There are marginal cases for sure, but let's not pretend that true scumbags don't exist just because the demarcation line is subjective; that's like pretending there's no such thing as a ripe banana because the green fades gradually into yellow with no clear line between them. Look beyond the marginal cases and it becomes clear that the difference really does exist. There are people in this country with numerous DUIs and domestic violence convictions, obviously such people are scumbags.
Look, if you're a person who enjoys harming others, is incredibly lazy and chooses theft or destruction over actively working in your community when you have the opportunity to do so then you're more of a scumbag in my book.
That's easy to claim online talking about abstract scenarios, but if you saw a man beat his wife in public I think you'd be more than willing to make a snap judgement about that man's moral character, and wouldn't stop to think "well maybe he's not a scumbag because..."
Things like that should only really be a factor in choosing sentencing and rehabilitation.
That's not my logic.
If you have a disease that causes an involuntary action, that removes choice.
I could extend that - the more something slides towards coercion, the less choice there is. Rather than a complete removal, a person's punishment should be evaluated in light of the circumstances in which they act.
>Things like that should only really be a factor in choosing sentencing and rehabilitation.
That's kinda what I'm talking about - a sentence of being known as a scumbag.
The difference, of course, is I'm not actually talking about what you did, I'm talking about what makes you a scumbag. I don't think people can really be unintentional scumbags - intent is required.
Moreover, I'm also skeptical of the simplistic idea that our policing problem derives from "too many immoral officers". It seems more likely that it's an emergent property of the incentives and constraints we put on police brass (including the police union system).
Further, if we're going to reform police, it would be nice if we focused on policies which weren't predictably counter-effective. Rather than the de-policing policies which have increased homicides by 9k/year (relative to the time period before the de-policing movement kicked off in earnest with the largest increases in the "communities of color" in whose name the de-policing initiative campaigned) for no appreciable difference in unjustified police killings, it would be nice if we instead pursued one or more of: more police training, weakened/abolished police unions, restructured internal-affairs departments, tightened background checks, mandated periodic psyche evals, etc.
Cite your sources please. I have a very significant doubt that this is empirically true.
In fact I'd be willing to wager that the nature of the job provids an improvised filter that achieves the exact opposite effect.
Are you saying cops are on average less scummy? Why is that a conclusion that you find to be inherently true?
Not saying they're bad, most aren't, however, you wanted to be the guy with the power- There is possibly a reason for that.
Sure, but there's nothing that suggests the underlying motivation would be negative. For example, a lot of people cite a desire to protect and serve their communities. Just because there is a motive for something doesn't imply that it's ulterior or nefarious.
The only real way to deal with this would be to police the police in a realistic manner. Bodycam and location data of their every move would need to be available for that. Currently, police can simply turn these off.
Yes, there are scumbags in both ordinary citizens and in police but one of these groups of scumbags already gets "policed". (Disclaimer: I do think that this idea is not the right way to deal with this problem.)
some police may act as if they're above the law, but that's projection, not foundational.
edit: interesting, seems to have hit a tribal trigger of some sort, but can't tell if it's the "police bad" or "police good" contingents getting their feathers ruffled.
we all have the propensity to abuse situations and privileges, so police aren't special in that regard. the problem is that we narrowly attribute this universal human quality to just police, blinded by context, because that fits a preconceived narrative and surreptitiously makes each of us feel a little better about ourselves. this happens subconsciously and is a form of the fundamental attribution error we make so often.
that's not to absolve the police of grievances, since they do have extraordinary powers and as a result their misbehaviors have greater impact. certainly we should hold them to a higher standard. but police aren't more corrupt than average (they aren't lesser human beings, as implied).
And that's why these systems will never work very well.
Easy question. 99% of those arrested are scumbags.
This is speaking as someone who has been to jail and met the population that gets arrested. They are the worst, and their opinion in regard to rating cops should be largely ignored.
If you spent some time in jail or prison, you would know there is a huge difference between the normal population and the arrest population. Violence, drugs, theft, robbery, rape, (things people get arrested for) ... they're scumbags if anyone is.
> There are a whole lot of other things besides what you list that could land you in jail.
Incorrect. The jail population is 99% in those categories.
> and lots of good people who didn't hurt anyone are in jail
Also incorrect. Although, there are a lot of mentally unstable folks there, who could be considered to be a bit more innocent than the others.
Supposedly over 90% of convictions are from plea bargains. We'll never know how many of those people were actually innocent. CeCe McDonald may or may not be one example. [1]
Anthony Gammons, Jr. may have acted in self defense for him and his child, but he wasn't legally allowed to own a firearm so he was convicted of murder. [2]
Teenager gets 10 years for consensual sex. [3]
Kalief Browder in jail for three years without a trial. [4]
Alexander Torres wrongfully convicted for murder for 20 years. [5]
When I was in jail, the few people I talked to, were in there for cannabis possession (as was I), driving without a license, and missing a jury summons. None of that necessarily makes them bad people in my mind. Maybe they are, but it would be for other reasons I'm not aware of.
[0] https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p19.pdf
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CeCe_McDonald
[2] https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2020/sep/15/indiana-s...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
[5] https://www.aol.com/news/20-years-prison-man-found-204259158...
0. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...
I didn't know anyone who was there for just drugs, except a few who were dealing hard drugs. (And who were coincidentally also violent thieves)
If you want to understand the jail population, watch the show "lockup raw". It would give you a better picture of who is being discussed.
Though it defies logic, there are a lot of people like yourself who seem to think that prisons are filled with a bunch of victims, who are just there for drug offenses. It's not true by a long shot.
https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/whos_in_prison_for_mar...
I would not only link to a leftist think tank. Besides that being rarer than the propoganda of the right. It’s insulting to myself most of all (the fact I would let myself get duped by propaganda this easily) and to the people i am talking to, to do that.
Also, watching a tv show? That’s the worst way to understand politics. While being the best way for basic propaganda to work on a person. Life isn’t a joke where tv shows are what should be referenced.
The statistics were well-framed and accurate. It also has a nice discussion about how the statistics can be spun in different political directions, which is uncommonly honest for any side.
> People who have already been instilled to vote against their self interest and who want to oppress others
This narrative of law enforcement oppressing others is probably something we would hopefully agree to disagree on regarding the particulars of who, and how wide-spread that is. It definitely happens. I would say that my first-hand experience mixing with something like a thousand inmates (the number is true) is that they were very ethnically diverse. About 1/3 White, 1/3 Black, 1/3 Hispanic. Roughly. More Black and Hispanic and less White I guess, but there were plenty of Whites. Virtually 0 Asian. However nearly everyone was very lower class.
More important is that everyone who I knew of ... deserved to be there. They were mostly burglars, robbers, car thieves (way more high-speed chases than you would expect). Many were there for some type of Assault. Many multi-charge cases. Plenty of murderers, and a lot more rapists than you would expect.
Very very few were there for only drugs, and honestly, they were released quickly into treatment programs. Other than that there were hard-drug dealers facing more major cases. They also tended to have a long case history involving the crimes above.
Mixed with their more serious crimes, drug abuse was rampant, both in their outside lives and inside the jail. The law in the jurisdiction (I won't name it for privacy) doesn't care about marijuana. It was mainly heroine and meth. Those were even inside the jail in small quantities, leading to fights and even an in-jail murder over its control.
However, nearly all of the drug addicts were eligible for reduced sentencing and "programs". In this jurisdiction they really bend over backwards for addicts. People would be in and out for serious violent cases and receive "programs" (outside treatment) and reduced sentences because they were mentally impaired from addiction. One guy in particular I knew, was a meth + heroine addict who had been in and out on "programs" for many years for all sorts of serious crimes, had lately killed a cop with his vehicle while fleeing.
The drug defense was such a great way for people to get off that many would help each other concoct their defenses about how they were under the influence for their crimes. Another guy in particular came up with "bath salts" defense for a violent crime while I was there, and he was in fact released for it, instead of facing pretty serious time. They were going to even let him even go to a different state to care-take his for his son. However, he was back in for another case within a month.
As for oppression, I understand that BLM has some valid complaints, for instance. And I certainly met a lot of cops who were nasty, violent, cruel people who didn't live up to the profession. It attracts some really bad people. I look at cops totally differently now. I would also say that parole and probation is very harsh and that people who have to endure it are "oppressed" in many ways, and often even financially exploited by law enforcement. These people have very little chance of crawling up out of the lower class after being in the system. Many end up on the streets. But their own addictions and criminal culture are a major factor.
My point was not so much about oppression, which certainly occurs, but that from my first-hand observation, the vast majority of the arrest population is genuinely guilty of what they were arrested for (and often also of a lot additional crime they weren't arrested for), and is quite a lot more criminal and dangerous to society than 90% of liberals assume (and I am a liberal). People who don't know any better often think of jails and prisons as teeming with "victims of the system". But trust me, the vast majority are real low-lifes. They are a serious danger to you, yours, and your stuff. They should absolutely be separated from the rest of society, for both punishment and public safety.
> Also, watching a tv show? That’s the worst way to understand politics.
I see you assumed that it's a drama or staged reality TV. No, it's closer to a serialized documentary. I am telling you as someone who has both spent 2 years in jail and seen this show ... that it is an accurate, gonzo-type view into what jail is.
It's not political. One could definitely use it to understand the politics of jail however, internal and external. It's a little sensationalized for TV consumption, but, it's also pretty close to what I could see being "source material"; It wouldn't surprise me if pieces of it are a supplemental part of any Criminology curricula.
I'm not trying to be rude here, but this is a situation where you don't know something (what jail is like inside, or anything about this "show"), and you are talking to someone with that knowledge. In other words, you would stand to learn something.
Now I doubt you're really interested, but since I'm typing, I'll say that the "show" is candid footage of the daily lives of real inmates. It also features several "plant" inmates who are not criminals, but who are fully immersed with real criminals. The real inmates are only partially aware of being recorded, and are usually not conscientious of it. It's a documentary of what jail is like, and shows the live population in a real jail; Who they are, how they talk, think, and act.
I'm surprised it was even legal, frankly. It is pretty exploitative, since in jail you are technically still innocent (not yet convicted). However, I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that again, the vast majority of the inmates are in fact guilty of the crime they are accused of, and something like 95% of them have been committing serious crimes their entire life. I sense you may possibly have a "political" disagreement with this statement (apologies if not), but I assure you it is true.
The show is actually amazing because jail is a very dangerous place where you can absolutely find yourself in violent, possibly even deadly situations. While the "plants" were monitored closely on CCTV, they are very certainly in physically danger. (It's worth mentioning that CCTV is common in most jails/prisons; it wasn't just for the show).
While personally in jail, I was involved in numerous fights, and witnessed countless others, two of which were particularly brutal and involved fractured skulls, also a few stabbings, several large group melees, and a suicide. A murder also happened in a pod I was in, though I wasn't anywhere near it. Jailers are also sometimes very violent and provocative. There were at least a few shivs around in any given pod. It sounds a bit extreme in retrospect, but I'm not exaggerating anything.
> While being the best way for basic propaganda to work on a person.
Who said anything about propaganda? There isn't really any active political angle to it (except perhaps the Sheriff's funding / election). It definitely shows the Draconian threat of "crime doesn't pay" by showing the inside of the admittedly quite ugly industry, but I don't personally think that's more propagandizing than simply educational in a net-positive sense for our particular society. It is a little sickening that a show like that is a form of entertainment for some people to watch. I can understand the fascination with it, but I personally didn't even watch a whole lot of it because it hits too close to home.
Also, please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that I am propagandized in some way, or lack the critical thinking to discern television propaganda. We're both in a high functioning career. Presumably we're both smart people, no?
> Life isn’t a joke where tv shows are what should be referenced.
Well, think about it ... I'm obviously speaking from a position of real life experience. There aren't many good "jokes" here. I'll try to sidestep the offense I could take at the term "joke" in response to someone mentioning a serious topic and "life" experience, but that's difficult.
Basically, you heard someone with some rare domain knowledge say "hey - check this thing out, it's actually pretty realistic". Even without actually looking at that thing, if you can't figure out that that person is probably correct about what they say ... I'd point out what that makes you, but this is HN and I don't intend to flame. You should figure it out though.
I don't think you'll even read any of this, typing it is just therapeutic I guess. But, since you bothered me, I'll tell you that I don't like your demeanor or arrogance.
Arguably it's petty, but for the sake of keeping HN a nice place I think I'll check your comments every now and then ... and if I see you calling folks names like "boot licker" again, or posting non-substantive stuff (which seems likely?) I'll happily flag it! Maybe the thought of dang would force you to become a better, or perhaps less frequent poster.
Your profile indicates a bright person, and I assume you are. Heads up - what you're saying isn't matching.
Your usage of race is not cool to me either. You believe people have a lot more free will and power than I do. We both think we are right. You said you’re a liberal. I am not. I get that your political world view means believing the average person has a lot more agency than they do.
It is weird to follow someone’s profile to tattle on them and imply they should hopefully get unnerved by that.
I did read your whole comment.
There's really no indication where that's coming from. I definitely said nothing inappropriate about race.
Two things are relevant there:
1) It's not an unwise assumption that your raising of the specter of "oppression" was along the lines of race, as that is so often the main context for that sort of discussion. See the BLM movement, and basically any other conversation about police oppression. I thought I was making it clear that I did not perceive much racial oppression in the proportion of races present; that the proportion instead suggested that socio-economic class and uncomplicated inherent criminality were the most important hallmarks of the arrest population. I really have no idea which direction or for what reason you could possibly be offended by anything relevant to race that I said. Trust me, I hate talking about race, but it seemed relevant, and everything I said was a just a real figure.
2) Race is extremely relevant on the inside. It's HUGE culture shock. I was lucky to be mainly housed in the "Non-Active" population, which means "not actively gang members". This is opposed to "General Population", where falling into a race-based gang is culturally mandatory (for all races). Basically everyone must participate in some level of gang activity and take orders from racial leadership. Resources (food, jobs, phones, televisions, chairs, area, etc.) are divvied up by racial "politics" (which is an oft-used word on the inside which has a slightly different, more ominous meaning than when you or I say it). There is some mixing, but you know where your race's areas are and you get into trouble fast if you infringe on other races' stuff; No watching their TV, sitting on their chairs, using their stuff unless you are invited. In my group we mixed a lot more, and overt gangs were actually taboo, but almost everyone was a former gang member from general population and/or outside. There were still very solid racial cliques and they still fought over racial ownership of certain resources. The gangs were beneath the surface and occasionally became active.
It's a fascinating topic really. Not all of the racial gangs are strictly exclusive, and there are more denominations than you would expect. I knew a white guy who ran with an Islamic black gang when he was in prison. (Coincidentally, he was an utterly vile person who will either rot behind bars or die young, which I can honestly say is for the best). Some hispanics run with white gangs and vice versa. Then there are those who claim "other". Any race can claim "other", meaning they largely stay out of racial politics as best they can but they still basically have to form a cohesive group and minimal leadership in order to maintain resources and not be taken advantage of.
Anyway, even though I largely avoided the problems of "general population", race and racism is a very serious thing among inmates. It flows in all directions and is super uncomfortable. Also, for the record I totally avoided any gang affiliation. I cliqued mainly with the hispanics and whites (the blacks mostly stuck to themselves) but I had some close black friends too. Plus you know ... "I voted for Obama" so there's that often-denigrated but still good-faith line. Dislike Biden though.
> the casting of an entire disenfranchised population in a negative light
Yeah I mean, we do disagree .... "casting in a negative light" is trivial and pretty essential to the whole idea that it is in fact justified to condemn someone to time behind bars for the very serious crimes they commit of their own free will, which I assert they definitely have. I really think if you spent meaningful time among the arrest population it would become really clear that the majority of them disenfranchise themselves with willful major crimes. Remember -- you rarely ever even see these people let alone mingle with them; I think you don't understand them because you haven't met them.
There are a lot of homeless + insane folks in the system though, and I feel differently about them.
Anyway. For some reason I needed to blab about jail stuff that I NEVER talk about with a rando who vehemently disagrees ... Thanks for reading. That's probably enough HN for me for a while.
I believe in not having an oppressive society that then cruelly punishes people unnecessarily. Recidivism is quite high in the US. I want to focus on Lowering that. not punishing people. I don’t have contempt for people.
You don’t know the things I’ve gone thru. I’ve lived a privileged life, but not a perfect one. You remarked before how I’m probably well paid in the tech industry. I’m not. Never have been. Haven’t always had food or roof over my head. My skin color didn’t do me favors in run ins with authority when I had not done anything wrong enough to warrant time and attention.
> whole idea that it is in fact justified to condemn someone to time behind bars for the very serious crimes they commit of their own free will, which I assert they definitely have.
Nothing will change me to believe this. I view humans as equals. I want to help people. Not throw them into the barbarism you have talked about and when a lot of them end up not being able to improve their lives enough, blame them. I find it cruel and unusual. I don’t have any bloodlust, as it were.
I've mixed with a population of about 500. Spoken to many, intentionally and otherwise. Very familiar with their culture. Trust me, 99% of the arrest population is scum.
I don't think the system described in the article is good either, but this isn't why. A big part of the problem with the current policing system is that cops treat some groups completely differently from how they treat others. "Upstanding" is as good a euphemism for it as any I guess but we should eliminate that not formalize it.
I absolutely agree, but the point was not that it doesn’t matter how cops treat “scumbags”, but that you can’t trust some people’s word on what they experienced. I think it is certain that there exist both cops who lie and non-cops who lie, so we need some way to filter out the signal from the noise.
Why?
> A big part of the problem with the current policing system is that cops treat some groups completely differently from how they treat others.
And what are those groups?
It’s kind like human rights - the majority of people who are at risk of having them infringed are unpleasant or unsympathetic characters.
I’d argue a cliché “upstanding law-abiding citizen” type doesn’t generally have that much to fear from a police interaction. They are generally being dealt with on a presumption of good faith, and have at least some access to leverage and ability to push back against unfair treatment. Someone who’s already been identified as a “scumbag” doesn’t, and that is why their treatment is more illuminating.
And what are those groups?
There are many of them and they vary by region. Police very observably interact differently with richer versus poorer groups, for example, or with groups from different ethnic backgrounds.
The determination of who's bad or good is fraught with error and subjectivity; therefore to protect good people, we must protect all people.
I think some people have a view of "human rights" that fixates on and elevates "unpleasant or unsympathetic characters" but I don't think it's intrinsic to the concept of human rights.
> I’d argue a cliché “upstanding law-abiding citizen” type doesn’t generally have that much to fear from a police interaction. They are generally being dealt with on a presumption of good faith, and have at least some access to leverage and ability to push back against unfair treatment. Someone who’s already been identified as a “scumbag” doesn’t, and that is why their treatment is more illuminating.
Illuminating of what exactly that would make their view more "important" (as stated above) than the views of law abiding citizens?
> There are many of them and they vary by region. Police very observably interact differently with richer versus poorer groups, for example, or with groups from different ethnic backgrounds.
I think if you break it down more granularly, you'll see that what police interactions vary more within, for example, ethnic groups, than between ethnic groups, based on characteristics such as past criminal history, etc.
Nobody said it was. But it is almost definitionally true that the people most at risk of having their individual or human rights infringed are those people who are subject to the most forceful remedies of the state. And these are, by and large, not people for whom it is easy to have sympathy.
Illuminating of what exactly that would make their view more "important" (as stated above) than the views of law abiding citizens?
It is easy to treat a good and compliant person well; observing someone do this tells us little. It is harder to treat someone “bad” well, so seeing this happen can give us greater confidence that people in positions of power are treating others equally, free from prejudice. It’s tells us more, and thus is more important.
I think if you break it down more granularly, you'll see that what police interactions vary more within, for example, ethnic groups, than between ethnic groups, based on characteristics such as past criminal history, etc.
You might; I can’t say. It doesn’t ameliorate unequal treatment on the basis of other characteristics, regardless.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to consider what the police might use as a proxy/heuristic to figure out what group a suspect is in.
I agree that this is a danger. Fortunately, with additional data available, data scientists will be able to show any biases more clearly. If it happens with a rating system, it was happening before the rating system, except now there is the benefit of more data.
Similarly, you could also show if people from Group A (the more weighted group) also rate the police lower, despite similar treatment as those of Group B. The data will cut both ways.
EDIT>> Nvm, you were using "weighted" to mean "the weight of their vote", not "the weight applied to their vote."
One example of this is "voter fraud". It is possible to commit voter fraud, and so certain parties want strong identity guarantees to vote. But voter fraud isn't happening in practice, and stringent ID requirements actually suppress minority votes.
It is better to implement the simplest possible system first, observe it, and fix problems later as needed, after careful analysis of the running system.
But not the ordinary YAGNI. You're Absolutely going to need some way of dealing with low-quality input.
You really should wait and see before you invest a ton of time and money into solving problems that end up not being problems.
If you are actually operating under the assumption that the output doesn't matter at all, then implementing the review system in the first place is a waste of effort, let alone any features thereof. But assuming that we do care about the output, its quality does matter.
>There's also no evidence that there would be enough poor quality inputs to make a meaningful impact on scores.
In pretty much the same way that there's no evidence that any given new website needs to worry about sql injection.
Is there a word or concept (in English, or in any language) for an ostensibly straightforward and common sense solution to a real problem, whose implementation entails creating a solution which is far larger in scale than the original problem ever was?
I mean something distinct from concepts like perverse incentives (the cobra effect, for example). I mean something like what you're talking about above. But a more illustrative, completely made-up example might be a law that was meant to make people pay their traffic tickets. Imagine that, through a series of steps which each seemed reasonable at the time, implementing this law ended up creating a global, keyhole satellite surveillance network over the entire surface of the country, with massive bunkers of computers monitoring for traffic micro-violations (".02 kmh over the speed limit, that'll be 2 cents") in real time, then notifying people with a tracking bracelet that everyone was legally required to wear, because otherwise it wouldn't be possible to enforce the law we all agreed made sense at the time. And, to ensure the tickets could be delivered in a timely manner, the banks and communications companies had to support a bunch of government technology and oversight, and car companies had to build some tech into their automobiles to shut the off if you didn't pay.
It becomes dystopian really quickly, but I don't think it has to.
This silly example is just meant to illustrate what I mean: is there a name for decisions whose implementation seems straightforward, but which, step by step, create a much bigger apparatus than you originally intended?
I don't think this is entirely theoretical: there are plenty of real world examples, but I won't name them because they would probably distract from the question. Even in software development, you probably run into a situation where some product person says "can't we show this property over here?" and you say "sure, but we'd have to spend a year rewriting our entire architecture first".
You're thinking of the phrase "nuking a housefly", or some similar metaphors that fit the pattern "[large weapon] a [small animal]"
We don't have some infinite-regress rating system to qualify people to vote. Or to voice their opinions verbally. Or, really, for nearly anything. And for good reason - there is no objective point from which to judge.
You accept that humans are flawed, and that rating systems created by them reflect human judgement.
Spoiler: it does... not end well.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.