6 ms·

"...law enforcement agencies get to keep forfeiture proceeds. Such a windfall, critics say, creates perverse incentives..." 'Critics' say? Is there anybody wh

by jMyles 12y ago

"...law enforcement agencies get to keep forfeiture proceeds. Such a windfall, critics say, creates perverse incentives..." 'Critics' say? Is there anybody who doesn't concur with this assessment? It seems like a flat, unambiguous fact. This toxic style of perspective hijacking is a huge part of the problem. It's always, "[government interest] says sky is green; critics say blue. The facts remain elusive."

hellbanner 12y ago
Just as bad are "officials say"..
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
phoxic 12y ago
I agree. Your post reminded me of the welcome post for a new blog started by First Look Media that was apparently created "...to tell the unofficial story, one that describes the reality of U.S. politics as accurately as we possibly can." https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/16/welcome-unofficial-sources/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/16/welcome-unoffi...
guelo 12y ago
I'm sure there are law enforcement officers that disagree that there are perverse incentives. So the reporter has to quote somebody, he can't just state it as fact.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > So the reporter has to quote somebody, he can't just state it as fact. Why not? Its economics 101 [1]. Incentives matter, and the existing rules create "perverse incentives." Or are we talking about offending law enforcement and government agencies? Because fact and ego are two different things. [1] http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/10_Principles_of_Economics http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/10_Principles_of_Economics
- mikeash 12y ago
  There are people who disagree that the world is round, but journalists don't generally have to pretend like there are multiple possibilities there. What's the threshold supposed to be?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- SilasX 12y ago
  Those LEOs are deceiving themselves (to put it gently). They can plausibly believe that the perverse incentives aren't bad enough to be scrapped for other allocation policies, or that the police recruit only those who can resist those incentives, but there's no basis to object that the incentives themselves don't exist. The fact that downside X can be overcome does not mean X does not exist. Are the perverse incentives actually problematic in practice? Okay, that claim can be the sole province of "critics", but not the one about whether they exist.
- jMyles 12y ago
  I doubt this. I surmise (and I'm imagining my LEO friends talking to me in my head) that they might say, "there are safeguards in place" or "I didn't take this job to go around stealing things from honest people," but I think that they will acknowledge that these (and other similar) measures are just counter-incentives. Regardless of how well they work, and the success or failure of the policy generally, this particular configuration (law enforcement receiving the proceeds) is indeed an incentive for them to do the wrong thing (ie, "perverse"). I really don't think anybody disputes that.
- specialist 12y ago
  Superfluous quoting might even be an editorial policy.
skybrian 12y ago
Many supposedly simple and obvious facts require a scientific study to actually prove, even if it seems like they'd be true in theory. "Critics say" is safer when the reporter doesn't have time or space in the article to prove something. Sure, an in-depth report would be better, but not when it gets in the way of getting an article published with what you have.
- jMyles 12y ago
  Quoting some person (or a scientific study) or whatever is indeed safer. However, "critics say" adds nothing whatsoever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw
hackuser 12y ago
> Is there anybody who doesn't concur with this assessment? It seems like a flat, unambiguous fact. Many things that one person feels are flat and unambiguous are perceived otherwise by other people. To use an extreme example, some people think torture is unambiguously evil; some people think it depends on the circumstances; others think it's legitimate vengence on enemies. There are very many law enforcement officials who use this tool, legislators who pass these laws, and a large segment of the public who trusts and supports law enforcement; they all might feel otherwise about these practices. I think good reporting should challenge our perspectives by introducing us to others that are outside our usual worldview. Be suspicious of reporting that doesn't challenge your beliefs; they might be kissing your a--; you might be in an ideological bubble. > Critics' say? The idea must come from someplace, and it's important to say from where so that you can judge its credibility. Either the reporter hears someone else say it or invents it him/herself; the latter is the job of op-ed writers. I do agree this idea can be taken too far ('experts say that the Sun appears first in the East every morning') but I'm not sure it's a problem in this case.
- hobs 12y ago
  But the facts support that torture does not produce useful information. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-committee-cia-torture-does-not-work http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-commit... "The report finds that CIA detainees subjected to what were then called “enhanced interrogation techniques” either produced no intelligence, or they “fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence”. It says that the CIA’s own interrogators “assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees the CIA considered to be the most ‘high-value’, was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the intelligence community”." You can attempt to ignore this fact and argue whether we should or shouldn't torture people, but at that point you are arguing whether we should or should not submit people to gruesome deaths because we think they may have done something wrong (with little to no evidence.)
- jMyles 12y ago
  Everything you say is true and good. And I'm not saying either that I disagree with the policy or that I view it as likely to fail in an empirical sense (although both are true). Instead, I'm pointing out that the fact that allowing law enforcement to keep the proceeds does indeed create an incentive for LEOs to do the wrong thing. I think everybody agrees on that point. LEOs can point to a number of counter-incentives, as well as their own good intentions, as measures that can ameliorate this bad incentive, but I don't think anybody will disagree that it exists.
salmonellaeater 12y ago
It creates incentives, but whether they're perverse is a matter of perspective. A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result which is contrary to the interests of the incentive makers.[1] It's common to believe that law enforcement makes mostly just decisions, even when deciding whom to accuse[2]. To voters with this view, the incentives are exactly aligned with their interests. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
- jMyles 12y ago
  I don't disagree with your definitions here. However, for the purpose of understanding the 'interests' of the incentive makers, it's notable that we're talking about executive action, pursuant (however shakily) to law passed by congress, pertaining to the specific act of seizure ("forfeiture") of property. The 'interest' (or, more charitably, the 'intention') is to combat crime. Thus, if law enforcement has an incentive to do something other than combat crime, which again, I don't think anyone disagrees they do under such a framework, then the incentive is indeed perverse. The only way that this incentive is consonant is if the original intention was to enrich law enforcement agencies, which nobody claims was the impetus for these policies.

by jMyles 12y ago

hellbanner 12y ago

Just as bad are "officials say"..

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

phoxic 12y ago

I agree. Your post reminded me of the welcome post for a new blog started by First Look Media that was apparently created "...to tell the unofficial story, one that describes the reality of U.S. politics as accurately as we possibly can." https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/16/welcome-unofficial-sources/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/16/welcome-unoffi...

guelo 12y ago

I'm sure there are law enforcement officers that disagree that there are perverse incentives. So the reporter has to quote somebody, he can't just state it as fact.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
> So the reporter has to quote somebody, he can't just state it as fact. Why not? Its economics 101 [1]. Incentives matter, and the existing rules create "perverse incentives." Or are we talking about offending law enforcement and government agencies? Because fact and ego are two different things. [1] http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/10_Principles_of_Economics http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/10_Principles_of_Economics
mikeash 12y ago
There are people who disagree that the world is round, but journalists don't generally have to pretend like there are multiple possibilities there. What's the threshold supposed to be?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
SilasX 12y ago
Those LEOs are deceiving themselves (to put it gently). They can plausibly believe that the perverse incentives aren't bad enough to be scrapped for other allocation policies, or that the police recruit only those who can resist those incentives, but there's no basis to object that the incentives themselves don't exist. The fact that downside X can be overcome does not mean X does not exist. Are the perverse incentives actually problematic in practice? Okay, that claim can be the sole province of "critics", but not the one about whether they exist.
jMyles 12y ago
I doubt this. I surmise (and I'm imagining my LEO friends talking to me in my head) that they might say, "there are safeguards in place" or "I didn't take this job to go around stealing things from honest people," but I think that they will acknowledge that these (and other similar) measures are just counter-incentives. Regardless of how well they work, and the success or failure of the policy generally, this particular configuration (law enforcement receiving the proceeds) is indeed an incentive for them to do the wrong thing (ie, "perverse"). I really don't think anybody disputes that.
specialist 12y ago
Superfluous quoting might even be an editorial policy.

skybrian 12y ago

Many supposedly simple and obvious facts require a scientific study to actually prove, even if it seems like they'd be true in theory. "Critics say" is safer when the reporter doesn't have time or space in the article to prove something. Sure, an in-depth report would be better, but not when it gets in the way of getting an article published with what you have.

jMyles 12y ago
Quoting some person (or a scientific study) or whatever is indeed safer. However, "critics say" adds nothing whatsoever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

hackuser 12y ago

> Is there anybody who doesn't concur with this assessment? It seems like a flat, unambiguous fact. Many things that one person feels are flat and unambiguous are perceived otherwise by other people. To use an extreme example, some people think torture is unambiguously evil; some people think it depends on the circumstances; others think it's legitimate vengence on enemies. There are very many law enforcement officials who use this tool, legislators who pass these laws, and a large segment of the public who trusts and supports law enforcement; they all might feel otherwise about these practices. I think good reporting should challenge our perspectives by introducing us to others that are outside our usual worldview. Be suspicious of reporting that doesn't challenge your beliefs; they might be kissing your a--; you might be in an ideological bubble. > Critics' say? The idea must come from someplace, and it's important to say from where so that you can judge its credibility. Either the reporter hears someone else say it or invents it him/herself; the latter is the job of op-ed writers. I do agree this idea can be taken too far ('experts say that the Sun appears first in the East every morning') but I'm not sure it's a problem in this case.

hobs 12y ago
But the facts support that torture does not produce useful information. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-committee-cia-torture-does-not-work http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-commit... "The report finds that CIA detainees subjected to what were then called “enhanced interrogation techniques” either produced no intelligence, or they “fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence”. It says that the CIA’s own interrogators “assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees the CIA considered to be the most ‘high-value’, was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the intelligence community”." You can attempt to ignore this fact and argue whether we should or shouldn't torture people, but at that point you are arguing whether we should or should not submit people to gruesome deaths because we think they may have done something wrong (with little to no evidence.)
jMyles 12y ago
Everything you say is true and good. And I'm not saying either that I disagree with the policy or that I view it as likely to fail in an empirical sense (although both are true). Instead, I'm pointing out that the fact that allowing law enforcement to keep the proceeds does indeed create an incentive for LEOs to do the wrong thing. I think everybody agrees on that point. LEOs can point to a number of counter-incentives, as well as their own good intentions, as measures that can ameliorate this bad incentive, but I don't think anybody will disagree that it exists.

salmonellaeater 12y ago

It creates incentives, but whether they're perverse is a matter of perspective. A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result which is contrary to the interests of the incentive makers.[1] It's common to believe that law enforcement makes mostly just decisions, even when deciding whom to accuse[2]. To voters with this view, the incentives are exactly aligned with their interests. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

jMyles 12y ago
I don't disagree with your definitions here. However, for the purpose of understanding the 'interests' of the incentive makers, it's notable that we're talking about executive action, pursuant (however shakily) to law passed by congress, pertaining to the specific act of seizure ("forfeiture") of property. The 'interest' (or, more charitably, the 'intention') is to combat crime. Thus, if law enforcement has an incentive to do something other than combat crime, which again, I don't think anyone disagrees they do under such a framework, then the incentive is indeed perverse. The only way that this incentive is consonant is if the original intention was to enrich law enforcement agencies, which nobody claims was the impetus for these policies.