4 ms·
> Obviously we aren't doing that here IDK. one year olds were added to CalGang database. People were added to the CalGang with no supporting evidence. The data
by throwawaygh 6y ago
> Obviously we aren't doing that here
IDK. one year olds were added to CalGang database. People were added to the CalGang with no supporting evidence. The database was used to direct police resources and also for background checks for job applicants.
So, you're entered into the database as a one year old (or a ten year old, or a 30 year old but for no good reason). Now you can't get a job. Predictably, you turn to whatever petty crime to survive, like selling loose cigarettes or dealing small amounts of pot. And, since there's increased police attention on you, you're definitely caught.
Taking away people's ability to make a living legally, and then arresting them for turning to crime to survive, sounds pretty equivalent to just arresting them for precrime in the first place.
- godelski 6y agoI meant specifically arresting people before they committed a crime. There is a fine line between that and putting someone under watch, but I think Minority Report was pointing out that this line might as well not exist. Personally, I think putting someone under watch before they have committed a crime or there is reasonable suspicion that the person is about to commit a crime is unconstitutional. I do not think statistics is justification for "reasonable suspicion."
- throwawaygh 6y agoIt's not just putting them under watch. It's putting them under watch while also using the same database to screen job applicants. Pushing someone out of the legal economy and watching closely has an almost guaranteed outcome. Doing those two things simultaneously is functionally equivalent to either a) starving them to death or b) precrime.
- strbean 6y agoIt's worse than precrime. With precrime, you might never be predicted to commit a crime. The situation you describe is basically a) starve to death or b) go to jail. I wonder if you could make a case for entrapment here?
- lostapathy 6y agoEverybody commits minor infractions of the law regularly. Putting someone under watch, by a cop who needs to report that he enforced something, is going to ensure they get picked up sooner or later. There's a saying to the effect that a good cop can find a reason to pull any car over if he follows it for just a couple minutes.
- godelski 6y agoI have one that goes back a few more centuries > If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. - Cardinal Richlieu
- metrokoi 6y agoDo they? What are these minor infractions that would get picked up on? Likely drug or gun charges. Most people don't own guns illegal or use illegal drugs. The only common infraction I can think of is speeding, but that's not what these criminals are being picked up for. Cops don't follow a single individual around waiting for them to go 5 over the speed limit.
- lostapathy 6y agoIt's not like cops can pull you over for simple possession of weed in your glove box. They pull people over for a traffic infraction and then find the weed, illegal gun, etc.
- godelski 6y agoI once looked up the arrest records in my local area. The number one reason for arrest was "driving without a license." (with no other infractions listed). I'm not saying that this was racial profiling, but I'm not denying that people with Hispanic last names accounted for the vast majority of these arrests. I am at least implying that it is a little suspicious and maybe requires a little more nuance and closer inspection.
- 6y ago