I think their heart is in the right place (officers should have direct and transparent reputations to people). But in order to implement this "correctly", you need to go one step further into a dangerous territory: the ratings that an officer receives should be weighted by the rating of the person who rated them. Absolute scumbags shouldn't be able to hurt reputations in quite the same way as upstanding people. If you have 5/5 rating, your rating is weighted by 1.0. If you have a 1/5 rating, your rating is weighted by 1/5.
Who is a scumbag? Some police officers decide that some people are reputable citizens and others are scumbags based on prejudice, and arguments like yours are a great way to dismiss any criticism of them.
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.
I think people with numerous DUIs are just as likely to have a serious disease as have some moral failing resulting in them being a 'scumbag.' To me, choice is a major differentiator rather than 'obviously this person has a history of x actions' in the abstract.
And maybe the wife beater is fucked in the head because he got brain damage as a kid from his dad beating him. I don't really care though, I don't have a problem classifying him as a scumbag. Cycles of abuse can be broken, and addictions can be kicked (and usually, avoided in the first place. Unlike getting beaten by your dad.)
Yeah, if the person is intellectually disabled and that disability causes them to act in a certain way then I don't really consider them a scumbag either. Their parents, maybe, or whoever is supposed to be supervising them.
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.
> Yeah, if the person is intellectually disabled and that disability causes them to act in a certain way then I don't really consider them a scumbag either.
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..."
Pretty much, yeah. I'm acknowledging that it is possible the person with numerous DUIs is an alcoholic and that, once drunk, the intent necessary for a knowing crime is no longer really there. The logic of 'chose to get drunk so chose the consequences' doesn't work if the person has a disease causing them to continuously drink.
Recognizing the root cause doesn't remove choice or blame. If we follow your logic consistently, then none of us are ultimately responsible for anything we do because of determinism.
Things like that should only really be a factor in choosing sentencing and rehabilitation.
>Recognizing the root cause doesn't remove choice or blame.
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.
Unlikely - it's definitely something you can raise in an argument about intent to get drunk and that lack of intent impacting the nature of mens rea, so it might be a mitigating factor, but either way it isn't a complete defense so you're kinda starting at negligent homicide.
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.
Speaking of domestic violence, want to post some statistics on the amount of cops that are domestic abusers? Or the ones caught drunk behind the wheel and get let off.
I'm heavily critical of the police, and they deserve a lot of criticism. But there are lot's of people (half my family) that are just scum. Algorithmically it may be hard to fairly weight, but on a personal level it's not hard to put people on a pretty consistent scum spectrum. If the people lower on the spectrum are critical of a certain cop, I can't weight it highly for reputation evaluation of that cop. The same for any information said scumbag provides about others.
That doesn't contradict the parent's claim. Moreover, they're not drawn from the same population, there is a filtering mechanism that reasonably skews for police to be above-average even if we might want it to be better.
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.
I agree that most people are inherently good. But I add a few points of skepticism toward anybody who chooses a role that comes with inherent authority by default: clergy, legislature, law, etc.
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.
> 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.
I didnt say it was nefarious. When you open new lines of credit, or make an inquiry, your credit score drops. Atomically these aren't bad things, in a vacuum, yet when you step back and look at things holistically they can be part of a pattern. Feel me?
The inverse is also true--some people decide whether or not police are reputable or scumbags based on prejudice. Thankfully in either case, reputation systems (whether a formal ratings system or an informal social reputation) can tolerate outlier reviews and consequently "argument's like the parent's" are not a particularly good way to dismiss criticism of someone (if someone is designated "a scumbag", it's on the preponderance of their reviews, not just those of one or two prejudice people).
The very same argument could be made about rating police officers. Also, we shouldn't pretend that scumbags don't exist, they do, as both citizens and police. If you're going to cast doubt on the existence of scumbags in citizens, but not police, you're showing your own prejudice.
The actual problem is that police are above the law. What I mean by that is, unlike citizens they are in a position where they might break a law without any repercussions or abuse their position of power.
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.)
You make a good point. I believe the idea with a rating system of police is that you tie the departments funding to the average rating of your officers. So while officers can abuse their power, if there is a reliable signal of this (reflected by their rating), they get canned to raise the overall rating of the department.
no, police are not above the law. they're only "special" in that they enforce the law, which requires exceptional privileges and responsibilities ordinary citizens don't have. but they're otherwise fully under the same legal jurisdiction as the rest of us.
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.
Hey, i just want to mention that I did not down vote you. Of course you are technically correct, it seems like you took 'above the law' in my comment in the 'literal sense' but it was more of a way to express how common it is for police to abuse their situation and privileges.
no worries, and i understood the intent, but wanted to explicitly counteract the nodding-along effect of platitudes like that.
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).
This criticism itself is a distraction, who is a scumbag is a different problem than whether or not scumbag feedback being weighted equally to less problematic peers is detrimental to the purpose of the system.
clearly we need a social credit system where citizens are scored based on their financial history, trustworthiness, charitable efforts, and praising the government on social media.
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 were really speaking from a place of actually knowing the arrest population, you wouldn't say that.
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.
I have spent time in jail. I've also spent time out of jail. There's just as many scumbags outside. Lots of violent and aggressive people are not in jail, and lots of good people who didn't hurt anyone are in jail. There are a whole lot of other things besides what you list that could land you in jail.
Most people are incarcerated for the reasons you list. [0] That doesn't necessarily make them a scumbag or a bad person in my mind, without knowing more about the situation. There are plenty of examples where it's not so clear cut, here are a few:
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.
Okay buddy. I’m sure all the people In prison, not even jail, for weed related non violent issues are somehow hurting people. Your toxic world view is a neoliberals elitist status quo wet dream. Nothing more.
Only 92 people were sentenced for marijuana possession in the federal system in 2017, out of a total of nearly 20,000 drug convictions. That's about 0.5%
Okay? That’s federal. Why is that relevant? When you get arrested for marijuana randomly on the street in a normal state, what are the chances it’s going federal?
Incarceration is mostly for violence and theft. Lots of stolen cars, lots of assaults. Quite a lot of murders.
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.
Linking to a conservative think tanks report is pretty funny. It isn’t even trying to hide its bias from the get go. It knows it audience. People who have already been instilled to vote against their self interest and who want to oppress others.
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.
> Linking to a conservative think tanks report is pretty funny. It isn’t even trying to hide its bias from the get go. It knows it audience.
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.
I haven’t used boot licker directly before. You can be superficially technically polite as you are doing without actually being kind. As can be seen with all the back handed compliments you keep using. I find that more arrogant than me being irked at the casting of an entire disenfranchised population in a negative light and breaking the name calling rule in a comment. You’re right I should not have done that.
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.
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.
It’s common knowledge how important race is in prison. That has nothing to do with you bringing it up as you did. Nor does me bringing it up mean I don’t know how important it is in circumstances like prison and jail.
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.
At this point you (two) are just going to accuse the other of not associating with criminals under the most harsh (or harsh enough) circumstances. Maybe maximum security prison?
Obviously excluding yourself, I guess that means you spoke with 99 people all of which were scum, which strikes me as being fairly socially active for a fish out of water!
Sounds like you're casting some sort of sarcastic doubt.
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.
> Interesting you said “their culture” when you are in that same in-group.
No I am proudly not of the same culture (which is ignorant, violent, shoplifting heroine addicted, thieving, murdering, raping, etc ...). That should not be difficult to understand.
... did you just call me an "anti-other common folk boot licker"?
Yeah I was on the subway. This is a basic casual comment convo. I have a learning disability that effects my talking and writing. Do I deserve to be mocked for that like your fellow jailmates?
Why do a character attack of my writing? Even with the mistakes, it should not be difficult to understand if some one is fluent in English.
It's obvious you are articulate and capable of writing whatever you would like to write. So I don't think you can shirk responsibility when it's convenient because you said something you shouldn't have.
I'm getting a strong flamebait vibe here. Since your earlier comment with name-calling was also against HN policy, I'm flagging you here for whatever it's worth.
PS: No intention of a back-and-forth here, but I happened to write a pretty long reply to one of your other comments before I saw this. Reply or not, it's no difference to me, but I'm sure we can agree to not flame if so.
Other way around imo. How a cop treats someone they view as a "scumbag" is a lot more illustrative and important than how they treat those they view as "upstanding people."
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.
> How a cop treats someone they view as a "scumbag" is a lot more illustrative and important than how they treat those they view as "upstanding people."
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.
My suggestion has nothing to do with how the officer views the person they're interacting with for a given interaction. Whether the officer thinks they're a "scumbag" or an "upstanding" person is completely independent of that person's rating for a given interaction. If you are a scumbag, it's likely reflected by your rating.
> How a cop treats someone they view as a "scumbag" is a lot more illustrative and important than how they treat those they view as "upstanding people."
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.
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.
> It’s kind like human rights - the majority of people who are at risk of having them infringed are unpleasant or unsympathetic characters.
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.
I don't think it's intrinsic to the concept of human rights
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.
The "scumbags" most likely know the cops at their best and worst. Rating a cop is relative as they provides a wide ranges of services. It's all relative.
Which is why their rating is still counted, but its biased by what society thinks of the person doing the rating. Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of better here. If ratings are something people want to do, you have to bias ratings with additional context, otherwise there is no mechanism to help separate ratings from honest and dishonest people.
This encourages an undesirable outcome: Police now know that Group A's ratings will be more heavily weighted and Group B's ratings will not be heavily weighted. They will then be incentivized to treat Group A with kid gloves and mistreat Group B, regardless of what caused the police interaction.
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 think you meant they would mistreat Group A more, if they are more heavily weighted, but I do see your point.
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."
But this is also a premature optimization and potentially YAGNI. Yes, you want down-weighting because of one potential complication. But you haven't even built and operated this system yet, so you don't know if this workaround you're applying will even be necessary or will end up causing larger issues.
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.
Why? What's the worst thing that could happen from poor quality input? Unreliable scores? These reviews don't mean or do anything in the real world, and it's much less serious than an actual IA complaint. There's also no evidence that there would be enough poor quality inputs to make a meaningful impact on scores.
You really should wait and see before you invest a ton of time and money into solving problems that end up not being problems.
>Why? What's the worst thing that could happen from poor quality input? Unreliable scores? These reviews don't mean or do anything in the real world
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.
Given the very low number of negative reviews in the pilot programs (only one negative review at Virginia Commonwealth Univ.), I think these can be reviewed on a case by case basis. As the supervisor mentioned, he went over the body cam footage with the officer. Seems like a great learning tool on how to be a better public servant.
Because it's related to your comment, this is a good a place to ask something I've been wondering for a long time:
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".
>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?
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.
Surely this is some Black Mirror joke or a rhetorical question which is meant to (by inference) dismiss the original idea of rating cops as too intrusive.
I think that is definitely something that we could look to address in the future but I think that the priority right now should be to crack down on police malfeasance.
