4 ms·

I agree with arguments #2 and #3 However, just as a thought experiment, wouldn't total surveillance actually help stop #1? If there existed video proof of ill

I agree with arguments #2 and #3 However, just as a thought experiment, wouldn't total surveillance actually help stop #1? If there existed video proof of illegal bias, it could be targeted and stopped, vs now, where you just have to imagine that all groups are committing crimes at the same rate and police are only focusing on minorities.

pavel_lishin 7y ago
> However, just as a thought experiment, wouldn't total surveillance actually help stop #1? How would it? Prosecutors decide who to prosecute based on available evidence. It's systematic societal bias (and obviously, personal bias, too.) But it's not like video surveillance would show anything new - we already have statistics on which groups get sent to jail over minor crimes, and which ones get slaps on wrists.
- mhuffman 7y ago
  > How would it? Prosecutors decide who to prosecute based on available evidence. You answered your own question! > we already have statistics on which groups get sent to jail over minor crimes, and which ones get slaps on wrists I think you will find those statistics correlate almost exactly to income and only overlap race because there is also a correlation between income and race in the US. So without video that is hard evidence of actual racism (eg. arresting blacks and ignoring whites committing the same crime) we have to do a two-step mental trick to get to the racism. Poor people that are arrested can't afford lawyers (or good lawyers) and have worse outcomes. Black people tend to be poorer than Whites, so the courts are racist! I believe it would be a different case altogether if you had "actual" direct proof (ie. video that could be counted and compared to outcomes), not just correlational proof that involves a lot of other noise that may or may not be racism or that is a couple of steps removed.
  - pavel_lishin 7y ago
    > > How would it? Prosecutors decide who to prosecute based on available evidence. > You answered your own question! The point is that they don't have to prosecute everyone. It's hard to not see this as a willful misunderstanding of my point. > a two-step mental trick Just what I'm thinking, but mirrored, actually. > I believe it would be a different case altogether if you had "actual" direct proof I think some people will never be convinced. Also, I'm going to stop responding to this thread. Without direct video proof, there's no way to prove the two are related.

pavel_lishin 7y ago

> However, just as a thought experiment, wouldn't total surveillance actually help stop #1? How would it? Prosecutors decide who to prosecute based on available evidence. It's systematic societal bias (and obviously, personal bias, too.) But it's not like video surveillance would show anything new - we already have statistics on which groups get sent to jail over minor crimes, and which ones get slaps on wrists.

mhuffman 7y ago
> How would it? Prosecutors decide who to prosecute based on available evidence. You answered your own question! > we already have statistics on which groups get sent to jail over minor crimes, and which ones get slaps on wrists I think you will find those statistics correlate almost exactly to income and only overlap race because there is also a correlation between income and race in the US. So without video that is hard evidence of actual racism (eg. arresting blacks and ignoring whites committing the same crime) we have to do a two-step mental trick to get to the racism. Poor people that are arrested can't afford lawyers (or good lawyers) and have worse outcomes. Black people tend to be poorer than Whites, so the courts are racist! I believe it would be a different case altogether if you had "actual" direct proof (ie. video that could be counted and compared to outcomes), not just correlational proof that involves a lot of other noise that may or may not be racism or that is a couple of steps removed.
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  > > How would it? Prosecutors decide who to prosecute based on available evidence. > You answered your own question! The point is that they don't have to prosecute everyone. It's hard to not see this as a willful misunderstanding of my point. > a two-step mental trick Just what I'm thinking, but mirrored, actually. > I believe it would be a different case altogether if you had "actual" direct proof I think some people will never be convinced. Also, I'm going to stop responding to this thread. Without direct video proof, there's no way to prove the two are related.