3 ms·

> Stupid laws are stupid. If person A is legally responsible for person B's actions, they will necessarily start asserting control over person B's life. Well,

> Stupid laws are stupid. If person A is legally responsible for person B's actions, they will necessarily start asserting control over person B's life. Well, apparently the alternative is to subject person B to rather substantial ex-post punishment in order to deter them from committing crimes that they cannot pay meaningful restitution for. I think the option of shifting liability onto third parties that could meaningfully deter B before a crime is even committed might be preferable. It's the same principle that we use to mandate e.g. drivers to successfully insure themselves against some sorts of liability, before they're even allowed to drive.

hajile 8y ago
Why should person A pay restitution for person B? Person A likely isn't granted powers of law enforcement and so has no means of preventing the crime. How can person A prevent a crime caused by person B? They cannot. Situations happen. People commit crimes for the first time every day (shocking even close family members). People like serial killers (and many other forms of covert criminals) may go undetected for decades with those people having perfect records. Since crime cannot be prevented by a landlord and cannot be completely avoided, what can that landlord do to mitigate their risk? They must discriminate. They look at groups which appear to commit disproportionate crimes (by whatever "metrics" they choose to look at) and then start cutting away. Bad credit, being poor, being the "wrong race", prior convictions -- the list of risks seems endless. The law (with very good reason) prohibits this kind of profiling, but that causes a catch 22 in the mind of the landlord, so the discrimination simply happens in a less-obvious manner. Meanwhile, these people are shifted into bad neighborhoods and ghettos to become trapped forever and crime continues on regardless. Since no crime is prevented (at most, its only moved elsewhere), the law is ineffective. That would be bad enough, but it also proceeds to punish the landlord and a long list of underprivileged people. The cure is definitely worse than the problem.
- afarrell 8y ago
  It would be illegal to discriminate against people based on race. But discriminate based on prior address... well have they lived in Roxbury, Oakland, Harlem, or the south side of Chicago? What prevents a machine learning model from detecting a feature based on the fact that applicants who used to live in those areas?
leetcrew 8y ago
> It's the same principle that we use to mandate e.g. drivers to successfully insure themselves against some sorts of liability, before they're even allowed to drive. it's really not the same at all. drivers are liable for damage and injuries they directly cause in accidents where they are legally at fault. they have to purchase insurance because most people can't afford to replace someone's car or pay their medical bills if they cause an accident. we don't sue car dealerships for selling cars to irresponsible buyers.

hajile 8y ago

Why should person A pay restitution for person B? Person A likely isn't granted powers of law enforcement and so has no means of preventing the crime. How can person A prevent a crime caused by person B? They cannot. Situations happen. People commit crimes for the first time every day (shocking even close family members). People like serial killers (and many other forms of covert criminals) may go undetected for decades with those people having perfect records. Since crime cannot be prevented by a landlord and cannot be completely avoided, what can that landlord do to mitigate their risk? They must discriminate. They look at groups which appear to commit disproportionate crimes (by whatever "metrics" they choose to look at) and then start cutting away. Bad credit, being poor, being the "wrong race", prior convictions -- the list of risks seems endless. The law (with very good reason) prohibits this kind of profiling, but that causes a catch 22 in the mind of the landlord, so the discrimination simply happens in a less-obvious manner. Meanwhile, these people are shifted into bad neighborhoods and ghettos to become trapped forever and crime continues on regardless. Since no crime is prevented (at most, its only moved elsewhere), the law is ineffective. That would be bad enough, but it also proceeds to punish the landlord and a long list of underprivileged people. The cure is definitely worse than the problem.

afarrell 8y ago
It would be illegal to discriminate against people based on race. But discriminate based on prior address... well have they lived in Roxbury, Oakland, Harlem, or the south side of Chicago? What prevents a machine learning model from detecting a feature based on the fact that applicants who used to live in those areas?

leetcrew 8y ago

> It's the same principle that we use to mandate e.g. drivers to successfully insure themselves against some sorts of liability, before they're even allowed to drive. it's really not the same at all. drivers are liable for damage and injuries they directly cause in accidents where they are legally at fault. they have to purchase insurance because most people can't afford to replace someone's car or pay their medical bills if they cause an accident. we don't sue car dealerships for selling cars to irresponsible buyers.