7 ms·

As I said yesterday[1], I think we've reached the point where better enforcement of laws harms more than it helps. A big reason for this is that "crime" is a ve

by ggreer 13y ago

As I said yesterday[1], I think we've reached the point where better enforcement of laws harms more than it helps. A big reason for this is that "crime" is a very broad subject, covering everything from vagrancy to murder. Measures that might make sense against violent crime end up being used for minor violations. Similar to how firefighters, EMTs, and police are separate agencies with different uniforms and vehicles, I wish police were split into violent and non-violent crime departments. It would solve quite a few problems. First, we could have something more nuanced than the typical "cops are bad"/"cops are good" debate. Second, we might see decreases in some types of crime, since minor criminals wouldn't fear informing the Department of Homicide. (Similar to how nobody fears calling the fire department if there's a fire.) Lastly, it would make it obvious where budgets were being spent. Most taxpayers are fine with throwing money at law enforcement, because they think it's preventing violent crime. If they saw how much was going to the Department of Vice, they might have other ideas. Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. These agencies are too big to change in any reasonable time frame. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7172857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7172857

unabridged 13y ago
>Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. These agencies are huge and there's just too much inertia to change them. This is the power of a 3rd party winning the presidency. All of this force falls under the executive branch whose policy can be changed in an instant. Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot.
- pacificmint 13y ago
  Interestingly enough, the number of non voters in 2012 was higher than the number of votes for either Obama or Romney. So if all the people that didn't vote (many because they feel that their vote doesn't change things anyway) voted for a third party candidate, that candidate would win without having to take a single vote from either of the two main party candidates.
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    That candidate would win the popular vote, but that doesn't mean they'd win the electoral vote. All people who's votes counted voted in the last election...
  - ams6110 13y ago
    Third parties don't win, but they do affect outcomes. If Perot hadn't gotten back in in 1992, Bush would probably have been re-elected. No Clinton presidency, no impeachment, no Hillary. Would be quite a different political landscape by now.
- mburns 13y ago
  Policing is a state issue. No executive order is going to solve this problem.
  - unabridged 13y ago
    The executive in each state controls statewide police, in smaller jurisdictions either sheriffs are elected or appointed by the executive.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      This is true, but rather undermines the original point about the POTUS doing it. State governors and city mayors tend to be a lot more willing to do things like this, but you'd still have to get the political will. I'd expect you'd need someone to successfully get elected on a platform of doing it, and for the opposition to not find it reasonable to attack that item on the platform.
- Stubb 13y ago
  > Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot. Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind.
  - unabridged 13y ago
    The power of TV is at its lowest point in recent history. Any candidate could have a fulltime youtube channel where they are gathering supporters everyday.
    - waffle_ss 13y ago
      Gary Johnson posted tons of videos to his YouTube channel, had online debates with Jill Stein and other third party candidates when they were all shut out of the CPD debates, did several Reddit AMAs, spliced his own responses into CPD debate footage and posted them on his YouTube channel, and generally had a very active online presence. The sad fact is that even though the power of TV is diminishing, it's still by far where the majority of voters get their information from and if you don't get on the televised debate you don't stand a chance. Unfortunately democracy at this level means you are ruled by the low-information voter.
  - rgbrenner 13y ago
    "Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind." Incredible. After Ross Perot ran for president in 1992, they traveled back in time to form CPD in 1987. Amazing story.
    - Stubb 13y ago
      I sure screwed up my recollection on that one. I confused the CPD taking over from the League of Women Voters in '87 and greatly dumbing down the format with the CPD raising standards for party inclusion in the debates in 2000.
- mrfusion 13y ago
  My memory is fuzzy but wasn't he winning for a while? I remember him kind of going kooky towards the end of the campaign and lost a lot of votes. Is that accurate?
- harshreality 13y ago
  It's possible, but extremely unlikely due to the game theory of Plurality Voting or IRV (in countries/regions which have switched to that) both of which are bad, yet overwhelmingly used for single-winner elections (like, for selecting a president, or in some countries for selecting a single representative per voting district). http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html There's a political science term called a realigning election, but it involves a radical change to a party, or the displacement of at least one of the two dominant parties with a new party, after which elections go back to a two-party-dominated playing field for a while; a persistent 3-or-more party system is not viable without changing voting systems.
  - specialist 13y ago
    "IRV which are bad" Did you mean first past the post (FPTP) aka winner takes all? In election reform circles, IRV refers to instant runoff voting.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      PV is the same as FPTP. IRV is very nearly as bad, and perhaps worse due to monotonicity. See http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
  - ajslater 13y ago
    And like rangevoting.org mentions, Range Voting technically may give you the least regretful results, but its a great deal more complicated than Approval Voting, which is dead simple and nearly as good. http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html http://www.electology.org/approval-voting http://www.electology.org/approval-voting
- brubaker 13y ago
  Ross Perot was a novelty vote.
alaskamiller 13y ago
Back in the day, non-violent crimes were handled by peace officers and violent crimes handled by specialists. But budgeting, training, progress, and influx of war abundance has merged and blurred the two. We could end up with a Judge Dredd scenario. Or we could end the war on terror, which in turn reduces the urgency we have now of eroding privacy, and we can also end the war on drugs, which in turn reduces the incentive for police forces to invade homes and seize property for profit. I firmly hold the belief all that will happen when the current crop of crappy old people in power die.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  > I firmly hold the belief all that will happen when the current crop of crappy old people in power die. What prevents a new crop of "crappy old people" from simply taking their place?
  - pekk 13y ago
    HN's generations will take power believing they are so much smarter, and would not call themselves crappy
  - alaskamiller 13y ago
    The next generation. Cycle refreshes constantly.
    - jonnathanson 13y ago
      Isn't that just as likely to mean that the cycle will produce more of the same? Why do the Baby Boomers have a monopoly on self-serving, harmful policy? "The old generation got it wrong. We'll get it right" is a very common refrain. Pretty much every generation has said it. And with each cycle, you get the same sorts of people in political power. The sorts of qualities that attract someone to a life in politics, if not the very qualities that make someone successful in politics, tend to be the same qualities that lead to corruption, pandering, opportunism, and all the other vices. It's not a generational thing; it's a human-nature thing. Before long, the next generation will be looking at us and hoping things get better when we finally get off the stage. I don't mean to be cynical. I'm just attempting to be realistic. I'm hopeful we can do better -- and if I didn't believe that, I'd be pretty damned depressed -- but I'm not basing that hope on the idea that we'll break a mold as old as politics itself.
dalek_cannes 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles come to mind. It's a British idea -- that police officers are citizens in uniform and police by consent of their fellow citizens.
knowaveragejoe 13y ago
In some areas, there is a distinction between local PD and the Sheriff's office. The former are general first responders to emergencies(using force if necessary) while the latter generally perform bureaucratic duties(summons, evictions, etc).
AJ007 13y ago
Budget cuts, take a look at Detroit.
saraid216 13y ago
I like this on an instinctive level, so I'd like to try to take it apart. 1. Would you still have a police commissioner at the top? 2. Does this kind of thing already exist in any form? ...okay, I am bad at coming up with these. Help?

by ggreer 13y ago

unabridged 13y ago

>Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. These agencies are huge and there's just too much inertia to change them. This is the power of a 3rd party winning the presidency. All of this force falls under the executive branch whose policy can be changed in an instant. Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot.

pacificmint 13y ago
Interestingly enough, the number of non voters in 2012 was higher than the number of votes for either Obama or Romney. So if all the people that didn't vote (many because they feel that their vote doesn't change things anyway) voted for a third party candidate, that candidate would win without having to take a single vote from either of the two main party candidates.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  That candidate would win the popular vote, but that doesn't mean they'd win the electoral vote. All people who's votes counted voted in the last election...
- ams6110 13y ago
  Third parties don't win, but they do affect outcomes. If Perot hadn't gotten back in in 1992, Bush would probably have been re-elected. No Clinton presidency, no impeachment, no Hillary. Would be quite a different political landscape by now.
mburns 13y ago
Policing is a state issue. No executive order is going to solve this problem.
- unabridged 13y ago
  The executive in each state controls statewide police, in smaller jurisdictions either sheriffs are elected or appointed by the executive.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    This is true, but rather undermines the original point about the POTUS doing it. State governors and city mayors tend to be a lot more willing to do things like this, but you'd still have to get the political will. I'd expect you'd need someone to successfully get elected on a platform of doing it, and for the opposition to not find it reasonable to attack that item on the platform.
Stubb 13y ago
> Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot. Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind.
- unabridged 13y ago
  The power of TV is at its lowest point in recent history. Any candidate could have a fulltime youtube channel where they are gathering supporters everyday.
  - waffle_ss 13y ago
    Gary Johnson posted tons of videos to his YouTube channel, had online debates with Jill Stein and other third party candidates when they were all shut out of the CPD debates, did several Reddit AMAs, spliced his own responses into CPD debate footage and posted them on his YouTube channel, and generally had a very active online presence. The sad fact is that even though the power of TV is diminishing, it's still by far where the majority of voters get their information from and if you don't get on the televised debate you don't stand a chance. Unfortunately democracy at this level means you are ruled by the low-information voter.
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  "Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind." Incredible. After Ross Perot ran for president in 1992, they traveled back in time to form CPD in 1987. Amazing story.
  - Stubb 13y ago
    I sure screwed up my recollection on that one. I confused the CPD taking over from the League of Women Voters in '87 and greatly dumbing down the format with the CPD raising standards for party inclusion in the debates in 2000.
mrfusion 13y ago
My memory is fuzzy but wasn't he winning for a while? I remember him kind of going kooky towards the end of the campaign and lost a lot of votes. Is that accurate?
harshreality 13y ago
It's possible, but extremely unlikely due to the game theory of Plurality Voting or IRV (in countries/regions which have switched to that) both of which are bad, yet overwhelmingly used for single-winner elections (like, for selecting a president, or in some countries for selecting a single representative per voting district). http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html There's a political science term called a realigning election, but it involves a radical change to a party, or the displacement of at least one of the two dominant parties with a new party, after which elections go back to a two-party-dominated playing field for a while; a persistent 3-or-more party system is not viable without changing voting systems.
- specialist 13y ago
  "IRV which are bad" Did you mean first past the post (FPTP) aka winner takes all? In election reform circles, IRV refers to instant runoff voting.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    PV is the same as FPTP. IRV is very nearly as bad, and perhaps worse due to monotonicity. See http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
- ajslater 13y ago
  And like rangevoting.org mentions, Range Voting technically may give you the least regretful results, but its a great deal more complicated than Approval Voting, which is dead simple and nearly as good. http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html http://www.electology.org/approval-voting http://www.electology.org/approval-voting
brubaker 13y ago
Ross Perot was a novelty vote.

alaskamiller 13y ago

Back in the day, non-violent crimes were handled by peace officers and violent crimes handled by specialists. But budgeting, training, progress, and influx of war abundance has merged and blurred the two. We could end up with a Judge Dredd scenario. Or we could end the war on terror, which in turn reduces the urgency we have now of eroding privacy, and we can also end the war on drugs, which in turn reduces the incentive for police forces to invade homes and seize property for profit. I firmly hold the belief all that will happen when the current crop of crappy old people in power die.

joelrunyon 13y ago
> I firmly hold the belief all that will happen when the current crop of crappy old people in power die. What prevents a new crop of "crappy old people" from simply taking their place?
- pekk 13y ago
  HN's generations will take power believing they are so much smarter, and would not call themselves crappy
- alaskamiller 13y ago
  The next generation. Cycle refreshes constantly.
  - jonnathanson 13y ago
    Isn't that just as likely to mean that the cycle will produce more of the same? Why do the Baby Boomers have a monopoly on self-serving, harmful policy? "The old generation got it wrong. We'll get it right" is a very common refrain. Pretty much every generation has said it. And with each cycle, you get the same sorts of people in political power. The sorts of qualities that attract someone to a life in politics, if not the very qualities that make someone successful in politics, tend to be the same qualities that lead to corruption, pandering, opportunism, and all the other vices. It's not a generational thing; it's a human-nature thing. Before long, the next generation will be looking at us and hoping things get better when we finally get off the stage. I don't mean to be cynical. I'm just attempting to be realistic. I'm hopeful we can do better -- and if I didn't believe that, I'd be pretty damned depressed -- but I'm not basing that hope on the idea that we'll break a mold as old as politics itself.

dalek_cannes 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles come to mind. It's a British idea -- that police officers are citizens in uniform and police by consent of their fellow citizens.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago

In some areas, there is a distinction between local PD and the Sheriff's office. The former are general first responders to emergencies(using force if necessary) while the latter generally perform bureaucratic duties(summons, evictions, etc).

AJ007 13y ago

Budget cuts, take a look at Detroit.

saraid216 13y ago

I like this on an instinctive level, so I'd like to try to take it apart. 1. Would you still have a police commissioner at the top? 2. Does this kind of thing already exist in any form? ...okay, I am bad at coming up with these. Help?