5 ms·

Would "75% of enforcement done in neighborhoods of color" still be an issue if 75% of crime occurs in those same neighborhoods?

mildbow 10y ago
But how can one figure that out? Isn't enforcement of a law (through an arrest for example) the first indication that a crime might have occurred? If so, how to figure out if the 75% attribution is fair or just a result of selection/confirmation bias?
- blackbagboys 10y ago
  There are numerous reasonable proxies; locations of murders, reported assaults or robberies, calls to the police department reporting a possible crime, etc.
  - dangerlibrary 10y ago
    Is that what is actually being used, though? I suspect there is no way for the public to know.
dangerlibrary 10y ago
This argument is so seductive, but it bugs me that people assume that "crime rates" are based on how often people are committing crimes. It's how often crimes are reported / how often criminals are caught. Given the greater prevalence of things like stop and frisk in neighborhoods with large minority populations, is it any surprise more people are caught for things like drug possession? That's going to further skew the stats, leading to more enforcement in those neighborhoods (since they are "high crime"). Drug use is actually higher in young white populations than it is among young black populations, but because of where law enforcement spends their time the incarceration rates differ wildly.
- blackbagboys 10y ago
  Look at the distribution of violent crime.
  - dangerlibrary 10y ago
    Yes, that would be one of many possible corrective measures.
- pc86 10y ago
  It seems like you're making an argument that crime statistics should not be used as a metric to focus law enforcement efforts. What other metrics should we use? If you simply assign patrol routes based on population you are going to under-serve areas with higher crime and over-police areas that don't need it.
  - dangerlibrary 10y ago
    I'm arguing that it's a more complicated statistical problem than "we see more criminal 'events' in this neighborhood, so we should send more cops there."
    - searine 10y ago
      Offering criticism without offering an alternative isn't helpful. Of course it's complicated, and of course crime stats are a simplification. Most stats are. The point is, stats are much better than going by biased "gut feelings". Yes there are underlying issues with stats such as underreporting, but the solution isn't to get rid of the stats. It's to improve the underlying cause of the bias in the data, such as improving police/public relations.
      - dangerlibrary 10y ago
        Your conclusion and the one I implied in my comment are not mutually exclusive. My solution, implied in my comment, was not to use naive statistical models or ideas (i.e. 75% of "crime").
ritchiea 10y ago
This isn't nuanced, it doesn't add much to the discussion. It's "I think people of color commit more crimes" wrapped in an acceptable veneer.
- steveeq1 10y ago
  And what if "people of color commit more crimes" is statistically true?
  - aljones 10y ago
    Since pigmentation doesn't cause crime, we should find the root cause.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      You actually don't know that pigmentation does not cause more crime or the alternative an absence of pigment decreases crime. I am not saying that pigmentation is a causative factor, just that nobody knows if it is not.
      - Cyph0n 10y ago
        What an enlightening comment.
        danieltillett 10y ago
        I assume you are being sarcastic, but there are plausible hypothesis that could be tested to answer this question. For example the genes that have caused a reduction in human pigmentation in some populations have occurred very recently (within historical times) and under very strong selection. Genes that influence the propensity for impulsiveness or violence may have been carried along with the selection for low pigmentation. Another possible hypothesis is that since melanin and dopamine have an overlapping biochemical pathway that the genes influencing melanin production may also influence dopamine levels. A third possible hypothesis is that since different populations have historically lived at different densities this may have influenced how well people interact peacefully at high population densities (i.e. how domesticated people are in the same way cows are much calmer than wild cattle). All of these are testable hypothesis that no sane scientist will ever study - in the end we just don't know the answer and most likely never will.
mtgx 10y ago
It's important to keep in mind that in a "racist society" machine learning will also tend to be racist (but much more so). After all, the "AI" is learning from human data, so it's certainly not as objective as you would think a "machine" to be. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm... https://enterprisersproject.com/article/2016/9/beware-biases-machine-learning-one-cto-explains-why-it-happens https://enterprisersproject.com/article/2016/9/beware-biases... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/backlash-in-wisconsin-against-using-data-to-foretell-defendants-futures.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/backlash-in-wisconsin-a...
- ebfe 10y ago
  And similarly, in a society in which biological differences exist between races, an objective, unbiased AI will be tend to be racist.
TuringNYC 10y ago
It is a question of a crime taking place vs one which results in an arrest, convictions and statistics. I worked on Wall St for many years -- there are a lot of drugs on Wall St, more than i've seen anywhere else. Yet the rules are rarely enforced as they are in other neighborhoods. So of course, Wall St wont make it into the statistics. It is a vicious cycle.

mildbow 10y ago

But how can one figure that out? Isn't enforcement of a law (through an arrest for example) the first indication that a crime might have occurred? If so, how to figure out if the 75% attribution is fair or just a result of selection/confirmation bias?

blackbagboys 10y ago
There are numerous reasonable proxies; locations of murders, reported assaults or robberies, calls to the police department reporting a possible crime, etc.
- dangerlibrary 10y ago
  Is that what is actually being used, though? I suspect there is no way for the public to know.

dangerlibrary 10y ago

This argument is so seductive, but it bugs me that people assume that "crime rates" are based on how often people are committing crimes. It's how often crimes are reported / how often criminals are caught. Given the greater prevalence of things like stop and frisk in neighborhoods with large minority populations, is it any surprise more people are caught for things like drug possession? That's going to further skew the stats, leading to more enforcement in those neighborhoods (since they are "high crime"). Drug use is actually higher in young white populations than it is among young black populations, but because of where law enforcement spends their time the incarceration rates differ wildly.

blackbagboys 10y ago
Look at the distribution of violent crime.
- dangerlibrary 10y ago
  Yes, that would be one of many possible corrective measures.
pc86 10y ago
It seems like you're making an argument that crime statistics should not be used as a metric to focus law enforcement efforts. What other metrics should we use? If you simply assign patrol routes based on population you are going to under-serve areas with higher crime and over-police areas that don't need it.
- dangerlibrary 10y ago
  I'm arguing that it's a more complicated statistical problem than "we see more criminal 'events' in this neighborhood, so we should send more cops there."
  - searine 10y ago
    Offering criticism without offering an alternative isn't helpful. Of course it's complicated, and of course crime stats are a simplification. Most stats are. The point is, stats are much better than going by biased "gut feelings". Yes there are underlying issues with stats such as underreporting, but the solution isn't to get rid of the stats. It's to improve the underlying cause of the bias in the data, such as improving police/public relations.
    - dangerlibrary 10y ago
      Your conclusion and the one I implied in my comment are not mutually exclusive. My solution, implied in my comment, was not to use naive statistical models or ideas (i.e. 75% of "crime").

ritchiea 10y ago

This isn't nuanced, it doesn't add much to the discussion. It's "I think people of color commit more crimes" wrapped in an acceptable veneer.

steveeq1 10y ago
And what if "people of color commit more crimes" is statistically true?
- aljones 10y ago
  Since pigmentation doesn't cause crime, we should find the root cause.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    You actually don't know that pigmentation does not cause more crime or the alternative an absence of pigment decreases crime. I am not saying that pigmentation is a causative factor, just that nobody knows if it is not.
    - Cyph0n 10y ago
      What an enlightening comment.
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        I assume you are being sarcastic, but there are plausible hypothesis that could be tested to answer this question. For example the genes that have caused a reduction in human pigmentation in some populations have occurred very recently (within historical times) and under very strong selection. Genes that influence the propensity for impulsiveness or violence may have been carried along with the selection for low pigmentation. Another possible hypothesis is that since melanin and dopamine have an overlapping biochemical pathway that the genes influencing melanin production may also influence dopamine levels. A third possible hypothesis is that since different populations have historically lived at different densities this may have influenced how well people interact peacefully at high population densities (i.e. how domesticated people are in the same way cows are much calmer than wild cattle). All of these are testable hypothesis that no sane scientist will ever study - in the end we just don't know the answer and most likely never will.

mtgx 10y ago

It's important to keep in mind that in a "racist society" machine learning will also tend to be racist (but much more so). After all, the "AI" is learning from human data, so it's certainly not as objective as you would think a "machine" to be. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm... https://enterprisersproject.com/article/2016/9/beware-biases-machine-learning-one-cto-explains-why-it-happens https://enterprisersproject.com/article/2016/9/beware-biases... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/backlash-in-wisconsin-against-using-data-to-foretell-defendants-futures.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/backlash-in-wisconsin-a...

ebfe 10y ago
And similarly, in a society in which biological differences exist between races, an objective, unbiased AI will be tend to be racist.

TuringNYC 10y ago

It is a question of a crime taking place vs one which results in an arrest, convictions and statistics. I worked on Wall St for many years -- there are a lot of drugs on Wall St, more than i've seen anywhere else. Yet the rules are rarely enforced as they are in other neighborhoods. So of course, Wall St wont make it into the statistics. It is a vicious cycle.