(09-10-2020 04:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  First, it is really nice to have a civil exploratory conversation.

But now, some explanation:

My sister, at the time, lived in another county, about 40 minutes away, so it was never me initiating calls to cops. After a number of calls, the cops asked her if there was a family member they could talk to, and she gave them my number. The cops told me about all the calls - I did not know that she had been calling cops. I knew she was driving the condo management crazy by insisting they clear "these people" out of her basement, when she had no basement. Eventually a public relations officer called, and nicely and politely, without saying it directly, let me know that if the family did not do something about it, they would.*** So we contacted a lawyer, and got a guardianship of her, and then moved her to senior residential living, where among other things, we were able to control her intake of pain meds - opiates, as in opiate crisis.

It was not "rapist" every time. sometimes it was "thief", sometimes it was "trespasser", sometimes it was "squatter", Sometimes it was "harasser", sometimes he was stealing the A/C. Once she called me at 2:00 to come over because "the man" and a friend were stealing her dishes.

I give all this detail to ask the question - how will 911 know who to send? it is easy to say if a guy is rolling around naked in the street, send mental health officers. It is easy to say, if a guy is pointing a gun at a bank teller, send armed cops. But I think most of the calls, like the ones my sister would make, are just not easy to classify.

THAT is my big question. How would this work?

First, I'm very sorry for your situation. It's a struggle that few can understand and I am truly sorry. When you see someone you care for, or were at some point close to deteriorate like that, it can be soul crushing.

As to the answer, I'm not the person to ask. How do they currently decide whether to send one guy or 5? How does the UK do it? Seriously, something like 90% of their 'cops' have no guns. I know numbers sometimes says in response to this that their citizens don't either, but that doesn't mean that people can't cause serious damage.

My guess is that 'it depends' (like it already does) and then you train people (as we already do) to be highly situationally aware and know when to back-off and call for back-up. The mere act of backing off and calling for back-up as opposed to trying to manage the situation on your own is precisely the sort of de-escalation I'm talking about.

That said, so your situation is more like the 'neighbor', so its a level 3... they send both people and see what happens from there. A 1-5 triage scale, somewhat like you suggested.

Quote:Second question: other than mental health, what other specialists do we deploy to take some responsibility off police?

I think you're making too much of this distinction. Rather than have one set of cops who have to do it all... to be the pit bull guard dog and the family pet... I am suggesting that if you seperate those job descriptions, you get both better pit bulls AND better pets. I've classified the family pet as the counselor, but it doesn't have to be merely mental health.

Quote:Third question: how do we fund the extra people and multiplying lines of interdepartmental actions?

It depends on how far you're willing to take it. I'd say as a start, you pay counselors who are less likely to be involved in fatal shootings less than you pay officers who are more likely to be in one... How much, I can't say... nor can I tell you what the optimal mix is... but I think you can probably hire, train and outfit (just pulling random numbers) 70 cops and 40 counselors for the same money as 100 cops. How much less do unarmed police make in the UK vs armed police? Regular cops vs SWAT? I used 70/40 above, but as I said... I think in the UK its more like 10/90. If it were more like 40/60 here, that should be a cost savings. But it's not just about the police... in fact, very little about this to me is about the police. It's about the problems that the police handle.

If you want to do more, how much is incarceration and continued monitoring and police interaction on the street for drug users vs the cost of rehabilitation for them? How much does it cost to eliminate drug laden public housing vs putting people in better situations? How much has the current situation cost us in just damage from protests alone?

If you're not comfortable with that, a major part of this process would be to completely revamp the justice system as it relates to most petty drug crimes... where once arrested, more resources are used to get people off drugs and out of bad situations. So perhaps you still have the regular cop puts them in handcuffs and then a counselor essentially drives them to booking or wherever else they go. You send in counselors and advocates and focus on getting Bubba rehab, a job and housing away from those bad influences as opposed to sending lawyers and judges to argue over sentencing. To me, THAT would be part of any restructuring and sentencing. Sorry, Bubba... this is your third strike which means you can do 5 years for this drug that is killing you, or you can do 5 years probation and agree to rehab, to be relocated and to cut most ties. We will use public resources (which you are probably already using, but to buy drugs) to help get you and your family in a better situation. Almost like witness protection, but its not secret nor do we fund it any more than we would have to if he were just a con who couldn't get a job in the first place.

Quote:*** Makes me wonder what happens when the family is nonexistent, uncaring, or unable to do anything about it. I have no doubt that if I was not willing and able(for now, anyway) to support her and take care of her, she would be living under a bridge somewhere and arguing with e the imaginary man all the time. Streets are full of them - she would just be the one with the 4 degrees and the five languages.

Which is precisely the problem I'm trying to address. You ask how much my ideas cost, I ask how much the reality above costs, and how much would it be worth to you to improve it?

You ask me over and over 'what about this, what about that'... but I'd ask instead, what's the alternative? What we're doing creates one of the largest incarcerated populations per capita in the world, one of the most dysfunctional monitoring and rehabilitation systems and a massive problem with mental health, which isn't only people like your sister, but in my mind it includes people whose minds have been ravaged by drugs and drug addiction. What we're doing doesn't help your sister enough, nor the homeless people without 4 degrees and 5 languages. It's not about racism, its about better outcomes.

You seem to be focused on the left's agenda... while I'm simply taking a business management approach to our current society as it related to police, mental health and drugs. What would you do do make things better? And remember, you can't 'do' what you don't control... meaning you can't say 'get people to respect cops instructions more'... especially if that person is in any way compromised.

But yes, I too greatly appreciate the spirited conversation. It's the only way things EVER change for the better.

(09-11-2020 10:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As to the answer, I'm not the person to ask. How do they currently decide whether to send one guy or 5? How does the UK do it? Seriously, something like 90% of their 'cops' have no guns. I know numbers sometimes says in response to this that their citizens don't either, but that doesn't mean that people can't cause serious damage.

But you are the person talking. I have little experience with 911, but from what I have seen on reality TV, they first ask who d you need - police, fire, or medical? I think after that, the numbers depend on a lot of things - judgement calls by officials, etc.

I watch a lot of British TV, and while I know that may not be the best source, it is my only source. What it appears to be s that when responding with unarmed officers, they respond in overwhelming numbers.

Quote:
The mere act of backing off and calling for back-up as opposed to trying to manage the situation on your own is precisely the sort of de-escalation I'm talking about.

. they send both people and see what happens from there. A 1-5 triage scale, somewhat like you suggested.

But they DO call for back-up. That's how 7 officers ended up with Prude, and 4 with Floyd.

The idea of sending both is why I asked about cost.

Quote:It depends on how far you're willing to take it. I'd say as a start, you pay counselors who are less likely to be involved in fatal shootings less than you pay officers who are more likely to be in one...

If my sister is any example, the counselors would cost way more. But I think what we are calling counselors is really just sociology and other soft BA's, and those would be cheaper than a cop. Woulod they be more effective? I think the question is would they be equally effective?

Quote:If you want to do more, how much is incarceration and continued monitoring and police interaction on the street for drug users vs the cost of rehabilitation for them? How much does it cost to eliminate drug laden public housing vs putting people in better situations? How much has the current situation cost us in just damage from protests alone?

If you're not comfortable with that, a major part of this process would be to completely revamp the justice system as it relates to most petty drug crimes... where once arrested, more resources are used to get people off drugs and out of bad situations.

I am in general and perhaps specific agreement on drug problems. Bit when you "say putting people in better situations? ", what are those?

Quote:You seem to be focused on the left's agenda... while I'm simply taking a business management approach to our current society as it related to police, mental health and drugs.

True. But leave a discussion of the left's agenda for another thread for now. Like a businessman being presented with a business management proposal, I keep asking "how much will it cost", "where will the money come from", and "what will be the beneficial results"?

(09-11-2020 11:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But you are the person talking. I have little experience with 911, but from what I have seen on reality TV, they first ask who d you need - police, fire, or medical? I think after that, the numbers depend on a lot of things - judgement calls by officials, etc.

I watch a lot of British TV, and while I know that may not be the best source, it is my only source. What it appears to be s that when responding with unarmed officers, they respond in overwhelming numbers.

Sure, but you can't expect me to have so many specifics.

With hundreds of thousands of under-employed social workers, I'd say we can do the same. I think if we solve some of these issues/make them more manageable, we can fund a lot more police. The UK spends only slightly more on police as a percentage of GDP... I bet they spend a ton less on drug enforcement and incarceration. What I was trying to point out with the 10/90 comment was that they have 10 cops salaries and 90 social workers... and for the same money, we're getting 60 cops. I'm suggesting that while we probably can't get to 10/90... we can perhaps get to 40/40 with the same money (and better outcomes) as our current 60/0.

Quote:

Quote: The mere act of backing off and calling for back-up as opposed to trying to manage the situation on your own is precisely the sort of de-escalation I'm talking about.

. they send both people and see what happens from there. A 1-5 triage scale, somewhat like you suggested.

But they DO call for back-up. That's how 7 officers ended up with Prude, and 4 with Floyd.

The idea of sending both is why I asked about cost.

I'm not sure what I'm missing here.
1) I'm suggesting that there are situations... and I can't tell you how many but more than 0 where the actions of the cop... whether he is a racist or is having a bad day or says the wrong thing to someone with mental issues (like my 'go see your doctor' text to a BH patient) or whatever else contributes to the escalation that requires that need for back-up. Maybe not these two, but some.

2) an unarmed expert in de-escalating and an armed expert in 'control' is IMO going to be more cost effective in terms of the cost to train, plus all of the ancillary improvements in efficiency and outcomes than training two people to be experts in both. The number of sports analogies are endless here. There are many more great offensive and defensive players than there are people who are great at both.

Quote:

Quote:It depends on how far you're willing to take it. I'd say as a start, you pay counselors who are less likely to be involved in fatal shootings less than you pay officers who are more likely to be in one...

If my sister is any example, the counselors would cost way more. But I think what we are calling counselors is really just sociology and other soft BA's, and those would be cheaper than a cop. Woulod they be more effective? I think the question is would they be equally effective?

This is really going off script though. You say the counselor would cost much more for your sister, but undoubtedly 'people like her' benefit much more from being counseled than from being incarcerated. Even if she has a gun, I'd want someone to try and talk her into putting it down first... and I think someone with extra training in her situation and a personality that favors such outcomes would be better than someone with less training in that area and a personality that might equally favor shooting her because she has a gun. No different than if it were a woman and man who arrive at a rape of a woman scene, that you'd likely ask the woman to speak to the victim. They are more likely to get a better outcome.

I'm sorry but I have to be honest here... You keep wanting to get down into the granular and I don't have enough information to speak specifically about your sister or how YOU would define a 'good outcome' for her.

I think I'm being pretty clear about outcomes and probabilities. If you define outcomes and probabilities differently, that's fine... it changes the percentages but not really the process I'm talking about.

Quote:I am in general and perhaps specific agreement on drug problems. Bit when you "say putting people in better situations? ", what are those?

In my utopian ideal world, we wouldn't spend money rehabbing people and then put them right back in the same job, around the same people and places and events that led them to drugs in the first place. That can look like all sorts of things... In my ideal world, we'd end the concentration of poor people (especially minorities) in urban political fiefdoms where the new plantation is a voting district. I'm trying to avoid though getting too political here.

Quote:True. But leave a discussion of the left's agenda for another thread for now. Like a businessman being presented with a business management proposal, I keep asking "how much will it cost", "where will the money come from", and "what will be the beneficial results"?

Well, we need a study to determine those things specifically which is why I said I'm not the person to ask.... and this colorado thing is a drop in the study bucket, but at least its in the bucket.

Since you make me answer, all I can give is anecdotes.

I believe that if we took all the money we're spending on policing repetitive petty crimes as opposed to eliminating the needs to engage in those petty crimes... and arguing about whose fault it is and whether or not its racism and protesting and burning over the argument... I think that's where a lot of the money would come from. It would also come from decreased costs to enforce, because the crime rate and recidivism for many (not remotely all) crimes should be lower. It could also come from decreases in the federal 'teet' that is caused by concentrating desperation, creating high crime areas and lack of opportunity.

Again, sorry for being political for a moment, but imo, Democrats argue for investment in poor communities, but they somehow don't want that investment to result in value increases... which means it isn't really an investment at all. I don't know what you call actions that create jobs and opportunities and attract money that don't make an area more desirable and thus more expensive other than a unicorn.

For many people, we're paying for them to live for generations in sub-standard housing because they don't give a damn about the property... it's not theirs... What if instead we simply bought those who qualified a home... something they owned and could leverage to maintain or go to school or start a business just like people in the nice neighborhoods do? Put some stipulations in there about cost sharing or whatever... i.e. we took the downside but they got an increasing percentage of the upside based on numerous factors. That's a pretty radical idea and every situation would be different, but I'm betting there is a way to make that work that is better than what we're doing.

Some responses in italics then I am done.

(09-11-2020 12:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-11-2020 11:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But you are the person talking. I have little experience with 911, but from what I have seen on reality TV, they first ask who d you need - police, fire, or medical? I think after that, the numbers depend on a lot of things - judgement calls by officials, etc.

I watch a lot of British TV, and while I know that may not be the best source, it is my only source. What it appears to be s that when responding with unarmed officers, they respond in overwhelming numbers.

Sure, but you can't expect me to have so many specifics.

With hundreds of thousands of under-employed social workers, I'd say we can do the same. I think if we solve some of these issues/make them more manageable, we can fund a lot more police. The UK spends only slightly more on police as a percentage of GDP... I bet they spend a ton less on drug enforcement and incarceration. What I was trying to point out with the 10/90 comment was that they have 10 cops salaries and 90 social workers... and for the same money, we're getting 60 cops. I'm suggesting that while we probably can't get to 10/90... we can perhaps get to 40/40 with the same money (and better outcomes) as our current 60/0.

I think they spend a LOT less in incarceration, from what I have seen on TV. Shorter sentences and less people in prison. I would like to see the same here.

Quote:

Quote: The mere act of backing off and calling for back-up as opposed to trying to manage the situation on your own is precisely the sort of de-escalation I'm talking about.

. they send both people and see what happens from there. A 1-5 triage scale, somewhat like you suggested.

But they DO call for back-up. That's how 7 officers ended up with Prude, and 4 with Floyd.

The idea of sending both is why I asked about cost.

I'm not sure what I'm missing here.
1) I'm suggesting that there are situations... and I can't tell you how many but more than 0 where the actions of the cop... whether he is a racist or is having a bad day or says the wrong thing to someone with mental issues (like my 'go see your doctor' text to a BH patient) or whatever else contributes to the escalation that requires that need for back-up. Maybe not these two, but some.

2) an unarmed expert in de-escalating and an armed expert in 'control' is IMO going to be more cost effective in terms of the cost to train, plus all of the ancillary improvements in efficiency and outcomes than training two people to be experts in both. The number of sports analogies are endless here. There are many more great offensive and defensive players than there are people who are great at both.

Yes, but when a firearm IS needed, best not to have to wait 15 minutes for it to get there.]

Quote:

Quote:It depends on how far you're willing to take it. I'd say as a start, you pay counselors who are less likely to be involved in fatal shootings less than you pay officers who are more likely to be in one...

If my sister is any example, the counselors would cost way more. But I think what we are calling counselors is really just sociology and other soft BA's, and those would be cheaper than a cop. Woulod they be more effective? I think the question is would they be equally effective?

This is really going off script though. You say the counselor would cost much more for your sister, but undoubtedly 'people like her' benefit much more from being counseled than from being incarcerated.

No, I meant if we hired people with the qualifications of sister, the cost would prohibitive. BTW, she used to work for the government as a MH provider, contractually

Even if she has a gun, I'd want someone to try and talk her into putting it down first... and I think someone with extra training in her situation and a personality that favors such outcomes would be better than someone with less training in that area and a personality that might equally favor shooting her because she has a gun. No different than if it were a woman and man who arrive at a rape of a woman scene, that you'd likely ask the woman to speak to the victim. They are more likely to get a better outcome.

I'm sorry but I have to be honest here... You keep wanting to get down into the granular and I don't have enough information to speak specifically about your sister or how YOU would define a 'good outcome' for her.

I think I'm being pretty clear about outcomes and probabilities. If you define outcomes and probabilities differently, that's fine... it changes the percentages but not really the process I'm talking about.

Quote:I am in general and perhaps specific agreement on drug problems. Bit when you "say putting people in better situations? ", I do not know what specifically you mean."

In my utopian ideal world, we wouldn't spend money rehabbing people and then put them right back in the same job, around the same people and places and events that led them to drugs in the first place. That can look like all sorts of things... In my ideal world, we'd end the concentration of poor people (especially minorities) in urban political fiefdoms where the new plantation is a voting district. I'm trying to avoid though getting too political here.

I think we are in full agreement on this

Quote:True. But leave a discussion of the left's agenda for another thread for now. Like a businessman being presented with a business management proposal, I keep asking "how much will it cost", "where will the money come from", and "what will be the beneficial results"?

Well, we need a study to determine those things specifically which is why I said I'm not the person to ask.... and this colorado thing is a drop in the study bucket, but at least its in the bucket.

Since you make me answer, all I can give is anecdotes.

I believe that if we took all the money we're spending on policing repetitive petty crimes as opposed to eliminating the needs to engage in those petty crimes... and arguing about whose fault it is and whether or not its racism and protesting and burning over the argument... I think that's where a lot of the money would come from. It would also come from decreased costs to enforce, because the crime rate and recidivism for many (not remotely all) crimes should be lower. It could also come from decreases in the federal 'teet' that is caused by concentrating desperation, creating high crime areas and lack of opportunity.

Again, sorry for being political for a moment, but imo, Democrats argue for investment in poor communities, but they somehow don't want that investment to result in value increases... which means it isn't really an investment at all. Yes

I don't know what you call actions that create jobs and opportunities

I would called it the economics of Trump prior to the virus, when jobs were created and unemployment in all sectors fell.

and attract money that don't make an area more desirable and thus more expensive other than a unicorn.

For many people, we're paying for them to live for generations in sub-standard housing because they don't give a damn about the property

[/i] I used to own some Section 8 property. some care, many don't[/i]...

it's not theirs... What if instead we simply bought those who qualified a home... something they owned and could leverage to maintain or go to school or start a business just like people in the nice neighborhoods do?

OK with me. The illegal I sold a house to certainly had pride of ownership

Put some stipulations in there about cost sharing or whatever... i.e. we took the downside but they got an increasing percentage of the upside based on numerous factors. That's a pretty radical idea and every situation would be different, but I'm betting there is a way to make that work that is better than what we're doing.

Cya

There was a story making the rounds in Britain about a guy who lived in a multi-story townhouse--garage down, living quarters up. He heard a disturbance in his garage, and called the police to report a burglary. "Are they in the living quarters?" "No, just the garage." "Are all your doors locked?" "Yes." "Well, just keep them locked. We don't have anyone to send right now." Guy thinks about it a few minutes and calls back. "You need to send an ambulance ASAP. I decided to take my firearm and shoot them." Few minutes later, multiple police cars, ambulance, and fire truck show up. They apprehend the burglars, still in the garage. They say to the homeowner, "We thought you said you shot them." Homeowner replies, "I thought you said you didn't have anybody to send."

A few decades back, in addition to the War on Drugs, we had a wave of sentiment for stronger enforcement through longer prison sentences. This is the same sentiment Harris enforced in California.

If we are talking about "defunding" anybody, it should be a shifting of funds from prosecution and incarceration to enforcement. More cops, but less people in jail. Criminals are deterred more by a higher prospect of getting caught than by a small chance of a long sentence.

Which would you, as a criminal, choose, if you were contemplating a crime:

a 95% chance of getting caught for a 1 year term
or
a 5% chance of getting caught for a 10 year term?


JMHO

(09-11-2020 01:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Some responses in italics then I am done.

[quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='16987389' dateline='1599841609']


I think they spend a LOT less in incarceration, from what I have seen on TV. Shorter sentences and less people in prison. I would like to see the same here.

Porque no los dos?

Quote:
Yes, but when a firearm IS needed, best not to have to wait 15 minutes for it to get there.]

That only happens with a '1'... and it implies that the regular response time would have been 15 minutes already, so it would have happened either way. Anything other than a 1 and they're dispatched at the same time.

Quote:No, I meant if we hired people with the qualifications of sister, the cost would prohibitive. BTW, she used to work for the government as a MH provider, contractually

Ah, I see... but also part of the issue. We obviously wouldn't hire her to work in the field. Did she treat citizens, or employees?

Quote:Cya

Thanks for the chat!

(09-11-2020 01:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A few decades back, in addition to the War on Drugs, we had a wave of sentiment for stronger enforcement through longer prison sentences. This is the same sentiment Harris enforced in California.

If we are talking about "defunding" anybody, it should be a shifting of funds from prosecution and incarceration to enforcement. More cops, but less people in jail. Criminals are deterred more by a higher prospect of getting caught than by a small chance of a long sentence.

Which would you, as a criminal, choose, if you were contemplating a crime:

a 95% chance of getting caught for a 1 year term
or
a 5% chance of getting caught for a 10 year term?


JMHO

Don't disagree... and a big part of why she particularly is a joke during this time. She made her mark by putting mostly black people in jail for mostly petty crimes. Even if its just a look, its not a good look.

(09-11-2020 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There was a story making the rounds in Britain about a guy who lived in a multi-story townhouse--garage down, living quarters up. He heard a disturbance in his garage, and called the police to report a burglary. "Are they in the living quarters?" "No, just the garage." "Are all your doors locked?" "Yes." "Well, just keep them locked. We don't have anyone to send right now." Guy thinks about it a few minutes and calls back. "You need to send an ambulance ASAP. I decided to take my firearm and shoot them." Few minutes later, multiple police cars, ambulance, and fire truck show up. They apprehend the burglars, still in the garage. They say to the homeowner, "We thought you said you shot them." Homeowner replies, "I thought you said you didn't have anybody to send."

But is it true, or does it just sound true.

Look, just because it still isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't better... and of course we can learn from their mistakes. Maybe it should be 80/20 rather than 90/10. Maybe they need to keep a closer eye on trends and adjust better.

Ham -

1. she treated citizens I think, definitely not employees. But she was used to give therapy in Spanish, as one of the very few bilingual therapists available. She went to their homes by appointment, and some were in very bad parts of town (Houston), so I am not sure if illegals may have been covered. I think most of her patients were children.

Really, I just did her taxes, so I know the money she made but not who she saw or why.

2. I am thinking of the calls where somebody complains of a homeless man hanging around the neighborhood, and then the unarmed responders (of any type) get there, the homeless guy pulls a knife and comes after them.

3, Harris is on the ticket not because of her work as a prosecutor, but only because she is black(ish) and female. Defund the DA's office!!!

4. In general, I think we incarcerate too many for too long. Does an 8 year term rehabilitate an offender twice as good as a four year term? Save the prisons for the violent offenders and the incorrigible. I am for more probation/parole for a lot of people, with programs both inside and outside to teach skills, and an agency to help place released prisoners in jobs.

(09-11-2020 05:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ham -

2. I am thinking of the calls where somebody complains of a homeless man hanging around the neighborhood, and then the unarmed responders (of any type) get there, the homeless guy pulls a knife and comes after them.

Again a 1-5 triage. If you don't know, its at least a 2 if not a 3. What do they do in the UK? I didn't say the unarmed guy couldn't have a baton... I just meant no lethal force. How about pepper spray? Maybe even a tazer... but that's pushing it.

Quote:3, Harris is on the ticket not because of her work as a prosecutor, but only because she is black(ish) and female. Defund the DA's office!!!

of course she is... I'm just noting that they had other minority females they could have chosen. They quite literally chose the poster-child for a racist system.

Quote:4. In general, I think we incarcerate too many for too long. Does an 8 year term rehabilitate an offender twice as good as a four year term? Save the prisons for the violent offenders and the incorrigible. I am for more probation/parole for a lot of people, with programs both inside and outside to teach skills, and an agency to help place released prisoners in jobs.

I don't disagree, I just think its more than this. Again, with just COPS as my major reference, it seems we have lots of guys who just keep being on the radar for the police. They can't get out of the cycle because they can't stop using poor/incomplete rehab) they're now brain damaged to some degree and they're being constantly watched. Oh look, There's OO leaving Hambone's house who deals dope... let's see what he's up to! That's why I want to get people out of the communities as well. Cops do it because it works, but it doesn't really solve the problem.

(09-11-2020 06:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Oh look, There's OO leaving Hambone's house who deals dope...

First, if you are missing some dope, I didn’t take it. SODDI (some other dude did it)

Second, if they are going to follow me, they better pack a lunch. I’m slow.

Haven't dug deeper than the executive summary, but I saw this very recent study from Harvard come across the interwebs today. "Racial Disparities in the Massachusetts Criminal System."

Quote:We use regression analysis to consider several factors that may contribute to or explain the substantial disparities we document, including the defendants’ criminal history and
demographics, initial charge severity, court jurisdiction, and neighborhood characteristics. The regression analysis indicates that even after accounting for these characteristics, Black
and Latinx people are still sentenced to 31 and 25 days longer than their similarly situated White counterparts, suggesting that racial disparities in sentence length cannot solely be
explained by the contextual factors that we consider and permeate the entire criminal justice process.

Our analysis shows that one factor—racial and ethnic differences in the type and severity of initial charge—accounts for over 70 percent of the disparities in sentence length.

http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/Massa...-FINAL.pdf

(09-12-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Haven't dug deeper than the executive summary, but I saw this very recent study from Harvard come across the interwebs today. "Racial Disparities in the Massachusetts Criminal System."

Quote:We use regression analysis to consider several factors that may contribute to or explain the substantial disparities we document, including the defendants’ criminal history and
demographics, initial charge severity, court jurisdiction, and neighborhood characteristics. The regression analysis indicates that even after accounting for these characteristics, Black
and Latinx people are still sentenced to 31 and 25 days longer than their similarly situated White counterparts, suggesting that racial disparities in sentence length cannot solely be
explained by the contextual factors that we consider and permeate the entire criminal justice process.

Our analysis shows that one factor—racial and ethnic differences in the type and severity of initial charge—accounts for over 70 percent of the disparities in sentence length.

http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/Massa...-FINAL.pdf

This IS a bit of a pivot.... but my ONLY issue with this, lad... is the lack of controls.

In the analysis above, initial charge severity, criminal history and neighborhood characteristics are all things that require a value judgement... If you change those values, even by a very slight amount, it can change the outcomes. There are other things as well, like they chose 'initial charge', which makes me wonder if the final charges were meaningfully different. I mean, depending on the sample size... one person initially charged with assault... that later gets turned to murder because the person dies from the injuries... and a sentence that goes from say 5 years to 20... can easily add 25-31 days to the totals... just one person.

I spent a lifetime doing this... I'm not saying it's intentional or anything else, I'm just saying that any technical analysis that requires a value judgement of the inputs is essentially worthless/subject to the biases of the value judgements.

I absolutely have seen cold hard proof of a court that has given an unreasonably short sentence to a white kid (the california rape kid stands out)... and come down unreasonably hard on minorities (the woman Trump just pardoned)... Were those the same juries/judges? If not, then its not the system, but the people... because the system clearly gave the people the flexibility to do what they did... but the people are the ones that did it. If you're suggesting that there should be a computer formula for sentencing that controls for all these things, you're STILL going to be hampered by the relative values of the various inputs... not to mention the differences in both criminals and juries.

Different juries or judges can have different perceptions about incarceration... i.e. a 25yr old male jurist might want to give a college rapist 5 years while a 25yr old female jurist might want to give them 10, and a 50yr old father of a college daughter might want to give them 50 years and a 50yr old mother of a college son might want to give them 90 days... it goes on.

Unless you do the same statistical analysis against the juries, the analysis is incomplete. Sentencing isn't a mathematical formula. It involves juries who make those same value judgements, but without any consideration of any other sentences.

I wonder how they controlled for ineffective counsel? Or is a public defender considered the same as private counsel?

So, in response to the questions on the jury questionnaire for the Chauvin case, a juror noted that “[she] would like to give my opinion of the unjust death of George Floyd.”

Quick question: do you think she was removed from the panel 'for cause or noted bias' (trying to track the explicit charge by memory in Texas...)

Got to hand it to the Chauvin defense team -- talk about an 'Alamo' defense.

On one side -- the local Minnekawa DA isnt handling the case, but in special circumstances the Minnesota AG office is handling the affair with the local DA kind of playing 'overnite brief and response' duties. In addition to probably 20-30 attorneys in Minnesota AG criminal office.

If *that* isnt enough --- the judge mentioned today that an additional 10-12 attorneys who appear have been admitted pro hac vice --- that is they are from other jurisdictions. They include former U.S. acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal; former federal prosecutor Steven Schleicher; and Jerry Blackwell (a prominent attorney that won a posthumous pardon for a man wrongly convicted of rape in connection with the Duluth lynchings of 1920) -- all of whom apparently doing this with no fee.

Man, talk about a pile on.

Then, today, some prosecution lawyer got into with the judge about how bad it was with 'late filings' from the defense side --- this isnt like the defense is doing this with the probably 50-60 attornies going after that rope chew toy that the prosecutors enjoy.

Man, I've seen 9 figure lawsuits staffed by 1/3 of the number that the the prosecution is bringing to bear. Even with background help from the attornies for the other our defendants, there is a *massive* resources imbalance here -- even with the set imbalance that the state usually has.

defense strikes black juror


“I didn’t form an opinion on Mr. Chauvin because I didn’t know him,” the juror said. “It’s sad. It’s another Black man being murdered in police hands. That’s all I could say.”

Murdered? How can he say Floyd was MURDERED BY POLICE if he has no opinion of Chauvin's guilt?

But the activist, as usual, are saying he was rejected due to racism.

Perhaps the MOST essential qualification for being a judge or juror* is that one has not already made up one's mind.

*In the common-law tradition, at least. Revolutionary France, Bolshevik Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China and the like have a different tradition.

Apparently the sharing of actual facts is 'racist'. Fun, fun, fun.

Racist printout hung in Brown dorm, students frustrated with initial admin response

Quote:A printout of George Floyd’s toxicology report was hung beside a photo of his face on a Black History Month-themed bulletin board on the third floor of Brown dorm on Saturday.

Each compound listed on the toxicology report was underlined with a pink pen, and the person wrote notes across the top of the page insinuating that Floyd was responsible for his own death.

I would have never though in my life a toxicology report is 'racist'. But, I seem to remember the rather animated (and somewhat attacking) responses here to the news that Floyd was carrying around a very heavy (actually more than a lethal) dose of illegal pharmaceuticals.

(03-23-2021 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Apparently the sharing of actual facts is 'racist'. Fun, fun, fun.

Racist printout hung in Brown dorm, students frustrated with initial admin response

Quote:A printout of George Floyd’s toxicology report was hung beside a photo of his face on a Black History Month-themed bulletin board on the third floor of Brown dorm on Saturday.

Each compound listed on the toxicology report was underlined with a pink pen, and the person wrote notes across the top of the page insinuating that Floyd was responsible for his own death.

I would have never though in my life a toxicology report is 'racist'. But, I seem to remember the rather animated (and somewhat attacking) responses here to the news that Floyd was carrying around a very heavy (actually more than a lethal) dose of illegal pharmaceuticals.

I remember those!!!

This brouhaha at Brown is just another example of how anything that doesn't fit the narrative of "white cop + dead black man = murder" is racist.

I am very surprised no one is discussing the verdict here.