Police Reform Thread

[DirtyRed]

That is the second worst idea I have ever heard. The recurring theme in Cop Kills Harmless/Innocent Man stories is that cops have WAY too high an opinion of themselves and their authority. They need to be reminded that they are fucking servants. Or fired. Fired is better.

That....occurs occasionally, but the overwhelming theme is stressed cop in a stressful situation freaking the heck out. They react how I would. I'd be blowing everybody away because I want to go home that day.

That describes the Michael Brown incident, and even THAT was only because the cop fucked up and escalated at every opportunity. That guy selling loose cigarettes in New York was 1 unarmed man against at least three cops, they killed him. There was that unarmed guy, in Alabama I think, that was leaving a convenience store when two police officers ran up and tackled him and ended up killing him. Samantha Ramsey was one unarmed girl against one particular armed cop with backup close at hand, he killed her. Eugene Mallory was one unarmed old man against a SWAT team. That Australian witch doctor or what the fuck ever was on unarmed blonde woman against two cops, one of which is inhumanly stupid at best. That kid in Cleveland was a 12 year old with a toy gun against two cops with real guns. There was that one in the Carolinas (Charlotte if memory serves) that was one cop shooting an unarmed man in the back as he ran away.

The recurring theme is dull witted jackboots descend on unarmed people doing no harm to anyone and murdering them in broad daylight, and repeatedly getting away with it because stupid motherfuckers like you are too blinded by hero worship of A M E R I C A (fuck yeah!) and its enforcers that you refuse to see any problem.

THAT is the worst idea I've ever heard. That would only lead to more officers with not shit to do but drum up citations and shit.

You and Black Lives Matter both.

Maybe in Kentucky, but in the cities? It's necessary. It's strongly correlated to decreased crime.

No it isn't, moron. Crime decreased from its peak all over, regardless of increased, same, or decreased police presence. We've been over that at least twice before.

I didn't mean to link DR and fw together, but libertarianism does oddly wind right around to being uneasy bedfellows with all these anti-police socialists: The Libertarian Republic: Black Lives Matter Wants to Abolish the Police – Are They Wrong?

"BLM" is a movement based around milking a grievance industry for attention and profit for the "leaders," by pushing their White Guilt agenda for political considerations. The little useful idiot footmen do their stated cause of getting the police to stop ruining and ending black "lives" zero favors by misdiagnosing the problem as "racism" instead of the State causing problems by trying to fix the problems it keeps causing by trying to fix fucking problems.

Libertarians are more interested in actually solving the root of the problem and being left the fuck alone.

I'm in favor of abolishing prison, myself.

Our societal goals when sentencing criminals are:
1) deterrence
2) reform/rehab
3) protecting the rest of us from the criminal
4) vengeance

Long prison sentences are basically only good at 3, isolation.
It's probably actively harmful re: 2 reform/rehab.
And it's poor at 1 deterrence because the sentencing takes so long and extends beyond the time-horizon of most criminals' planning.

Torture followed by quick release (i.e. caning) would be a lot better for deterrence and vengeance. And more merciful IMO.
We could add a period of really strict probation to improve 2 and 3: a tracking anklet, weekly interviews with instant but minor punishments/rewards for progress towards being a decent citizen.

This sort of very-involved probation would be expensive. Probably more so that the prison system. Which is probably why we don't do it.

This is all a fat load of overthinking. Just make all but the most dangerous (deliberate murderers) offenders pay their victims rather charitable restitution for damages. If they can't pay, they can be employed at the Happy People's Freedom Workatorium doing something they're useful for until they can pay. No dumbass violence so Mikey doesn't cry, the offender has MUCH more chance of become someone of use to society afterwards, and the actual victims get actual compensation.

BUT WHAT ABOUT CRIMES WITH NO VICTIM?!?!?!

They don't need to be crimes then, do they?

It's either that or shoot them. I'm okay with shooting them, but you creampuff cocksmokers want to imprison people who shoot strangers that enter their homes at night with the obvious intention of robbing the place.

I'm not sure (4) is such a good goal anyway. I think it's too easy for <being okay with doing violence to criminals> to turn into <being okay with violence>. And then you end up with Dick Cheney on TV saying he's comfortable with the knowledge that 25% of CIA torture victims turned out to have been innocent, and millions of people agreeing with him Because The Greater Good.

Violence isn't bad. Doing bad shit violently is bad. Violence, in itself, is a great way to protect one's shit from people who want to take it without asking, and a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

The more the criminal/justice system comes to be seen as over-lenient, the more voters and politicians will tend to go on anti-crime moral panics.
This is how we get three-strikes laws.

Sooooo, we shouldn't make laws, especially those about victimless "crimes," more lenient or else it may lead to exactly the police state we have now?

I'm willing to risk it.

If the rules and norms that they follow and which govern the way they engage with the public is racist (say, in a way that is intended to extract wealth from certain populations, or ensuring that black men are viewed as violent and dangerous), the attitudes of individual cops isn't all that important.

The State doesn't care where the money comes from. Money from blacks is just as good as money from whites. The police target poor people because they lack the means to fight back in the legal system. This just happens to disproportionately affect blacks.

But it's easier for the Statists to blame Racism as something that needs to be Cured (by further State intervention, naturally), rather than an incidental symptom of the actual problem that needs to be solved. Because if they admit that it's the State causing the problem in the first fucking place, that line of thought might endanger the State actions that appeal to them emotionally.

ETA: I will now literally pay money for a Multi-Quote thingy. Not MUCH money, naturally, but still money.

[mikeylikey]

Violence isn't bad. Doing bad shit violently is bad. Violence, in itself, is a great way to protect one's shit from people who want to take it without asking, and a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Asshole, I mean violence that is not (A) done in the act of actual self defense (B) voluntarily engaged in by dimwit sportsball players.

Really, we shouldn't be okay with any violence. If A attacks B for his wallet and B defends himself violently, the world is still a worse place because the entire encounter happened. Yeah, we say B was justified, in that we're not going to punish him for defending himself. But the idea that violence in self defense is some kind of Good is the same kind of wrong headed thinking that says rebuilding Florida after a hurricane is good for the economy. What we'd rather is the whole thing didn't happen at all.

If on the other hand, A attacks B and gets away with the wallet, only to be apprehended later, what good comes from tying A to a pole and beating him? B is no better off; beating A doesn't heal B's injuries or replace his property. The original violence having happened and passed into history, all we can do now is add to the total violence and suffering in the world.

I'm leaving out the utilitarian angle here (Perhaps beating B will deter C from doing the same thing) because those necessarily involve doing math that I'm not interested in doing; just how many blows to the head is equal, in social utility, to one prevented purse snatching?

[hsilman]

Violence isn't bad. Doing bad shit violently is bad. Violence, in itself, is a great way to protect one's shit from people who want to take it without asking, and a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Asshole, I mean violence that is not (A) done in the act of actual self defense (B) voluntarily engaged in by dimwit sportsball players.

Really, we shouldn't be okay with any violence. If A attacks B for his wallet and B defends himself violently, the world is still a worse place because the entire encounter happened. Yeah, we say B was justified, in that we're not going to punish him for defending himself. But the idea that violence in self defense is some kind of Good is the same kind of wrong headed thinking that says rebuilding Florida after a hurricane is good for the economy. What we'd rather is the whole thing didn't happen at all.

If on the other hand, A attacks B and gets away with the wallet, only to be apprehended later, what good comes from tying A to a pole and beating him? B is no better off; beating A doesn't heal B's injuries or replace his property. The original violence having happened and passed into history, all we can do now is add to the total violence and suffering in the world.

I'm leaving out the utilitarian angle here (Perhaps beating B will deter C from doing the same thing) because those necessarily involve doing math that I'm not interested in doing; just how many blows to the head is equal, in social utility, to one prevented purse snatching?

I've been arguing this shit for years, and now you come along and pretend you've been agreeing with me the whole time?

How many years in prison is my life worth? There is no math to what a pussy snatching is worth in violence. "Justice" is a myth.

Also, this isn't theoretical. The best way to prevent violence is to create a society where people don't generally see mugging people as a realistic profession. This is one of the reasons that countries that have strong social programs and prison that focuses on improving the inmates life(through job skills and education, among other things) have far less violent crime.

"So you pay people not to steal purses?"

Yeah well, the alternative/current system is all of us paying a ton of money on bullshit courts and police and prisons that don't actually help the core issue anyway. It's not like the alternative is I get to keep my money.

*I'm not fixing that auto correct because it's hilarious.

[mikeylikey]

How many years in prison is my life worth? There is no math to what a pussy snatching is worth in violence. "Justice" is a myth.




*I'm not fixing that auto correct because it's hilarious.

The things you must type on your phone...

The best way to prevent violence is to create a society where people don't generally see mugging people as a realistic profession.
"So you pay people not to steal purses?"
the alternative/current system is all of us paying a ton of money on bullshit courts and police and prisons that don't actually help the core issue anyway. It's not like the alternative is I get to keep my money.

This, sort of.

Of course, in your version of it, the government is still using violence to take my money and give it to the potential criminals...

[hsilman]

How many years in prison is my life worth? There is no math to what a pussy snatching is worth in violence. "Justice" is a myth.




*I'm not fixing that auto correct because it's hilarious.

The things you must type on your phone...

The best way to prevent violence is to create a society where people don't generally see mugging people as a realistic profession.
"So you pay people not to steal purses?"
the alternative/current system is all of us paying a ton of money on bullshit courts and police and prisons that don't actually help the core issue anyway. It's not like the alternative is I get to keep my money.

This, sort of.

Of course, in your version of it, the government is still using violence to take my money and give it to the potential criminals...

Yeah, yeah, taxation is theft etc etc. I admit it.

[cwd]

We have wealth and safety because we have secure property rights.

I reckon this is 100% assertion, and exceedingly difficult to support with anything other than handwaving.

In a system where property is likely to be confiscated, everyone switches from creating wealth to hiding or taking wealth, which is a zero-sum game or worse.

Example: no one is dumb enough to start an oil company in Venezuela these days.

[cwd]

If on the other hand, A attacks B and gets away with the wallet, only to be apprehended later, what good comes from tying A to a pole and beating him? B is no better off; beating A doesn't heal B's injuries or replace his property. The original violence having happened and passed into history, all we can do now is add to the total violence and suffering in the world.

Abner shoots Bob dead, then surrenders to the police.
Abner cannot pay restitution -- Abners's money was confiscated last week when he killed Chuck.
Would you say that punishing Abner is pointless now, because Bob (and Chuck from last week) are already dead?

[mikeylikey]

If on the other hand, A attacks B and gets away with the wallet, only to be apprehended later, what good comes from tying A to a pole and beating him? B is no better off; beating A doesn't heal B's injuries or replace his property. The original violence having happened and passed into history, all we can do now is add to the total violence and suffering in the world.

Abner shoots Bob dead, then surrenders to the police.
Abner cannot pay restitution -- Abners's money was confiscated last week when he killed Chuck.
Would you say that punishing Abner is pointless now, because Bob (and Chuck from last week) are already dead?

Point of order, are we still leaving out deterrence and rehabilitation from our consideration, since those are in doubt if not debunked?

[mikeylikey]

We have wealth and safety because we have secure property rights.

I reckon this is 100% assertion, and exceedingly difficult to support with anything other than handwaving.

In a system where property is likely to be confiscated, everyone switches from creating wealth to hiding or taking wealth, which is a zero-sum game or worse.

There are three mechanisms by which property rights ought to increase wealth and safety
- The first is basically tautological. If you don't have property rights, you can't have wealth because wealth is literally a tally of your property.
- The second is what CWD says above; the chance to profit from effort and creativity incentivizes effort and creativity.
- The third is through economic calculation. If you OWN a thing, you get to decide how to use it. You also, by definition, must select infinity minus 1 ways to NOT use that thing. When the Owners of Things are deciding what do do with those things, the activity and trading that results is a reflection of their wishes in light of the reality of scarcity. As opposed to common ownership of things. In that situation correct economic calculation is impossible, because decisions about how to use a thing do not come about as the result of people having to make decisions that have real cost to them.

[cwd]

Point of order, are we still leaving out deterrence and rehabilitation from our consideration, since those are in doubt if not debunked?

I'm not leaving out deterrence. Deterrence works great.
There is some doubt about whether capital punishment works to deter murder, but if deterrence doesn't work, why is the world littered with "beware of dog", "no parking, tow zone", and "no tresspassing" signs?

[hsilman]

If on the other hand, A attacks B and gets away with the wallet, only to be apprehended later, what good comes from tying A to a pole and beating him? B is no better off; beating A doesn't heal B's injuries or replace his property. The original violence having happened and passed into history, all we can do now is add to the total violence and suffering in the world.

Abner shoots Bob dead, then surrenders to the police.
Abner cannot pay restitution -- Abners's money was confiscated last week when he killed Chuck.
Would you say that punishing Abner is pointless now, because Bob (and Chuck from last week) are already dead?

Punishing Abner is, and always will be, pointless.

However, restricting Abner's ability to interact with the population while you help him figure out ways to not shoot people, is good.

What do you do with people who will never not shoot people, due to whatever? Send them to the farm? I honestly don't know.

[cwd]

If Abner can't not murder, punishing him is pointless.
In modern America, we can afford the cost of locking him up until his mental illness is curable, or until he dies of old age, whichever comes first.

But most humans are more-or-less able to take consequences into account when making decisions.
This includes most people ruthless enough to commit murder.
Punishing them makes sense.

[hsilman]

If Abner can't not murder, punishing him is pointless.
In modern America, we can afford the cost of locking him up until his mental illness is curable, or until he dies of old age, whichever comes first.

But most humans are more-or-less able to take consequences into account when making decisions.
This includes most people ruthless enough to commit murder.
Punishing them makes sense.

But, as someone(I forget who) said about God condemning murder, "I'm murdering exactly the number of people I want to right now".

Why not instead of punishing him after the fact, since you can't take the murder back, we instead get him to a place where murder isn't a good option?

The clear logical conclusion of "punishment is deterrence" is the penalty for all crimes should be death. The most severe consequence offers the strongest deterrent, right?

Do places with the death penalty for what are considered relatively mundane offenses, have crime free societies? Ones where you'd like to live?

[cwd]

Why not instead of punishing him after the fact, since you can't take the murder back, we instead get him to a place where murder isn't a good option?

I saw a movie in which a loan-shark liked to *fake* murders, but let the actual victim go on promise of non-return to that city.
He needed the deterrence effect so that his debtors would continue to pay, but saw no point in punishing a victim who *couldn't* pay.
Works fine, so long as everyone else believes.

The clear logical conclusion of "punishment is deterrence" is the penalty for all crimes should be death. The most severe consequence offers the strongest deterrent, right?

According to the criminology articles I've read, deterrence effect is based on size of penalty, likelihood of being caught, delay between crime and punishment, and the individual psychology of potential criminals.

Criminals generally are people will "high time preference" i.e. for whom rewards/punishments that are distant in time matter very little.
Our system deters them poorly, because the chance of being caught is low per-offence, and the punishment when caught is long-delayed.
What would work a lot better is milder punishments applied more certainly, and more quickly.

[mikeylikey]

If Abner can't not murder, punishing him is pointless.
In modern America, we can afford the cost of locking him up until his mental illness is curable, or until he dies of old age, whichever comes first.

But most humans are more-or-less able to take consequences into account when making decisions.
This includes most people ruthless enough to commit murder.
Punishing them makes sense.

But, as someone(I forget who) said about God condemning murder, "I'm murdering exactly the number of people I want to right now".

Why not instead of punishing him after the fact, since you can't take the murder back, we instead get him to a place where murder isn't a good option?

Yeah, though it should be said, such a place would probably resemble a jail in many aspects.

[mikeylikey]

According to the criminology articles I've read, deterrence effect is based on size of penalty, likelihood of being caught, delay between crime and punishment, and the individual psychology of potential criminals.

Criminals generally are people will "high time preference" i.e. for whom rewards/punishments that are distant in time matter very little.
Our system deters them poorly, because the chance of being caught is low per-offence, and the punishment when caught is long-delayed.
What would work a lot better is milder punishments applied more certainly, and more quickly.

But those are all comparing one cocktail of |severity|speed|probability| against another cocktail of |severity|speed|probability|. What they aren't doing is comparing the punishment paradigm to a non-punishment paradigm. And I'll be the first to admit that the latter doesn't exist in order to be measured, at least not fully. There are some isolate examples that are instructive. Portugal stopped punishing people for using drugs, and they use less drugs now. If deterrence works, drug use should always increase after prohibition is repealed.

The problem I think is that deterrence obviously DOES work in a vacuum. Take a given human in a given set of circumstances with an opportunity to commit a crime, and that guy in that place in that time will always be more likely to do that crime if you tell him he won't be punished. The problem is, sending Bob to jail today for stealing Milky Ways from a shop, yesterday,
- Might make Bob more likely to do bad things in the future. Worse things even.
- Might make Bob's kids more likely to do bad things in the future. Worse things even.
- Might make Tom, who has also decided to steal milky ways, more likely to shoot the cop or shopkeeper trying to catch him
- Might give the shopkeeper a false sense of security, disincentivizing expenditures on security which could prevent the theft before they happen
... and a whole bunch of other consequences.

This is why I say there's a difference between punishment as crime deterrent vs having a "Beware of Dog" sign or a barbed wire fence or an armed guard. Those things deter a specific individual from doing a specific crime right now. Bob sees the sign, he says "gee, I think I'll not break into that house." That's the end of the story, without any of the downstream consequences that come with a social policy of punishment.

[cwd]

We have a system that uses deterrence, that is imperfect.
In fact, the criminal justice system in the USA is probably the most evil thing I am personally complicit in. I hate it.

But to say that thus we should abandon the concept of deterrence and punishment entirely, does not follow.

Extremely bad people exist.
Sorta-bad people who cheat and steal when they can get away with it exist (and are very common).
Fairly-good people who sometimes are tempted to do a bad thing when they are tired/hungry/pissed-off exist (and are everyone else).

There won't always be someone standing right there to apply an immediate deterrent -- the shopkeeper can't watch every customer all the time.
We can't afford a cop on every street corner.

So every human society will *always* rely to some extent on harsh punishments applied infrequently to deter people from crimes with a low probability of being caught.
It's just a cheap way to lower the crime rate.
Sucks to be that one guy who gets punished, though.

[mikeylikey]

So every human society will *always* rely to some extent on harsh punishments applied infrequently to deter people from crimes with a low probability of being caught.
It's just a cheap way to lower the crime rate.

Slavery is a cheap way to pick cotton. People used to think there would *always* be slavery. Until there wasn't.

[cwd]

Ubiquitous surveillance is coming.
The cameras are already cheap, the people watching through them are expensive. But computer vision makes that cheap too.

We have red-light cameras now, within 10 years or so shoplifters, purse snatchers, jay-walkers, and litterbugs will be caught automatically too.
If "hate speech" is illegal, every offensive joke told in a public place could be fined.

It will be interesting to see how this all works out.

[mikeylikey]

Hey this is the cop thread isn't it?

Look who wants to apple-ogize

http://nypost.com/2017/09/20/utah-cop-w ... ing-nurse/