disease)?
I don't understand the distinction you are making. People with mental illness make choices, are lead into things, etc.
People who are expelled from school or incarcerated don't want to be in that situation but they are anyway. That seems like mental illness to me - counterproductive behavior that can't be willed to stop.
The tragic fact I'm trying to communicate about attempts to help people is that the first step is to get someone who is vulnerable to trust authorities. And then that trust is necessarily betrayed, because the whole point is to try to help people without their consent. Not being able to trust is a primary cause or contributing factor to being unable to function properly in society.
> People who are expelled from school or incarcerated don't want to be in that situation but they are anyway. That seems like mental illness to me - counterproductive behavior that can't be willed to stop.
Fair point. I probably shouldn't have made that distinction.
> The tragic fact I'm trying to communicate about attempts to help people is that the first step is to get someone who is vulnerable to trust authorities. And then that trust is necessarily betrayed, because the whole point is to try to help people without their consent. Not being able to trust is a primary cause or contributing factor to being unable to function properly in society.
In many of the more extreme cases that is true. However it doesn't always work out that way. Realistically this is a far to broad a topic to be generalising the way we have but it's still been a read regardless.
For example, the sex offender registry has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a public safety measure, not a punishment, and thus exempt from scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. The new frontier in sex law enforcement will be mandatory registration for those considered to be "at risk" of sex offenses. This is already a thing in the UK: a man acquitted of rape was nevertheless considered at risk of committing rape by the cops, and they petitioned for and got an order from a judge compelling the man to register his name, address, and all online contact information with the police.
I am reminded of the many coroner's inquest reports I've read where agencies refused to share information with each other because they misunderstood laws about privacy, and then someone dies a self-inflicted death.
Very often the families of those who died had been telling agencies, for some time, that they were concerned about their loved-one, but were being ignored by those agencies.
This is why national strategy in England includes consensus statements on information sharing. These consensus statements lay out the law (which hasn't changed; there's still a legal duty to maintain confidentiality), and when it is or isn't ok to share information and who can do that.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- Police had write-only access to the database.
- Police had no involvement in interventions.
- Anyone was able to fill out a form and get their data purged.
- Everyone in the database could easily discover it.
Basically, separate law enforcement and social work. And enforce strict data souvereignity.
The next problem is that it blurs the line between 'client' and 'suspect'.
This is how things used to be in decades past. The police did police things and social workers did social work things and there was no way in hell the police were reading the social workers notes without a warrant and even then there's a chance that would still be protected.
Isn't the whole point of this that they can't be expected to be social workers?
> For example, a police officer may be called to respond to someone’s disruptive but non-criminal behaviour time and again. Under the Hub model, the officer can bring the person’s situation to the Hub—which may include staff from child welfare, addictions, or housing assistance agencies—and ask if other agencies can intervene.
The idea is that calling the police may be a blunt instrument, but maybe they can get the right instrument in place. I'm not dismissing the concerns with such information sharing, just seems like the point is to get the right people for the right circumstance.
So this is like the social work version of combined arms? Use all your resources in coordination to quash any potential threat.
"Little Jimmy gave his teacher the bird, his parents told the social workers to fuck off and they've got a Gadsden flag hung in the window of their trailer, better send the cops to harass them so they learn that we don't tolerate people who don't take our authority seriously"
There might be some irony here, I just can't put my finger on it.
Although the concerns about privacy are grounded; I would love to see the evaluation of this program after one year. I believe that if we want to protect those most at risk in our society, this is a step in the right direction.
So is the objection (of some) that this principle is wrong, or is the objection that this aspect of what is generally considered good policing shouldn't be systematised and recorded?
Something is systematisied, but it's not entirely clear what. And even if it's good now that doesn't stop it from being corrupted by someone in power later.
A hypothesis could be that the predictions of an impressive sounding system means people are less concerned about getting consent.
This hypothesis is completely absent from the text, and instead it is just the textual equivalent of a video with menacing music aling pictures of the text "Government" and clips of police brutality.
Honestly I wonder if the author of the piece even accept that the government keeps a record of who has citizenship.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-n...
Let's say it stops an average of 5 mass shootings a year and 200 domestic homicides, will the cost of lost privacy be worth it?
I don't like the idea of systems like this, but in places like the United States where gun control and mental health treatment are off the table I don't see many other options.
Taking good options off the table for irrational reasons does not make the next best options any better.
Pitch me on how you would solve those issues in the current political climate?
We could mandate reporting on neighbors.
We, too, could become a shining example of what happens when the state is primarily concerned with the welfare of its citizens, just like North Korea.
Americans already value physical privacy over digital.
Nobody is taking their guns, just their privacy, which they gave away long ago for likes.
Use the idiocy of masses for some good and maybe we can solve some real problems instead of dancing around the same old issues.
Net neutrality and digital privacy are dead, and most western countries are well on their way to becoming surveillance states.
Time to start looking towards the future and being pragmatic about the flaws we have built into our societies.
Net neutrality and digital privacy aren't remotely dead, for one thing because we don't live in a Universal Jurisdiction. The EFF exists for a reason and they're not trying to revive a corpse; they're trying to bring a slightly unhealthy body back to full strength.
It's not hard to imagine how this whole thing could go incredibly awry, and lead to abuses of power previously seen only in dystopian fiction.
I disagree and think the topic should be open to public debate.
Would I trust the US or China to implement a system like this fairly?
No.
However, in a country with a functional and impartial judicial system I think it has the potential to save many lives and redefine the criminal justice system into something that focuses on preventing crime and treating mental illness instead of just prosecuting it.
I don't place a lot of value on your existential fear of abuse, just as I don't place a lot of value on 2nd amendment supporters existential fear of tyranny.
"Muh data" sounds just as hollow as "muh guns" when weighed against the very real threats faced by innocent people every day.
Alright, then.
Technology is a tool, the one who wields it bears the moral responsibility to use it correctly.
Address the root causes of systemic oppression in your country and systems like this have potential to do tremendous good.
We have systems in place to prevent their abuse and despite our personal dislike of them they serve purpose.
If we have learned to be judicious and cautious with their use I am confident we can handle something like an ai driven social monitoring program.
We trust our governments with the greatest destructive capability ever devised, what I am proposing is a far smaller threat.
We are educated on the merits of maintaining digital privacy, but most of the world isn't.
If you were able to prove that a system like this was saving thousands of lives a year I think it would have resounding support among the general public.
When people say "nanny state", this is possibly a more literal interpretation than I ever hoped to see. "You feeling all right? Maybe take a time out and calm down".
I guess my annoyance is based on the same issues I have with facial recognition, fingerprinting, or any "databases": if I have committed no crime, police should not have my information, know where I am, or maintain information on me.
Not to mention that every false positive would lead to the compulsory mental treatment of completely healthy people.
In some cases even these "door knocks" can lead to admission, for example if the person visited exhibits strong signs of psychosis or potential for self-harm. The judgement of police officers may not be perfect but it is better than nothing.
I know that there are trade-offs to be made and caution is to be exercised, but in general I think it's worth a try to prevent escalation of mental health crisis.
From the article:
> According to MCSCS documents, the most common risk factors ascribed to people in the database in 2017 were mental health (including “suspected” mental health issues), criminal involvement, drug use, and “antisocial/negative behaviour,” defined as “obnoxious [or] disruptive” behaviour.
It's a very short step from "antisocial/negative/obnoxious/disruptive behaviour" to a literal implementation of thoughtcrime.
As a consequence, these predictive "risk assessment" technologies can appear to be highly successful, especially to the police themselves who often already have matching biases, when in reality they may be nearly useless or heavily biased.
Apart from that there is of course also the thought crime aspect of the matter. It's just not desirable to have that kind of continuous monitoring and control of the police over population, and others have said enough about that already.
From that perspective it doesn't come as a complete surprise that law enforcement first comes up with the idea, then gets reprimanded and then due process is put into place while letting police do their work, because, let's be real here, that's what they're trying to do, not implement an Orwellian dystopia. I wonder how much jumping to that accusation helps in this kind of discussion, even though I'm all for sensitizing law enforcement on these topics.
It reminds me of an incident in the UK a few years ago, when the Metropolitan (London) police trialed a facial recognition camera on the high street. One man reacted by covering up his face as he walked past. He was grabbed aside and ordered to remove the covering. When he responded angrily, he got fined £90 (=$115). It got caught on camera and gives me chills to this day.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/moment-police-fine-pe...
It was in January this year: https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/01/man-fined-refusing-show-face-...
But yes, it was very worrying, especially the plains-clothes offficer's assertion that not voluntarily submitting to facial recognition was itself enough to create the reasonable suspicion necessary to compel you to submit to it.
First, Vice is an unreliable news organization with seriously substantiated claims that one of its founders has backed white supremacists, including Proud Boys. It's also been involved in international drug smuggling. And inflating its advertising numbers by an order of magnitude.
Second, the police in Canada are some of the finest in the world. There are problem spots that I've seen with my own eyes[0] but by-and-large the police and intelligence services in Canada bend over backwards to respect individual rights. If you've never actually talked to members of the RCMP or Canadian IC then I respectfully ask that you educate yourself before worrying that the sky is falling. If you're from out of the country and don't know where to start, try The Intrepid Podcast. Start from the beginning, as it gets more weeds-y as the episodes progress. In my opinion, it's insightful, fair, and nuanced.
https://www.intrepidpodcast.com/podcast
[0] Track level Toronto police working in the tunnels of the TCC were being paid off to turn a blind eye to drug running, but that was over a decade ago and a very atypical occurrence.
(just explaining the downvotes)
This person is probably mentioning the arrest of a Vice music site editor on cocaine smuggling (as you can see, parent's take on this is very different from reality):
https://www.spin.com/2019/02/vice-editor-slava-p-arrested-co...
Makes me question everything else you are commenting here on.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-an-editor-alleg...
Gavin McInnes left Vice in 2008.
Your post is made of alt-facts and shortsightedness.
The real issue here is you just can’t possibly comprehend how this new authority could ever be used against you. After all, you’re always right, and the government will always agree with you!