6 ms·

I saw something before that said something like 80% of cops thought they had never arrested an innocent person. From that, it is likely that they believe these

I saw something before that said something like 80% of cops thought they had never arrested an innocent person. From that, it is likely that they believe these people are the criminals but the crafty villains won't admit it without being tricked. It's slightly less disturbing to think that the cops legitimately think they're doing a good job over the alternative of intentionally ignoring their responsibility. Still troubling to think they could be that deluded.

Clubber 5y ago
>It's slightly less disturbing to think that the cops legitimately think they're doing a good job over the alternative of intentionally ignoring their responsibility. Still troubling to think they could be that deluded. Stalin truly believed what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR. It's extremely easy to justify bad deeds and fool yourself that the ends justify the means.
- serenloss 5y ago
  I think one could make a strong argument that Stalin always knowingly acted in the best interest of Stalin.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  This seems like a valid, if hyperbolic, point to me. I think that one could make a plausible argument that one of the most basic implications of the principle of rule of law is that, at least where the police are concerned, the ends don't justify the means. Allowing them to behave otherwise isn't a slippery slope that leads to rampant abuse of power; it's a dead drop.
- eldavido 5y ago
  Great illustration of why respect for individual rights is so important. There will always be some megalomaniac, whether dictator, president, cop, or some authority figure, who "knows best". Individual rights are the brakes. They're the lines we've agreed not to cross as a society, even when we're really sure we "know best". Example: property rights. No matter how sure you are that there's stolen property in the building, even law enforcement doesn't get to enter without a warrant. Individual rights limit what others can do.
  - joyeuse6701 5y ago
    Agreed, which, as an aside, is why the civil forfeiture issue is such a scandal
  - manquer 5y ago
    It may not be that simple. Imagine if each of your cells had individual rights or every bee in a hive has freedom to do its own thing. Sometimes (most?) having centralized systems of power can be misused but that doesn't mean that centralized systems shouldn't be tried, there are evolutionary advantages to them.
    - infogulch 5y ago
      I don't know what your point is, GP's comment already mentions a case where authority can intrude on individual rights: warrants, and there are many additional exceptions. The point of this system is not to make individuals untouchable, its to lift the authority to intrude on personal liberties out of the hands of individual beat cops and into a well-defined system and public observable record through the courts.
    - airstrike 5y ago
      The problem with analogies is they're not really accurate. Cells or bees have nothing to do with the wrongfully imprisoned minors in question.
      - autoexec 5y ago
        Just like a broken clock analogies can be accurate some of the time.
    - chaps 5y ago
      This is a breath takingly disgusting over simplification and you know it. How am I not surprised that you're the founder and CTO of a proctoring company that does facial recognition + AI to detect lying with "100% unbiased results". Fucking gross, man.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >Stalin truly believed what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR. I think a better way to phrase this would be that Stalin often said that what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR.
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    Good point. More likely, he did what was good for himself personally, to stay in power etc. Whilst saying to others that he did what was good for the USSR. And then, seems many people still today believe him
    - Clubber 5y ago
      >More likely, he did what was good for himself personally, to stay in power etc. Whilst saying to others that he did what was good for the USSR. And then, seems many people still today believe him Stalin remained true to the Marxist ideal of a classless and stateless world society until his death in 1953. This is the conclusion of researchers at Amsterdam University (UvA) who studied Stalin's annotations in books by Marx, Engels and Lenin in his private library. The notes originate from the period between 1917 and 1953 and show that the dictator continued to adhere to such Marxist goals as the abolition of the state and the creation of classless society. Moreover, Stalin's correspondence and discussions with such Communist leaders as Mao Zedong and Palmiro Togliatti show a continuing faith in the spread of communism and "world revolution". https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-02/NOfS-SwfM-2202100.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-02/NOfS-SwfM-22... A false preacher using his power for selfish purposes will carry a bible for show, maybe have a few stowed away. A false preacher certainly wouldn't have accumulated years of theology literature in his personal/private library over his lifetime. Seems like a true believer to me, but you may see it differently. Him being a true believer and having done what he did makes his particular flavor of human nature even more frightening.
      - cutemonster 5y ago
        Thanks for the quote and link, I didn't know about his annotations. Makes sense then that he was more a true believer Still I'd think that primarily important thing for him was himself and personal power, and that if he had had to make a choice between ideologies and himself, he'd done what was better for him personally. I wonder if he looked at communism etc more like a powerful tool (or so he thought) for him to use, and then not surprising if he spent time studying it From the article: > show a continuing faith in the spread of communism and "world revolution". That'd almost made him the dictator over the world? Who knows if that might have been a main goal, and communism a tool?
- lostapathy 5y ago
  > Stalin truly believed what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR. It's extremely easy to justify bad deeds and fool yourself that the ends justify the means. Hitler as well. I went to Catholic school. Had quite the debate with a nun over why I thought Hitler and Stalin both went to heaven, since both thought they were doing the right thing and were just horribly misguided.
dionidium 5y ago
Police deal often with people who have long histories of arrest and so I think there's also a perverse component of, like, sure it's possible they're innocent of this particular crime, but we're not dealing with an innocent person, more broadly.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  That sounds like it would be pretty bad at motivating that person to quit committing crimes if they're going to be guilty whether they did it or not.
  - dionidium 5y ago
    I didn't say that what the police are doing is good or effective. In fact I called it perverse.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Though I also think that line of thinking is dangerous, if that was all it was they'd still realize they occasionally make mistakes.
derefr 5y ago
Perhaps the FBI should "adversarially test" police forces with fake People of Interest, the way DHS adversarially tests TSA agents with fake bombs. Set up a fake BOLO for an individual of a certain description, then hire a set of undercover actors who all fit that description, and drop them in the area, telling them to wander around acting suspiciously. If the officers don't realize, upon bringing five separate people in on the same description, that at least four of them have to be the wrong guy, then they fail the test. If they end up eliminating four of the five but then concluding that the last guy actually did it, they also fail the test.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  I wouldn't want to be the undercover actor involved in that. There's a non-zero risk of serious injury, or death.
  - NullPrefix 5y ago
    Risk level is at the same level as for any other random person.
    - FireBeyond 5y ago
      No, it's higher. Because you aren't just a random person you are purposefully intending to look and act like someone accused. I get the whole purpose of "yes, people are stopped every day because they resemble someone wanted", but this is "I am going to go out of my way to purposefully resemble and act like someone who the police will take a negative interest in".
      - autoexec 5y ago
        It'd certainly lead to deaths and injury if it were implemented today, but after police get the idea that anyone they pick up might be innocent and that they'll be held meaningfully accountable for shooting first and asking questions later that would change. I think in our current system it's totally unrealistic and not worth the risks but in a place where police weren't routinely abusive it'd probably be fine.
rayiner 5y ago
This attitude is less hard to understand when you’re not looking at it through the filter of cases where that happened not to be true. When I worked for a federal judge I saw a ton of criminal appeals. Most criminals are dumb and usually there was just a plethora of evidence in the case. I can see why it would be very easy for cops to think that every case was that way, rather than just 98% of them. I have public defender friends. They’ll tell you, in almost every case their client is guilty of something. Their job is to make sure the police and prosecutors don’t overreach or act abusively and save the rare person who really is innocent. That’s the key factor that outsiders looking into the criminal justice system overlook. They think it’s easy. “Just stop being racist, corrupt, etc.” It’s a system where day in and day out, almost everyone you encounter is a really shitty human being. Reforming the system is important, but it’s much harder than people think.
- ska 5y ago
  > It’s a system where day in and day out, almost everyone you encounter is a really shitty human being. This is categorically not true. Police have to deal with some very problematic people, sure. But bad days are far more common that bad people, and most interactions aren't even that. Every police force has its share of assholes too, who are net cause of more problems than they solve. The most effective ones I've known have been aware of the systemic problems of thinking like you suggest, and intentionally work against it.
  - antiterra 5y ago
    It depends on what part of the system you’re in, and much of the criminal justice system exists after an initial filter and with a particular pipeline that it’s almost impossible to avoid a bias against on a day to day basis. If your job is to do image/video forensics on hard drives of people already arrested or served with warrants, it’s generally either unremarkable or traumatically upsetting. The latter is going to have the most impact on your perception, and would likely color your worldview on things like encryption or the overall goodness of humanity.
    - 5y ago

Clubber 5y ago

>It's slightly less disturbing to think that the cops legitimately think they're doing a good job over the alternative of intentionally ignoring their responsibility. Still troubling to think they could be that deluded. Stalin truly believed what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR. It's extremely easy to justify bad deeds and fool yourself that the ends justify the means.

serenloss 5y ago
I think one could make a strong argument that Stalin always knowingly acted in the best interest of Stalin.
mumblemumble 5y ago
This seems like a valid, if hyperbolic, point to me. I think that one could make a plausible argument that one of the most basic implications of the principle of rule of law is that, at least where the police are concerned, the ends don't justify the means. Allowing them to behave otherwise isn't a slippery slope that leads to rampant abuse of power; it's a dead drop.
eldavido 5y ago
Great illustration of why respect for individual rights is so important. There will always be some megalomaniac, whether dictator, president, cop, or some authority figure, who "knows best". Individual rights are the brakes. They're the lines we've agreed not to cross as a society, even when we're really sure we "know best". Example: property rights. No matter how sure you are that there's stolen property in the building, even law enforcement doesn't get to enter without a warrant. Individual rights limit what others can do.
- joyeuse6701 5y ago
  Agreed, which, as an aside, is why the civil forfeiture issue is such a scandal
- manquer 5y ago
  It may not be that simple. Imagine if each of your cells had individual rights or every bee in a hive has freedom to do its own thing. Sometimes (most?) having centralized systems of power can be misused but that doesn't mean that centralized systems shouldn't be tried, there are evolutionary advantages to them.
  - infogulch 5y ago
    I don't know what your point is, GP's comment already mentions a case where authority can intrude on individual rights: warrants, and there are many additional exceptions. The point of this system is not to make individuals untouchable, its to lift the authority to intrude on personal liberties out of the hands of individual beat cops and into a well-defined system and public observable record through the courts.
  - airstrike 5y ago
    The problem with analogies is they're not really accurate. Cells or bees have nothing to do with the wrongfully imprisoned minors in question.
    - autoexec 5y ago
      Just like a broken clock analogies can be accurate some of the time.
  - chaps 5y ago
    This is a breath takingly disgusting over simplification and you know it. How am I not surprised that you're the founder and CTO of a proctoring company that does facial recognition + AI to detect lying with "100% unbiased results". Fucking gross, man.
whatshisface 5y ago
>Stalin truly believed what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR. I think a better way to phrase this would be that Stalin often said that what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  Good point. More likely, he did what was good for himself personally, to stay in power etc. Whilst saying to others that he did what was good for the USSR. And then, seems many people still today believe him
  - Clubber 5y ago
    >More likely, he did what was good for himself personally, to stay in power etc. Whilst saying to others that he did what was good for the USSR. And then, seems many people still today believe him Stalin remained true to the Marxist ideal of a classless and stateless world society until his death in 1953. This is the conclusion of researchers at Amsterdam University (UvA) who studied Stalin's annotations in books by Marx, Engels and Lenin in his private library. The notes originate from the period between 1917 and 1953 and show that the dictator continued to adhere to such Marxist goals as the abolition of the state and the creation of classless society. Moreover, Stalin's correspondence and discussions with such Communist leaders as Mao Zedong and Palmiro Togliatti show a continuing faith in the spread of communism and "world revolution". https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-02/NOfS-SwfM-2202100.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-02/NOfS-SwfM-22... A false preacher using his power for selfish purposes will carry a bible for show, maybe have a few stowed away. A false preacher certainly wouldn't have accumulated years of theology literature in his personal/private library over his lifetime. Seems like a true believer to me, but you may see it differently. Him being a true believer and having done what he did makes his particular flavor of human nature even more frightening.
    - cutemonster 5y ago
      Thanks for the quote and link, I didn't know about his annotations. Makes sense then that he was more a true believer Still I'd think that primarily important thing for him was himself and personal power, and that if he had had to make a choice between ideologies and himself, he'd done what was better for him personally. I wonder if he looked at communism etc more like a powerful tool (or so he thought) for him to use, and then not surprising if he spent time studying it From the article: > show a continuing faith in the spread of communism and "world revolution". That'd almost made him the dictator over the world? Who knows if that might have been a main goal, and communism a tool?
lostapathy 5y ago
> Stalin truly believed what he was doing was for the greater good of the USSR. It's extremely easy to justify bad deeds and fool yourself that the ends justify the means. Hitler as well. I went to Catholic school. Had quite the debate with a nun over why I thought Hitler and Stalin both went to heaven, since both thought they were doing the right thing and were just horribly misguided.

dionidium 5y ago

Police deal often with people who have long histories of arrest and so I think there's also a perverse component of, like, sure it's possible they're innocent of this particular crime, but we're not dealing with an innocent person, more broadly.

whatshisface 5y ago
That sounds like it would be pretty bad at motivating that person to quit committing crimes if they're going to be guilty whether they did it or not.
- dionidium 5y ago
  I didn't say that what the police are doing is good or effective. In fact I called it perverse.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Though I also think that line of thinking is dangerous, if that was all it was they'd still realize they occasionally make mistakes.

derefr 5y ago

Perhaps the FBI should "adversarially test" police forces with fake People of Interest, the way DHS adversarially tests TSA agents with fake bombs. Set up a fake BOLO for an individual of a certain description, then hire a set of undercover actors who all fit that description, and drop them in the area, telling them to wander around acting suspiciously. If the officers don't realize, upon bringing five separate people in on the same description, that at least four of them have to be the wrong guy, then they fail the test. If they end up eliminating four of the five but then concluding that the last guy actually did it, they also fail the test.

FireBeyond 5y ago
I wouldn't want to be the undercover actor involved in that. There's a non-zero risk of serious injury, or death.
- NullPrefix 5y ago
  Risk level is at the same level as for any other random person.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    No, it's higher. Because you aren't just a random person you are purposefully intending to look and act like someone accused. I get the whole purpose of "yes, people are stopped every day because they resemble someone wanted", but this is "I am going to go out of my way to purposefully resemble and act like someone who the police will take a negative interest in".
    - autoexec 5y ago
      It'd certainly lead to deaths and injury if it were implemented today, but after police get the idea that anyone they pick up might be innocent and that they'll be held meaningfully accountable for shooting first and asking questions later that would change. I think in our current system it's totally unrealistic and not worth the risks but in a place where police weren't routinely abusive it'd probably be fine.

rayiner 5y ago

This attitude is less hard to understand when you’re not looking at it through the filter of cases where that happened not to be true. When I worked for a federal judge I saw a ton of criminal appeals. Most criminals are dumb and usually there was just a plethora of evidence in the case. I can see why it would be very easy for cops to think that every case was that way, rather than just 98% of them. I have public defender friends. They’ll tell you, in almost every case their client is guilty of something. Their job is to make sure the police and prosecutors don’t overreach or act abusively and save the rare person who really is innocent. That’s the key factor that outsiders looking into the criminal justice system overlook. They think it’s easy. “Just stop being racist, corrupt, etc.” It’s a system where day in and day out, almost everyone you encounter is a really shitty human being. Reforming the system is important, but it’s much harder than people think.

ska 5y ago
> It’s a system where day in and day out, almost everyone you encounter is a really shitty human being. This is categorically not true. Police have to deal with some very problematic people, sure. But bad days are far more common that bad people, and most interactions aren't even that. Every police force has its share of assholes too, who are net cause of more problems than they solve. The most effective ones I've known have been aware of the systemic problems of thinking like you suggest, and intentionally work against it.
- antiterra 5y ago
  It depends on what part of the system you’re in, and much of the criminal justice system exists after an initial filter and with a particular pipeline that it’s almost impossible to avoid a bias against on a day to day basis. If your job is to do image/video forensics on hard drives of people already arrested or served with warrants, it’s generally either unremarkable or traumatically upsetting. The latter is going to have the most impact on your perception, and would likely color your worldview on things like encryption or the overall goodness of humanity.
  - 5y ago