5 ms·

Police don't kill people almost all the time. Police generally are a net good. I read this book once called Crisis Management. The main idea was to minimize th

Police don't kill people almost all the time. Police generally are a net good. I read this book once called Crisis Management. The main idea was to minimize the consequences of rare actions. So, even though train cars carrying lethal chemicals rarely derail, you build the train tracks so if one were to derail, say on a sharp curve, it derails far from populated areas. Or, even though nuclear reactors rarely release deadly radiocative gases, you don't allow people to build shanties nearby, where they would get lethal doses of radiation if there were an accident. You can't get rid of adverse cases completely in most real-world situations. But you can work to minimize the consequences when the adverse case shows up. There are times when improving the worst case is pretty cheap, if you think ahead. Policing is like this. The police very rarely need to use force ('rarely' in the sense of force used/interaction with civilian.) But when they do it makes sense to reduce the worst case: that the force will cause mortal injury. In the MOVE case, just wait them out. There is definitely increased cost, but it improves the expected value of the worst case by much more than the cost. Or, as I saw someone ask, speculatively I have to assume, on Twitter 'what would you do if some 6'4" guy was running at you threateningly?' The rational answer might be 'close your car window and call for backup.' It's never 'get out of the car and shoot him in the head.'

glenda 12y ago
Right, at a certain point it comes down to the officer's life versus the life of the civilian. This is a tough situation because you essentially saying "I am going to kill you before you kill me" - which is definitely not how police should operate. Unless the civilian is armed I see no reason why the police should even arrive at the scene with a gun, unless the situation is violent to begin with, or after being called in as backup.
Russell91 12y ago
Police are not supposed to be a net good. They are a classic solution to a game theoretic prisoner's dilemma. If there were no enforcement of laws by police, it would be in everyone's best interest to e.g. steal. Regardless of whether other people steal, you'd be better off doing it. So as a classic solution to the prisoners dilemma, you introduce a force that strictly decreases everyone's utility function. How can this be a good thing? Well, because it changes everyone's optimal strategy from stealing to not stealing, reaching a global optimum. Now you'll notice that this strategy only improves things if it actually changes people's behavior. If people continue stealing anyway at the same rates, then things have only gotten worse (unless you subscribe to punitive, rather than deterrent punishment). So the primary purpose of police is deterrence through the threat of negative reinforcement, not "helping people". Further, whenever police actually have to enforce laws, its a sign that something has gone wildly wrong. The deterrent didn't work, and things are worse off than if there were no police at all. Of course, in reality criminal behavior has a lot of motivators and it's not possible to change everyone's optimal strategy just by raising punishments, so you're going to have police enforcing laws. But there is no police department that is more successful than one where the police just sit around and do nothing.
- baddox 12y ago
  There's another angle to this too, which is the difference between the service of policing (basically, physical protection and enforcement of many laws), and the institutions that offer it. You seem to be referring to the service itself, which can theoretically be performed by the government but also by individuals, private security guards, the Mafia, etc.
- kashkhan 12y ago
  If the punishment is equal to the crime such as eye for an eye,or apply for an apple, then given the <1 probability of punishment, it is always rational to commit the crime because the expected value is profit. This is true regardless of whether there is police. When you add police then the utility of everyone goes down, i.e the police may randomly shoot you for doing nothing whatsoever. In the middle ages ( > 100 years ago) the english tried making the punishments more severe than the crime, e.g hanging or transportation for stealing a loaf, but that didn't result in decrease in crime, even if it made the crimes unprofitable. If the punishment is random and unfair, as it will be, Then the deterrent effect is negligible because the probability that you will get away with it increases more than the severity of punishment. Humans mostly avoid crime not because it is unprofitable, but because humans are mostly nice. Adding police to society decreases the probability that they will be nice. SO in most police states police and police penalties on society are heavy yet nobody wants to live in a police state. tldr: police do not work as a deterrent to crime.
- colanderman 12y ago
  If there were no enforcement of laws by police, it would be in everyone's best interest to e.g. steal. Regardless of whether other people steal, you'd be better off doing it. This makes no sense if you've ever interacted with other humans. There are several logical societal deterrents to stealing beside police. (Ostracism, retribution, foresight, modeling…)
  - boyaka 12y ago
    Keeping the ni$#(!s out?
asdfaoeu 12y ago
There is a difference between the two situations though. A train isn't going to adapt based on the your policies though a person might. If your only thinking about short term suffering you might in effect increase the overall suffering by decreasing the deterrent effect of policing.
baddox 12y ago
> Police don't kill people almost all the time. Police generally are a net good. The first sentence is certainly true, but the second is debatable.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  You really believe this? I think the reddit / HN echo chamber combined with the current media cycle blowing the situation in Ferguson out of proportion in their 24 hour coverage is working. There are thousands of good things being done every single day by cops all over the country. You don't hear about it because it isn't exciting. If you think overall there are more corrupt / racist / evil cops than good, you most likely need to stop only getting your news from such biased sources.
  - baddox 12y ago
    I did not say I think there are more corrupt/racist/evil cops than good. I said that it's debatable whether police are generally a net good.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      Honestly that is pretty laughable.
      - baddox 12y ago
        What is laughable, and why?
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        That you actually believe police providing a net-good overall is up for debate.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    "If you think overall there are more corrupt / racist / evil cops than good..." There is a simple test to see if the above is true: How often do cops step forward to denounce brutality and corruption? What happens to the ones who do step forward? Unfortunately for us, the real answer is not very pretty, and not the one most people wish were true.
baddox 12y ago
I think you make the concept of crisis management sound more complicated than it really is. I suspect there is almost always a calculation of risk versus cost. A certain amount of resources will be spent to prevent disasters of certain magnitudes and certain likelihoods.
pmorici 12y ago
"Police generally are a net good." I'm not so sure. The few encounters I've had with the police have made me wonder. I live in a medium crime city and every time I have to call the police for something they never really do anything except write a report and then I never hear from them again. In one instance when my car was stolen I was victimized more by the police than the car thief. The cops when they found my stolen car towed it to a lot and then told me they had found it via registered mail at which point I had to go pay several hundred dollars to get my car back that was only worth several hundred dollars to begin with. Also couldn't just write it off and leave it because they would still come after me for the towing and storage fee which was $50 per day. On top of that when I went to get the car the employees at the police station were _literally_ illiterate and made so many errors in transcribing my name and VIN number onto the vehicle release form that the towing company questioned whether it was actually my car! In another instance when my car was the victim of a hit and run it took the police 4+ months to get the police report to the insurance company so that that they would pay for the repairs. I mean if you can't take reports and return stolen property efficiently what the heck are you there to do?!
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  I had a buddy who worked at Pizza Hut in a rural town most of his life. Did a great job and when he went to college in Minneapolis, Pizza Hut offered him his own shop, in the middle of what would be considered "the ghetto". First night he's managing, a group of kids come in and rob the store of a large bank of small vending machines. You know the kind. They have stickers and gumballs and such. It was like six of them, all bolted together. He freaks out, calls the cops and you know what their response was? "Uh yeah, our officers have far more important things to do then petty theft. We'll send an officer out when he has a chance." It took two weeks before he saw a cop who took the report and he never heard back after that. Sure he was pissed, but I had to explain that in bigger cities, there's always something more important than what happened to you. Got mugged? Yeah, well someone just got murdered. Your car got stolen? Yeah, well a gang member just shot up a McDonald's because his fires were cold and shot three people. So for all the people who complain that "Isn't there something more important you could be doing?" Well, yeah, but don't get pissed then if they blow off whatever petty incident you were involved in to go catch a real criminal.

glenda 12y ago

Right, at a certain point it comes down to the officer's life versus the life of the civilian. This is a tough situation because you essentially saying "I am going to kill you before you kill me" - which is definitely not how police should operate. Unless the civilian is armed I see no reason why the police should even arrive at the scene with a gun, unless the situation is violent to begin with, or after being called in as backup.

Russell91 12y ago

Police are not supposed to be a net good. They are a classic solution to a game theoretic prisoner's dilemma. If there were no enforcement of laws by police, it would be in everyone's best interest to e.g. steal. Regardless of whether other people steal, you'd be better off doing it. So as a classic solution to the prisoners dilemma, you introduce a force that strictly decreases everyone's utility function. How can this be a good thing? Well, because it changes everyone's optimal strategy from stealing to not stealing, reaching a global optimum. Now you'll notice that this strategy only improves things if it actually changes people's behavior. If people continue stealing anyway at the same rates, then things have only gotten worse (unless you subscribe to punitive, rather than deterrent punishment). So the primary purpose of police is deterrence through the threat of negative reinforcement, not "helping people". Further, whenever police actually have to enforce laws, its a sign that something has gone wildly wrong. The deterrent didn't work, and things are worse off than if there were no police at all. Of course, in reality criminal behavior has a lot of motivators and it's not possible to change everyone's optimal strategy just by raising punishments, so you're going to have police enforcing laws. But there is no police department that is more successful than one where the police just sit around and do nothing.

baddox 12y ago
There's another angle to this too, which is the difference between the service of policing (basically, physical protection and enforcement of many laws), and the institutions that offer it. You seem to be referring to the service itself, which can theoretically be performed by the government but also by individuals, private security guards, the Mafia, etc.
kashkhan 12y ago
If the punishment is equal to the crime such as eye for an eye,or apply for an apple, then given the <1 probability of punishment, it is always rational to commit the crime because the expected value is profit. This is true regardless of whether there is police. When you add police then the utility of everyone goes down, i.e the police may randomly shoot you for doing nothing whatsoever. In the middle ages ( > 100 years ago) the english tried making the punishments more severe than the crime, e.g hanging or transportation for stealing a loaf, but that didn't result in decrease in crime, even if it made the crimes unprofitable. If the punishment is random and unfair, as it will be, Then the deterrent effect is negligible because the probability that you will get away with it increases more than the severity of punishment. Humans mostly avoid crime not because it is unprofitable, but because humans are mostly nice. Adding police to society decreases the probability that they will be nice. SO in most police states police and police penalties on society are heavy yet nobody wants to live in a police state. tldr: police do not work as a deterrent to crime.
colanderman 12y ago
If there were no enforcement of laws by police, it would be in everyone's best interest to e.g. steal. Regardless of whether other people steal, you'd be better off doing it. This makes no sense if you've ever interacted with other humans. There are several logical societal deterrents to stealing beside police. (Ostracism, retribution, foresight, modeling…)
- boyaka 12y ago
  Keeping the ni$#(!s out?

asdfaoeu 12y ago

There is a difference between the two situations though. A train isn't going to adapt based on the your policies though a person might. If your only thinking about short term suffering you might in effect increase the overall suffering by decreasing the deterrent effect of policing.

baddox 12y ago

> Police don't kill people almost all the time. Police generally are a net good. The first sentence is certainly true, but the second is debatable.

res0nat0r 12y ago
You really believe this? I think the reddit / HN echo chamber combined with the current media cycle blowing the situation in Ferguson out of proportion in their 24 hour coverage is working. There are thousands of good things being done every single day by cops all over the country. You don't hear about it because it isn't exciting. If you think overall there are more corrupt / racist / evil cops than good, you most likely need to stop only getting your news from such biased sources.
- baddox 12y ago
  I did not say I think there are more corrupt/racist/evil cops than good. I said that it's debatable whether police are generally a net good.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    Honestly that is pretty laughable.
    - baddox 12y ago
      What is laughable, and why?
      - res0nat0r 12y ago
        That you actually believe police providing a net-good overall is up for debate.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  "If you think overall there are more corrupt / racist / evil cops than good..." There is a simple test to see if the above is true: How often do cops step forward to denounce brutality and corruption? What happens to the ones who do step forward? Unfortunately for us, the real answer is not very pretty, and not the one most people wish were true.

baddox 12y ago

I think you make the concept of crisis management sound more complicated than it really is. I suspect there is almost always a calculation of risk versus cost. A certain amount of resources will be spent to prevent disasters of certain magnitudes and certain likelihoods.

pmorici 12y ago

"Police generally are a net good." I'm not so sure. The few encounters I've had with the police have made me wonder. I live in a medium crime city and every time I have to call the police for something they never really do anything except write a report and then I never hear from them again. In one instance when my car was stolen I was victimized more by the police than the car thief. The cops when they found my stolen car towed it to a lot and then told me they had found it via registered mail at which point I had to go pay several hundred dollars to get my car back that was only worth several hundred dollars to begin with. Also couldn't just write it off and leave it because they would still come after me for the towing and storage fee which was $50 per day. On top of that when I went to get the car the employees at the police station were _literally_ illiterate and made so many errors in transcribing my name and VIN number onto the vehicle release form that the towing company questioned whether it was actually my car! In another instance when my car was the victim of a hit and run it took the police 4+ months to get the police report to the insurance company so that that they would pay for the repairs. I mean if you can't take reports and return stolen property efficiently what the heck are you there to do?!

at-fates-hands 12y ago
I had a buddy who worked at Pizza Hut in a rural town most of his life. Did a great job and when he went to college in Minneapolis, Pizza Hut offered him his own shop, in the middle of what would be considered "the ghetto". First night he's managing, a group of kids come in and rob the store of a large bank of small vending machines. You know the kind. They have stickers and gumballs and such. It was like six of them, all bolted together. He freaks out, calls the cops and you know what their response was? "Uh yeah, our officers have far more important things to do then petty theft. We'll send an officer out when he has a chance." It took two weeks before he saw a cop who took the report and he never heard back after that. Sure he was pissed, but I had to explain that in bigger cities, there's always something more important than what happened to you. Got mugged? Yeah, well someone just got murdered. Your car got stolen? Yeah, well a gang member just shot up a McDonald's because his fires were cold and shot three people. So for all the people who complain that "Isn't there something more important you could be doing?" Well, yeah, but don't get pissed then if they blow off whatever petty incident you were involved in to go catch a real criminal.