site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   3639 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 23, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm interested in seeing the for and against for the argument that "crime is a result of social deprivation and social workers are a better use of money than police for solving it". The only arguments I can muster up in favour of policing are common sense ones which don't (though they should) pass muster in online debates.

Caveat: I want to either use this information to win internet arguments or concede the point in my own head and stop starting that argument altogether.

Social work instead of policing is a false premise to begin with. They aren't substitutes - that's the point and the whole problem.

Policing is about addressing (swiftly) and preventing (through disciplined proactive action) violent or otherwise extremely damaging anti-social behavior. It's very immediate and constant. Social work is more oriented proactive and cooperative skill building and promoting pro-social behaviors.

A good analogy is to use the cousins of Police, firefighters. Firefighters (putting aside their EMT roles for a moment) is about stopping a fire immediately and quickly (hoses etc.) Additionally, fire departments have to proactively prevent fires by requiring buildings to be up to code. The whole point is about stopping fires, not about building new buildings or fixing up older ones that just need a little paint and spackle.

If you run over to me and go "oh my god, my house is on fire!" and my first response is "Well, let's pick up the trash in your yard, repaint the walls, and plant some new trees!" You're going to be furious. That is exactly, however, the argument for "social workers instead of cops."

I've always thought of it more on the marginal $$$ level.

EG, LA has a 11,800,000,000 dollar police budget. Did that last billion really buy any more crime reduction? What about the tenth billion? The Ninth?

That said, we will always need the pigs around. Some dudes really do just want to dress up as clowns and eat people. Can't social work your way out of that one.

Did that last billion really buy any more crime reduction?

Definitely not. We're in a strange situation in cities like Seattle (assume LA is similar) where the police were not really defunded, but have become essentially defanged. We are still spending obscene amounts of money on police but not getting the crime reduction we should be.

On the other hand, lack of value for money is not the worst-case scenario. Might we consider that spending more money on social workers could actually increase crime? Certainly, there is an argument that it's had that effect on homelessness.

Social work instead of policing is a false premise to begin with. They aren't substitutes.

I think there is a small bit of overlap. For instance, if someone is engaging in anti-social but not arrestable behavior the police often provide information/encouragement on social worker resources available to them (such as referring them to the homeless shelter or to a mental health facility). Police also do things like have public events and engage with the public to get feedback about what is happening in the neighborhoods. They understand who many of the repeat-offenders are and might know their backstory much like a social worker would know about their patients backgrounds after working with them for a while.

Imagine a hypothetical world where the US has universal mental health care and adequate supply of therapists. In that world it is conceivable that there might be less crime and therefore less money would need to be spent on policing.

When police have to prevent crime by making an arrest then the rest of the criminal justice system processes the arrest ultimately leading to a punishment to the person arrested if they are found guilty. At various stages of this process you can add an off-ramp from the criminal justice system to the social work system. Example: instead of going to trial you could give someone the option to go to rehab and be monitored by a social worker for a while. If they successfully complete the alternate punishment then the system theoretically won't have to police them on that issue in the future.

Imagine a hypothetical world where the US has universal mental health care and adequate supply of therapists

Since we're in the small-scale questions thread: has anyone actually come up with a number for the "adequate supply of therapists", given America's rising mental health issues?

Like, how much would one have to spend to actually eliminate the gap? Seems like an ever-moving target.

You are correct and I agree.

The image or function I had in my head was the 1-for-1 swapping of police for social work. That's what led to my lead-off assertion. Police certainly do de facto social work and I wouldn't call that a blatant misuse of them as a civic resource.

I also enjoy your point that the larger criminal justice system is often dysfunctional and can lead to good deeds going punished. A police might recommend to the DA that little timmy not be thrown in jail, but that same DA is facing a tough reelection in a "tough on crime" jurisdiction and throws the book at little timmy. Flip it around and you have what literally happened in Baltimore over the past several years where the DA declined to prosecute illegal firearms charges (with solid evidence) because of .... something.

I guess that's a good angle to consider. If we did flood the streets with social workers, how would that alter the criminal justice system of them? Would DAs bemoan the lack of casework coming their way? Would Cops only do the paperwork on the really violent crimes and let the middle-ground stuff (theft, possession with intent) just go into the ether? Pondering @Ponder's comment.

I think there is maybe a world where the argument makes sense.

If you've ever seen good will hunting, imagine every troubled youth had a therapist/helper like Robin Williams' character.

You could probably cut out a lot of crime with an army of competent caring people. This is probably what people imagine when they make the suggestion.

They maybe just think this is way cheaper than all of us think. So it comes down to haggling about costs and prices.

I would expect neither answer to be generally true.

(1) For example if people are stealing food because they are starving to death then distributing food would be an obviously good idea.

(2) If someone runs around with weapon and threatens to kill themselves/hostages/whoever then negotiation is likely a better idea than just charging with tanks like in Beslan school siege (or nerve gas like in Dubrovka Theater). Though combining both would work even better, and negotiations without threat of deadly force would be unlikely to work well. Except people on pure psychotic break I guess.

(3) If someone runs over pedestrians for fun then locking them up is an obviously good idea.

In typical sort-of-working country cases of the (1) type and (2) are rarer than (3).

The only arguments I can muster up in favour of policing are common sense ones which don't (though they should) pass muster in online debates.

If someone claims that gang of people systematically breaking in and stealing all valuable stuff would be solved if social worker would talk with them, then someone is really confused.

If someone claims that gang of people systematically breaking in and stealing all valuable stuff would be solved if social worker would talk with them, then someone is really confused.

Well the claim is usually that if there had been some type of non-policing interventions earlier in life than it never would have gotten to this point.

Well, but we do not have time travel.

So even if that would be true and would be used then criminals are capable of travelling from places where such ideal methods were not used.

So even if such methods would be 100% effective it is not changing that in some cases you will need to arrest people and jail/imprison them.

Also, no know methods fully preventing criminality exist anyway. Or at least they are not in use anywhere.

crime is a result of social deprivation and social workers are a better use of money than police for solving it

I would slightly incline towards "the first part of this sentence is in part true" but the second part is "oh hell no" after yet another anecdote from work involving druggie parents, kids, and social workers.

Before getting started: this is what a small town is like - everybody knows your business.

Okay, so: childcare service. Separated (if ever married in the first place) parents. Mother has a drug habit, and maybe a new drug-dealer boyfriend. Father isn't that great situation himself, but he is trying and he does want to be responsible for the kid - I'm not sure if he has custody or not. Everybody is what I suppose would be called the underclass, or maybe dad is working class if he can get/has a job.

Mother promises that this time, for sure, she will come and pick up the kid from daycare. Uh-huh, right.

Collection time is coming, and one of the service managers is on the bus to Da City (not a big city, but it's our county capital). And she rings the service about "Didn't A say she was picking up Kid today? Well, she's all dressed up, on the bus going to Da City, and is with a guy who could be her dealer".

Three guesses as to whether she ever turned up to collect the kid.

Dad can complain all he likes to the social worker handling the case about things like this, and about mom doing drugs (including stuff like coke) around the kid. Reply? "Sure, drugs are normal nowadays".

So that is why (1) I would like to know what the fuck they are teaching them in college before they turn them loose into the real world (2) yeah my arse social workers are going to be better than cops and (3) the next time somebody bangs on about decriminalising/legalising Fun Party Harmless Substances, they should be made stand in front of a crying five year old to explain "It's your mother's natural human right to prioritise getting and using Fun Party Harmless Substances over taking care of you, and you have no right to try and impose your morals on her with "don't you love me, mommy?"

Rant over.

Theoretical drug policy has been a hobbyhorse of mine lately so I’m going to push back a little on a few parts of your comment.

the next time somebody bangs on about decriminalising/legalising Fun Party Harmless Substances, they should be made stand in front of a crying five year old

Coke is illegal now and the bad outcome still happened. The law did not prevent the mom from using drugs and causing bad outcomes for her child. In this example Coke being illegal makes the situation worse because the mom faces stigma and potential legal consequences for using coke that make it harder to dig out of the hole (such as making it harder to find jobs/shelter if convicted of drug possession).

Now you might say making coke legal would make the bad outcome more prevalent but some people are just bad parents and will mess up their child regardless of what the laws are. Instead of being a cokehead they become an alcoholic. If alcohol was illegal they would find some other form of escapism such as getting high off chemicals from the hardware store or gambling.

But the thing that frustrates me most about drug debates is this tendency to group all illegal drugs together and make arguments that they should be treated the same (either legal or illegal). This prevents us from having any sort of sensible drug policy if we group all the Schedule 1 substance together and then apply the same laws to them. Some should be legal, some should be legal only under the supervision of medical professional, some should remain illegal. The ones that mess up more lives should be treated more harshly than the other ones.

Going through some of the main drugs:

  • Marijuana should be legal and treated similar to how alcohol is.
  • The psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin) are medicines that allow people to quit more dangerous drugs like alcohol. They can inspire users to invent things, become more connected with the world, or feel a greater sense of purpose. They are non-addictive and physically safer than other drugs. Psychedelics should be legal.
  • MDMA has a track record of being used successfully in conjunction with therapy. It is showing promising results in clinical trials for PTSD. However, it is addictive and can be physically dangerous in high doses (serotonin syndrome, high blood pressure). It should be legal under medical supervision and follow a similar model as Ketamine therapy.
  • Coke/Meth/Opioids – These are the ones that seems to ruin the most lives and cause the most problems. They should remain on Schedule I/II and not be used outside of their current medically accepted uses.
  • All the other Schedule 1 drugs – I’m not informed enough on but they should probably stay illegal because they are physically dangerous/addictive.

Mostly concur, but would like to add a dose of your own (well stated!) nuance.

I don't like the bright line distinction between "legal" drug and "illegal drug." The fact of the matter is that while it is easy to say "hey, if we all just use drugs safely and don't put ourselves in the position to harm others, we can legalize all but the most chemically addictive / mind altering," there is going to he a HUGE percentage of the population that just can't adhere to those guardrails and, worse, will cause disproportionate negative impact to the rest of society. It can't just be 0-or-100 legal versus illegal for substances. I much prefer the illegal-decriminalized-legal spectrum, as well as penalties on associated behaviors.

The best example is alcohol. If I'm hammered inside of a bar (legal) and then go outside, I'm now drunk in public. This is anywhere from a fine to misdemeanor offense in most jurisdictions but, most importantly, is often not aggressively enforced. It's used as an automatic gotcha when someone who is technically drunk in public starts engaging in antisocial behavior; accosting passers by, opening urinating / defecating, dangerous pedestrian conduct around traffic etc. For most people who just sort of stumble home - even if they're truly wasted - they probably won't catch the charge.

So, for substances like weed, psychedelics, MDMA, I'd like to see something similar and heavily tilted towards fines instead of "on your permanent record!" charges. Let's say you take some mushrooms and stare at your hand in the park for hours. Cool, guy. Have fun. But if you take a bunch of mushrooms and run around naked and shouting, I'd like to see not only the disorderly conduct charge, but also something along the lines of "psychedlic safety fine." This goes towards sending a signal - and imposing a real material cost - that might modulate the behavior of marginal users (hardcore addicts / abusers is a different story and I acknowledge that ... as should we all). If you're on the borderline between problem usage and harmless recreation fun, I really want there to be a feedback loop for you to conclude, "every time I take mushrooms, I get a ticket, a summons, and it costs be $300 extra bucks. I can't keep afford to act this way.)

I haven't totally thought through the second order effects of these ideas, so if I've missed an obvious anti-pattern, I'll wipe the egg off my face.

I like the idea of a “psychedelic safety fine”. You could even design it so that it escalates if you get repeat offenses. Maybe on the first offense the fine is very small and you have to take a drug education course. Then if you get fined again it goes up to $500 and any future offenses would increase in dollar amount.

As you have noticed there is a lot of nuance and things to be worked out when it comes to psychedelic policy. One other thing I think about a lot is how to you encourage people to take psychedelics with a sober trip sitter? I think that would prevent a lot of the bad outcomes, but at the same time there are many people who can take psychedelics without a trip sitter and not experience any problems.

For now I’m just in favor in anything that moves psychedelics directionally toward decriminalization or legalization. There will be many things to optimize as the legal status changes.

If psychedelics become legal here are some other policy optimization considerations:

  • Affordable access – If psychedelics can only be done in clinical settings and insurers don’t cover the cost then how do you make it affordable for those in need?
  • What to do about things like Peyote and the Sonoran Desert toad that produce psychedelic compounds but are in danger of being overharvested. Synthetic analog compounds exist so maybe different policies are needed from an environmental conversation perspective.

It seems like "getting idiot social workers out of the decision loop" is the obvious solution to this scenario.

Your point (3) could be applied ten times over to alcohol.

social workers are a better use of money than police for solving it

Arguments for: It is more humane than locking people up and fining people for their anti-social behavior. In some cases it will be more effective than policing (If someone gets proper treatment for a mental health disorder it will prevent the anti-social behavior. This is more effective than processing them through the criminal justice system because it addresses the underlying cause of the anti-social behavior. If you don’t address the underlying cause of the behavior they may keep reoffending in spite of the legal consequences).

Arguments against: Look at San Francisco where social deprivation policing is way more lenient than it is in a more conversative city. If you don’t use police to deter social depravity crimes then more people will commit those crimes.

If we look at a wide cohort of “the socially deprived”, ie those who live in poverty and from single-parent homes, we see enormous differences in criminality according to ethnicity and subculture. If you compare two groups, both socially deprived, the Chinese immigrant or Indian immigrant is going to something like 1/50th as likely to be criminal than a Black American. They may be both socially deprived, they may live in the same neighborhood, but one group is going to be much more likely to be criminal, which means that “extent socially deprived” does not predict criminality. You can do this same analysis across nations. There are socially deprived teens in Japan and China; when you look at their criminality rate, it is nothing like Black American teens.

Next, we have to consider whether at-risk teens actually use the services offered to them such that we would expect if they desired improvement of character. This is surely not the case. The teens shooting each other in gangs do not take out books from the library or use any of the hundreds of thousands of resources they could access on a public library computer or device.

Finally, we can examine the actual soul of the criminal teens and young adults. Who are their idols and what do they value? Criminal rappers, and crime. No amount of “services offered” can change a culture that loves being criminals. Or rather, no one is willing to launch a real propaganda effort to manipulate the teens into hating crime / criminals and competing prosocially. I bet a Batman movie is going to be a better risk mitigation strategy than tens of millions of dollars in services the academics can cook up.

Would you not suspect that social deprivation as a construct is itself multidimensional, and therefore very difficult to track across different cultures (e.g. the China and India you mention?) Yes, there are troubled teens in Japan, but the similarity of their experiences to the experiences of Black Americans is probably not that major in various ways, as tempting as it may be to make the analogy.

those who live in poverty and from single-parent homes, we see enormous differences in criminality according to ethnicity and subculture. If you compare two groups, both socially deprived, the Chinese immigrant or Indian immigrant is going to something like 1/50th as likely to be criminal than a Black American

By that metric Chinese immigrants are very unlikely to be socially deprived- few of them live in single parent houses.

Cool rhetorical trick, calling poor Black boys raised by single mothers “socially deprived.” I’d argue these kids are the most socialized by their peers, who pass down toxic masculinity through their culture of guns, gangs, grifting, and seeing the police as just a gang keeping the wypeepo’s stuff safe.

Bill Cosby tried to change the culture, but the people who overlook the sex crimes of Roman Polanski, Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen, and Bill Clinton decided that this comedian would be the one they’d ruin.

Note that "crime is a result of social deprivation" does not necessarily imply that "social workers are a better use of money than police for solving it". My deprivation might enormously increase my propensity to burglarize cars, yet I probably will refrain from doing so if there is a cop on every block.

OTOH, there are declining returns to all uses of resources, so there is presumably a level of policing at which hiring one more cop will have less effect than hiring one more social worker. The trick is figuring out what level that is.

And reverse, social worker may be a good idea even if crime is a result of something else. Often combined with police, see hostage taking situations.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats