6 ms·

New San Francisco Initiative to Pay Individuals Not to Shoot Others

21 points by gscott 5y ago

morpheos137 5y ago
Sounds like a set up for escalating extortion. Once upon a time there was this gang called the Danes. They ransacked east England periodically. Then the English got an idea. Why not pay the Dane gold not to ransack. And so the Danegeld was born. Eventually England had a Danish King, Cnut, and shortly after was conquered by Danish cousins, the Normans.
- SiVal 5y ago
  Yes, there was a time when everyone knew: If you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.
- joelbondurant 5y ago
  The extortion sector thrives off theft, as they have no other talents.
kecupochren 5y ago
This reads like something from The Onion
- whynotkeithberg 5y ago
  Maybe if you haven't researched other successful programs like this.
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    Like the ones listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
- webinvest 5y ago
  It really does! It will have perverse unintended consequences. In the field of economics, this is known as “The Cobra Effect”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origi... Edit: Just because someone doesn’t live inside your echo-chamber doesn’t mean you should shower them with downvotes.
  - gaadd33 5y ago
    Do you know why that didn't happen in Richmond CA when they did it? Specifically reports show a 77% drop in homicides (from another comment). Or what were the "cobras" that sprung up there?
    - andrewfong 5y ago
      The "cobra" here would be to engage in behavior that makes you more likely to be selected for this program so you can then be rewarded for stopping that behavior. I suspect the odds of unexpected outcomes would be low here though because the program itself is small (only 10 people). And there are inherent downsides to engaging in behavior that make others think you're likely to shoot someone, so it's not something you do on a whim.
      - webinvest 5y ago
        Yes. Another unexpected outcome is that it provides an economic competitive advantage to potential murderers and naturally peaceful people become less economically competitive. If you believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, you’re increasing the fitness of the potential murderers over the peaceful people.
    - webinvest 5y ago
      Too early to tell. Good results can show up initially only to strike back later.
  - tzs 5y ago
    I don't see how the Cobra Effect is even theoretically possible here. To have a possible Cobra Effect you have to be (1) paying to try to achieve a desired outcome, and (2) what you actually payout for is when people do something that correlates with leading to the desired outcome put does not correlate perfectly. People may then find that some of those things that achieve the payout but do not correlate with the desired outcome are easier to do then the things that do correlate with it. In the original Cobra Effect example the desired outcome was a reduction in the number of wild cobras. The thing that earned the payout was turning in a dead cobra. The way to turn in dead cobras that was easier and did not correlate with a reduction in wild cobras was breeding cobras to kill and turn in. In the San Fransisco case the desired outcome is that a group of people don't shoot anyone for a month. The payout is earned by not shooting anyone for a month. As far as I can tell not shooting anyone for a month perfectly correlates with not shooting anyone for a month, and hence no Cobra Effect is possible.
- umvi 5y ago
  Only in California. The same state that decriminalized shoplifting so that people can just walk out of supermarkets with a cart full of groceries they didn't pay for and the police do nothing.
  - swman 5y ago
    Is this true? Can’t you be banned from the store?
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      The store can tell you that you're banned, and if you returned you'd be trespassing, but that charge is just as unlikely to stick as the original shoplifting charge.
  - m0llusk 5y ago
    That is false. California changed the amount of damage required for some convictions because prisons were exploding. Shoplifting is still illegal. Celebrating criminals getting away with crimes does not make you superior.
    - umvi 5y ago
      I mean... I remember reading a story about a guy in CA that brought a calculator to a store to make sure he didn't shoplift more than $950 or whatever the Prop 47 limit was. See: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeOj_McJ:www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/10/prop47/+ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeO... "There was the thief in San Bernardino County who had been caught shoplifting with his calculator, which he said he used to make sure he never stole the equivalent of $950 or more."
      - m0llusk 5y ago
        But you are ignoring everything that matters here. The $950 amount defines how the crime is handled. Because less than that is a lesser crime it tends not to even be enforced, but that does not mean that it cannot be enforced or will not be enforced. Much of the problem there has to do with exactly what happens when police but a case before the state. The fundamental problem that prisons were exploding with a population that simply could not be contained and cared for does not go away because enforcing retail theft is difficult. You seem to be proposing the idea that the way to fix this is to enforce shoplifting crimes aggressively, but how will you pay for and manage the additional prisons that will require? Instead of pretending the problem is simple we need to continue to find ways to make the justice system actually work. Part of that is to make it clearer what may happen if police arrest someone. Now they tend to be let free which has as much to do with prosecutor options and decisions as the law itself. It is clear we need to do better, but it is also quite clear that simply complaining about dysfunction does not fix anything and can imply bills that are too large to pay.
Apocryphon 5y ago
This project is not without precedence, it was tried in Richmond, CA already: https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-washington-crime-financial-incentive-richmond.html https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-washington-crime-finan... 77% drop in homicides http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/ons-report-highlights.pdf http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pd...
- whynotkeithberg 5y ago
  Richmond has been a great example of how changing police policies and the way we try and "treat" crime can have a massive positive effect even when many view it as coddling or paying off criminals. most young criminals were born into a situation that led them to become who they are... If they have another financial incentive or opportunity to change many of them will. Obviously not 100%, but very few people have a dream of becoming some piece of crap criminal who adds nothing to society. The unfortunate truth is that over the last couple decades the opportunities to build yourself up from nothing without selling your life/soul to the military or some other group as I did is not nearly as achievable.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  If they gave a million bucks to each, it would be close to 100% drop in homicides.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Sure. And it’d probably be cheaper than current prosecution and incarceration costs, especially when it comes to housing death row prisoners for decades and administering executions. Old article, but $300m per prisoner: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/20/california-death-penalty-execution-costs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/20/california-dea...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
webinvest 5y ago
Yay, higher and higher tax rates to help pay these people. /s
joelbondurant 5y ago
Only stupid betacuck communist tax cattle objects are left in San Francisco.
scarmig 5y ago
So long as you have the reasonable assumption that most people who shoot other people have short planning horizons, this makes sense. You provide an incentive that actually affects the people in question, and they respond. The vast majority of people, in every community, are already influenced by incentives that are much heavier than this one; it's not gonna cause a spate of murders, because it they currently are responding to a time horizon that's driving their behaviors.
illuminati1911 5y ago
This seems very problematic. You are basically rewarding criminals by giving them opportunity to get paid for not breaking the law. Also how sustainable is this in the long term? How long will SF keep paying them? What happens if they stop paying some day? "There are opportunities for participants to earn an additional $200 each month as they work to improve their community. Some ways they can earn more are by working, going to school and even being a mediator in situations that could lead to violence." This sounds a bit better though.

21 points by gscott 5y ago

Sounds like a set up for escalating extortion. Once upon a time there was this gang called the Danes. They ransacked east England periodically. Then the English got an idea. Why not pay the Dane gold not to ransack. And so the Danegeld was born. Eventually England had a Danish King, Cnut, and shortly after was conquered by Danish cousins, the Normans.

SiVal 5y ago
Yes, there was a time when everyone knew: If you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.
joelbondurant 5y ago
The extortion sector thrives off theft, as they have no other talents.

kecupochren 5y ago

This reads like something from The Onion

whynotkeithberg 5y ago
Maybe if you haven't researched other successful programs like this.
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  Like the ones listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
webinvest 5y ago
It really does! It will have perverse unintended consequences. In the field of economics, this is known as “The Cobra Effect”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origi... Edit: Just because someone doesn’t live inside your echo-chamber doesn’t mean you should shower them with downvotes.
- gaadd33 5y ago
  Do you know why that didn't happen in Richmond CA when they did it? Specifically reports show a 77% drop in homicides (from another comment). Or what were the "cobras" that sprung up there?
  - andrewfong 5y ago
    The "cobra" here would be to engage in behavior that makes you more likely to be selected for this program so you can then be rewarded for stopping that behavior. I suspect the odds of unexpected outcomes would be low here though because the program itself is small (only 10 people). And there are inherent downsides to engaging in behavior that make others think you're likely to shoot someone, so it's not something you do on a whim.
    - webinvest 5y ago
      Yes. Another unexpected outcome is that it provides an economic competitive advantage to potential murderers and naturally peaceful people become less economically competitive. If you believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, you’re increasing the fitness of the potential murderers over the peaceful people.
  - webinvest 5y ago
    Too early to tell. Good results can show up initially only to strike back later.
- tzs 5y ago
  I don't see how the Cobra Effect is even theoretically possible here. To have a possible Cobra Effect you have to be (1) paying to try to achieve a desired outcome, and (2) what you actually payout for is when people do something that correlates with leading to the desired outcome put does not correlate perfectly. People may then find that some of those things that achieve the payout but do not correlate with the desired outcome are easier to do then the things that do correlate with it. In the original Cobra Effect example the desired outcome was a reduction in the number of wild cobras. The thing that earned the payout was turning in a dead cobra. The way to turn in dead cobras that was easier and did not correlate with a reduction in wild cobras was breeding cobras to kill and turn in. In the San Fransisco case the desired outcome is that a group of people don't shoot anyone for a month. The payout is earned by not shooting anyone for a month. As far as I can tell not shooting anyone for a month perfectly correlates with not shooting anyone for a month, and hence no Cobra Effect is possible.
umvi 5y ago
Only in California. The same state that decriminalized shoplifting so that people can just walk out of supermarkets with a cart full of groceries they didn't pay for and the police do nothing.
- swman 5y ago
  Is this true? Can’t you be banned from the store?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The store can tell you that you're banned, and if you returned you'd be trespassing, but that charge is just as unlikely to stick as the original shoplifting charge.
- m0llusk 5y ago
  That is false. California changed the amount of damage required for some convictions because prisons were exploding. Shoplifting is still illegal. Celebrating criminals getting away with crimes does not make you superior.
  - umvi 5y ago
    I mean... I remember reading a story about a guy in CA that brought a calculator to a store to make sure he didn't shoplift more than $950 or whatever the Prop 47 limit was. See: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeOj_McJ:www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/10/prop47/+ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeO... "There was the thief in San Bernardino County who had been caught shoplifting with his calculator, which he said he used to make sure he never stole the equivalent of $950 or more."
    - m0llusk 5y ago
      But you are ignoring everything that matters here. The $950 amount defines how the crime is handled. Because less than that is a lesser crime it tends not to even be enforced, but that does not mean that it cannot be enforced or will not be enforced. Much of the problem there has to do with exactly what happens when police but a case before the state. The fundamental problem that prisons were exploding with a population that simply could not be contained and cared for does not go away because enforcing retail theft is difficult. You seem to be proposing the idea that the way to fix this is to enforce shoplifting crimes aggressively, but how will you pay for and manage the additional prisons that will require? Instead of pretending the problem is simple we need to continue to find ways to make the justice system actually work. Part of that is to make it clearer what may happen if police arrest someone. Now they tend to be let free which has as much to do with prosecutor options and decisions as the law itself. It is clear we need to do better, but it is also quite clear that simply complaining about dysfunction does not fix anything and can imply bills that are too large to pay.

Apocryphon 5y ago

This project is not without precedence, it was tried in Richmond, CA already: https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-washington-crime-financial-incentive-richmond.html https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-washington-crime-finan... 77% drop in homicides http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/ons-report-highlights.pdf http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pd...

whynotkeithberg 5y ago
Richmond has been a great example of how changing police policies and the way we try and "treat" crime can have a massive positive effect even when many view it as coddling or paying off criminals. most young criminals were born into a situation that led them to become who they are... If they have another financial incentive or opportunity to change many of them will. Obviously not 100%, but very few people have a dream of becoming some piece of crap criminal who adds nothing to society. The unfortunate truth is that over the last couple decades the opportunities to build yourself up from nothing without selling your life/soul to the military or some other group as I did is not nearly as achievable.
systemvoltage 5y ago
If they gave a million bucks to each, it would be close to 100% drop in homicides.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Sure. And it’d probably be cheaper than current prosecution and incarceration costs, especially when it comes to housing death row prisoners for decades and administering executions. Old article, but $300m per prisoner: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/20/california-death-penalty-execution-costs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/20/california-dea...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

webinvest 5y ago

Yay, higher and higher tax rates to help pay these people. /s

joelbondurant 5y ago

Only stupid betacuck communist tax cattle objects are left in San Francisco.

scarmig 5y ago

So long as you have the reasonable assumption that most people who shoot other people have short planning horizons, this makes sense. You provide an incentive that actually affects the people in question, and they respond. The vast majority of people, in every community, are already influenced by incentives that are much heavier than this one; it's not gonna cause a spate of murders, because it they currently are responding to a time horizon that's driving their behaviors.

illuminati1911 5y ago

This seems very problematic. You are basically rewarding criminals by giving them opportunity to get paid for not breaking the law. Also how sustainable is this in the long term? How long will SF keep paying them? What happens if they stop paying some day? "There are opportunities for participants to earn an additional $200 each month as they work to improve their community. Some ways they can earn more are by working, going to school and even being a mediator in situations that could lead to violence." This sounds a bit better though.