3 ms·

Imagine if there were 100 gun murders in a city in one year and you had a magic box that was 100% accurate at detection of location of gun shots within 1 mile a

Imagine if there were 100 gun murders in a city in one year and you had a magic box that was 100% accurate at detection of location of gun shots within 1 mile and the city could only afford to buy 10 magic boxes. Would you put those magic boxes near where previous gun crimes have been committed or would you put those boxes in places based on the race and sexual orientation and disability status and gender of the people living in the city?

SicSemperUranus 4y ago
To me this is obviously unethical, but wouldn't this also be obviously unconstitutional in the US? At least if done deliberately? 14th amendment and all that.
- throwaway17_17 4y ago
  Assuming the question were to reach the Supreme Court, and not considering the possibilities in the various Circuits, there is a substantial chance all of the Supreme Court’s various composition over the last 50 years would uphold the use. First consideration would be applicable legal standard, which practically always errs on the side of the State, second is the reasonableness of statistical methodology presenting the locations based on crime statistics. I would not personally argue for its constitutionality, but given the precedents stemming from pretextual patrolling cases, it isn’t as clear cut as one might hope.
  - SicSemperUranus 4y ago
    That was very informative, thank you
quickthrower2 4y ago
Well how useful is that anyway? Probably not useful for evidence or crime prevention. I imagine most murders are known about fairly quickly due to a corpse (except say by “professionals”) or people hear the gunshot and call in. Logically I would say spending the money on gun control would be better, but politically that seems like a no no. Make carrying in the street illegal with jail time, and use the money in a gun amnesty.
etchalon 4y ago
There's no evidence the system is 100% accurate within 1 mile.

SicSemperUranus 4y ago

To me this is obviously unethical, but wouldn't this also be obviously unconstitutional in the US? At least if done deliberately? 14th amendment and all that.

throwaway17_17 4y ago
Assuming the question were to reach the Supreme Court, and not considering the possibilities in the various Circuits, there is a substantial chance all of the Supreme Court’s various composition over the last 50 years would uphold the use. First consideration would be applicable legal standard, which practically always errs on the side of the State, second is the reasonableness of statistical methodology presenting the locations based on crime statistics. I would not personally argue for its constitutionality, but given the precedents stemming from pretextual patrolling cases, it isn’t as clear cut as one might hope.
- SicSemperUranus 4y ago
  That was very informative, thank you

quickthrower2 4y ago

Well how useful is that anyway? Probably not useful for evidence or crime prevention. I imagine most murders are known about fairly quickly due to a corpse (except say by “professionals”) or people hear the gunshot and call in. Logically I would say spending the money on gun control would be better, but politically that seems like a no no. Make carrying in the street illegal with jail time, and use the money in a gun amnesty.

etchalon 4y ago

There's no evidence the system is 100% accurate within 1 mile.