Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 01 2023 11:00 cLutZ wrote: Its not. Poverty does reduce intelligence but not by the amounts necessary to describe the gap between top 20% earners and bottom 20% earners. What this means for race relations is of no moment to intellectually honest people.
It's been a while since I've seen someone so willing to barge into any discussion and just share one insane opinion after another. Bravo for that.
clutz is being unironically racist and then acts as if he isn't. He even linked to a racist website. This is the reality that people need to wake up to. It needs to be understood that there's a whole demographic of racists out there helping other racists like Trump win elections.
On July 31 2023 14:34 ChristianS wrote: …most people agree the operant conditioning exists, but that a lot of implementations of it are cruel and inhumane. Sure, you *can* beat your dog/kid/wife when they do something you don’t like, and narrowly speaking it probably will reduce occurrence of the behavior in question. But, uh, there’s some side effects, probably worse ones than whatever they’re doing to annoy you.
You spend so much time complaining about head-empty “woke” liberals, yet your whole theory of criminal justice boils down to “just punish them until they stop, it’s called operant conditioning”? How does that make you any better than some college Tumblr girl to whining about the world based on some half-baked theories about how things should be that would have been dismissed as childish in high school?
Of course it’s not a conspiracy theory that progressives want to reduce sentencing guidelines. Criminal sentences for most crimes are way too punitive. We lock people up way more often and for way longer than most countries, and all we have to show for it is massive prison populations without any clear reduction in crime. Maybe human cognition is more complicated than trying to get a dog to salivate or a rat to push a button?
Actually you're the first person in 4 pages of back and forth to acknowledge that punishing people for bad behavior will reduce the behavior in question. So alas we can move on.
Do I think we can have a crime-free utopia if we just keep increasing the penalties for all crimes until nobody commits crime and we hang people for jaywalking? No, obviously not. I think any punishment has diminishing returns that will get to a point it is counter-productive if too severe. My contention is that when you have 327 people in NYC getting arrested 6,000 times in one year then you're obviously being too lenient. Only in woke circles is this even a controversial opinion.
If your community is having a problem with certain crimes you should consider it the time to crackdown to prevent those crimes instead of allowing it to fester and worsen like an infected wound.
Yeah, “diminishing returns” is one way to think of it. Another is to actually look at causes and consequences of the crime you’re worried about, as well as the punishment you’re proposing, and try to figure out what’s actually happening, rather than treating the whole system as a black box for which you only have one input (raising/lowering sentences). More work than “hurt them til they stop,” I know, but if crime is as serious a problem as you seem to think, maybe we have an obligation to get off our asses and actually study something instead of assuming “more punishment -> less crime” is all we need to know.
No clue where this 327 people stat is coming from but if the same people are getting arrested ~20 times a year, it sounds like the cops didn’t have anything on them but had a grudge against them for some reason. Otherwise why would they keep arresting them but never charge them? Maybe they wanted to get their “# of arrests” stat up? Or didn’t charge because they wanted to keep the crime stat down? In any case longer sentences isn’t going to help anything if the cops aren’t charging people in the first place.
Your general prescription for “as a crime becomes more of a problem you increase punishment” – basically, treat the criminal justice system as a feedback controller, with crime rates as your sensor and sentencing guidelines as your input – is basically what was done for the crack epidemic, and I don’t think it’s generally regarded as very successful (in addition to probably being racist, in that particular case). There’s a lot of problems, one of which is that if you take “more punishment -> less crime” as self-evidently true, rather than something to be shown empirically, there’s never really a moment in time where anybody *lowers* punishment. The crime rate is never too low, people never think “oh that crime isn’t really a problem right now so let’s pull back the sentencing.” So we wind up with the same insane sentencing rules for crack that were established in the 80s because they were set crazy high in a moment of panic and never lowered.
Another is that the theoretical prediction “bigger punishments will dissuade people from committing crimes” is relying on a lot of assumptions about people acting as rational agents. A lot of crimes might already be considered “throwing your life away” even *before* criminal justice gets involved, and people do them anyway, so those assumptions might not be on very firm footing. Alternatively, if people are desperate enough to think “My life is fucked anyway, but getting away with this crime might be an escape” no amount of jail time can rationally dissuade them – as far as they’re concerned they have nothing to lose!
Of course, it also doesn’t help when at the same time you’re trying to crack down on the drug trade with increased enforcement, the government is also surreptitiously aiding and funding the same drug trade abroad. But that’s hopefully not a factor in modern crime patterns (although how could I know for sure?).
You're strawmanning my position. I said this to you in a previous post
"I don't blame just liberal DAs for the predicament SF is in. I think there are many variables, but I do think stupid woke policies are the common theme among those variables."
Your insistence that I think this is a single variable problem - how severely we punish criminals - is actually not at all what I said. How is studying the root causes of crime contingent on allowing people to steal tide pods?
I think you should be the one that is obliged to defend the theory “as a crime becomes more of a problem you reduce punishment." Because that's what's being done.
Not trying to strawman you, although I’m not sure what I’m supposed to interpret from your references to operant conditioning besides “more punishment -> less crime.” You’re welcome to enumerate other variables you think are important, otherwise I don’t know how I’m supposed to intuit what you think should be done about crime besides increase punishment.
I should be obliged? Personally I think if someone wants to inflict draconian punishments on their fellow citizens, the burden of proof should be on *them* to show that it will actually do some good. I mean, that’s the whole concept of punishment, right? Hurt people to affect some positive change in behavior down the line? Ryzel is better equipped than me to describe why the behavioral psychology doesn’t actually support the current policy. Personally, I’d look at the massive disparity between the US and other countries (without a corresponding lower crime rate), or historical examples of draconian policies failing to tame crime waves (e.g. the crack epidemic), and consider that ample reason to doubt that all this punishment is producing some downstream positive effect.
In the direction of “other variables”: perhaps now is as good a time as any to raise the question of whether this criminal justice apparatus we have is actually effective at reducing crime. Maybe other institutions would be better-equipped to implement a behavior-changing program like Ryzel prescribed than the cops are. Is that worth exploring? Or will I be immediately dismissed as “woke”?
So here's some other variables that I think put San Francisco into the dire straits that it's in...
[...]
Not specifically funding but the prevailing attitudes that resulted from this movement. SF/Oakland have been failing at at hitting their recruiting goals, and these are good careers with $150,000+ salaries (im guesstimating). Morale is low from being called bastards every day and seeing the people you arrest end up right back on the street. Fortunately even the most woke politicians has realized what a disaster the idea of defunding the police was and have tried to distance themselves from it. e.g. I mentioned London Breed that initially talked about defunding SFPD by $120 million at the height of defund to come back the next year and ask to increase the police budget instead. This is mostly conjecture on my part but I think there are fewer police that will go above and beyond to serve their community and catch the bad guys if they are just labeled bastards either way.
[...]
I want to address this in particular. I can show you proof that, throughout many decades, false arrests were being made (and still are) at a very high rate, and that this was because of a specifically aggressive culture/mindset/training in the police force.
Timestamped at 28m 12s I've watched this part many times. This example shows how normalized discrimination by police really is. A completely innocent passerby is being stopped for no reason. He gets wrestled to the ground and arrested.
I recommend watching the whole documentary and not just this one part. It's from 2016. It's very enlightening because it presents the arguments from several different perspectives. It's very fair to the police officers. It shows that there's a problem with police culture, and at the end it offers one element of a solution to the problem - through cooperative and intelligent policing.
It's ironic that people like clutz are so adament about poor people being less intelligent, when in fact they're being treated very unintelligently by the police. If I was poor today and I was treated like that man in the footage, yeah of course the risk would increase that at some point in my life I start "acting out" (very big fat quotation marks), as they call it, and "disrespecting the police". I would be completely in the right. No one would be able to convince me that I'm wrong.
I think you're confusing the terms "detain" and "arrest" because that guy in the video was clearly not arrested as evidenced by them saying "you're not under arrest" and "you're free to go" before they drove off
On August 01 2023 17:45 BlackJack wrote: I think you're confusing the terms "detain" and "arrest" because that guy in the video was clearly not arrested as evidenced by them saying "you're not under arrest" and "you're free to go" before they drove off
They tackled him. You can't tackle someone who is only detained. You're being pedantic as always and deliberately ignoring the point I made.
I don't know if your complaint is with Terry stops, a la stop-and-frisk, where people are briefly detained by police or if your complaint is with people being falsely arrested en masse.
On August 01 2023 18:19 BlackJack wrote: I don't know if your complaint is with Terry stops, a la stop-and-frisk, where people are briefly detained by police or if your complaint is with people being falsely arrested en masse.
Maybe just accept that what I'm saying is true. The man was stopped and detained for no reason whatsoever. You can choose to believe me, or you can watch the footage with your own eyes and confirm that what I'm saying is in fact true.
You don't have to be antagonistic every time and reject information that contradicts your world view.
The U.S. Constitution protects you, your home, and your property from “unreasonable searches and seizures” including being detained for no reason other than an officer’s hunch.
Most cases of false arrest happen when a police officer is overzealous. This could lead to you being detained or arrested illegally – meaning with no probable cause.
On August 01 2023 18:19 BlackJack wrote: I don't know if your complaint is with Terry stops, a la stop-and-frisk, where people are briefly detained by police or if your complaint is with people being falsely arrested en masse.
Maybe just accept that what I'm saying is true. The man was stopped and detained for no reason whatsoever. You can choose to believe me, or you can watch the footage with your own eyes and confirm that what I'm saying is in fact true.
You don't have to be antagonistic every time and reject information that contradicts your world view.
Yeah I saw the guy getting tackled and detained for no reason. I'm questioning whether you've provided sufficient proof for your claim that "false arrests were being made at a very high rate" by showing a video of one guy not getting arrested.
On August 01 2023 18:19 BlackJack wrote: I don't know if your complaint is with Terry stops, a la stop-and-frisk, where people are briefly detained by police or if your complaint is with people being falsely arrested en masse.
Maybe just accept that what I'm saying is true. The man was stopped and detained for no reason whatsoever. You can choose to believe me, or you can watch the footage with your own eyes and confirm that what I'm saying is in fact true.
You don't have to be antagonistic every time and reject information that contradicts your world view.
Yeah I saw the guy getting tackled and detained for no reason. I'm questioning whether you've provided sufficient proof for your claim that "false arrests were being made at a very high rate" by showing a video of one guy not getting arrested.
These false detainments lead to false arrests. If the guy had done the "unreasonable" thing of "resisting arrest" (wait, it's not an arrest to begin with, so how can he resist?), then he would've gotten arrested. Fortunately for him he was disciplined enough (unlike the officers) and decided to protect himself from legal ramifications.
Do you really not see the escalation leading from police misconduct like false detainment straight to criminality like that of resisting arrest? This can't be hard to see, seriously. This is exactly how these kinds of officers produce false arrests and suddenly a criminal record can be attached to many undeserving individuals. Especially with the level of impunity that officers enjoy.
You can't be so doe-eyed to think this isn't exactly what's going on.
So you believe there is a widespread problem of police going out and randomly assaulting or provoking people into altercations just so they can arrest them for said altercation? And your evidence of this is a video where that didn't happen?
On August 01 2023 19:10 BlackJack wrote: So you believe there is a widespread problem of police going out and randomly assaulting or provoking people into altercations just so they can arrest them for said altercation? And your evidence of this is a video where that didn't happen?
The documentary proves that this exact thing has been happening. This task force was specifically designed to be as aggressive as possible.
@BJ: not gonna quote all that for length, but I probably disagree with less than you might think in your list of “how things got bad in SF.” Obviously I’m more sympathetic to Covid policies than you, but I’m not gonna deny they had a big economic impact (as did Covid itself). And I do think there’s a vicious cycle where police abuses cause people to distrust the police, which causes the police to become even worse. I don’t doubt there were a lot of left-leaning communities concerned it was okay to racist or something to the cops about ongoing crime, which probably didn’t help.
I’ve been through a CA permitting process, and yeah, it’s pretty onerous. For me it was SD County, which was probably a bit lighter on regulation than one of the cities would be, and certainly less than trying to get permits for a business in the heart of SF would be. Something that surprised me in my experience, though: my permit process was quite a bit easier because of restrictions imposed at the state level on what local government could require of me. That surprised me at first – state level Democrats fighting to stop local Republicans from imposing regulations?
But I realized that in local politics NIMBYism is a way stronger force than party affiliation. CA has the problem worse than a lot of places, for some understandable reasons, but being in a Republican area won’t stop it. Honestly, I have no idea what can, local politics are always mired in local property interests, and that’s such an overriding force that it’s basically impossible to say “hey, our city desperately needs more affordable housing, so let’s loosen these restrictions a bit.” They’ll run you out of the room.
Maybe you’re right that a more “honor culture” SF would have less crime; I dunno what to do with that information though, if true. And obviously I’m on record against “Broken Window theory” for reasons we probably don’t need to rehash, although I wouldn’t say that means I disagree with the idea that people are at least a little more likely to engage in crime in a place where crime is already rampant. Among the saner claims ClutZ has made in the last few pages is that the conditions thst drive people to crime (e.g. poverty, lack of opportunity) are also caused by crime; I don’t think that’s implausible either.
None of that answers What Is To Be Done though. If you like “Broken Window theory” presumably you’d like the city to take a Giuliani approach – heavy enforcement on low-level crimes, paired with a creative interpretation of the 4th amendment, to “clean up the streets.” But if I’m right, SFPD is probably already taking a data-driven organizational approach in the vein of Jack Maple, and they’re already into the inevitable second-stage where the police work is gaming the statistics, rather than the statistics helping to inform effective police work. A mayor telling them “we want more misdemeanor arrests” will almost certainly increase the misdemeanor arrests stats (even in areas without enough misdemeanors actually being committed!), but I doubt it will have the magic effect on crime that Giuliani fans predict.
Yes, agree NIMBYism is a stronger force than party affiliation. I think the city of Berkeley is the best example of this. Much of the city was zoned for single family housing because the rich old NIMBYs are horrified at the idea of high density affordable housing in their neighborhood. If they care about climate change they should encourage more high density housing and walkable cities instead of people commuting 30-60 miles a day because they can't afford to live in the cities they work in.
On August 02 2023 08:20 KwarK wrote: The level of criminality that’s coming out is truly indefensible. They’re on video trying to work out how to destroy evidence.
They're on tape admitting to lots of crimes, not a couple, a lot of crimes. Trump isn't a crime boss that can expect people to keep their mouths shut he's an ass who abandons others at the drop of a hat.
The federal justice system had a success rate of 99.6% last year and some years it goes up to 99.8% when it decides to indict people. You do not win against the department of justice.
On August 02 2023 08:20 KwarK wrote: The level of criminality that’s coming out is truly indefensible. They’re on video trying to work out how to destroy evidence.
I mean, what's really on trial here is the American criminal justice system. Can it motivate and show any signs of life when it comes to prosecuting an obviously criminal, but nonetheless elite ex-president, despite how much it doesn't want to prosecute an ex-president?
On August 02 2023 08:20 KwarK wrote: The level of criminality that’s coming out is truly indefensible. They’re on video trying to work out how to destroy evidence.
I mean, what's really on trial here is the American criminal justice system. Can it motivate and show any signs of life when it comes to prosecuting an obviously criminal, but nonetheless elite ex-president, despite how much it doesn't want to prosecute an ex-president?
Only thing I care about is if they legitimately ban him from running for any office and force him to pay damages. He won't get jail and he won't get house arrest. So banning him from office is the only punishment they can really do. Anything short and the system has failed spectacular fashion.
I'd like to think the evidence is so completely overwhelming that there is no he way he doesn't get convicted. There is no hole to find to slide him through to let the rich powerful white guy get away with it.
What I find much more worrying is that Republicans will simply not care. This is going to get delayed past the election and he is going to get 46% of the vote, while being on trial for literally trying to end democracy in the United States.
I would hope for house arrest, at a property where he has at most a single hole pitch and putt worth of golfing room. He's obviously not going to see the inside of a jail, old rich white guys don't go to jail as we all know.
The sentencing guidelines for the crimes are fairly steep, and even though he's going to be on the lower end of them, I don't really see how years in prison goes down to probation, or any other level that should let him have any freedom to travel.
EPT
