This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How does stop-and-frisk help solve murders? By harvesting fingerprints?
I mean to start with stop-and-frisk worked well in NYC until the NYPD stopped it as a civil rights violation. It’s reasonable to assume that it works in London too.
But more to the point, I’d expect that it’s coupled with a lot of additional measures. Upthread there’s a discussion of a gang database- in the US the use of gang databases in serious crime prevention gets floated every once in a while and shot down for civil liberties reasons, because having bad friends and suspicious habits is not illegal. In the UK it presumably isn’t either, but looser probable cause rules related to such things plausibly make evidence collection much easier. And that’s just one example.
More options
Context Copy link
Stop and frisk is a tiny part of the puzzle, the UK has vast surveillance powers over its populace and a huge amount of infrastructure to support it.
Watch any UK crime drama and they basically have to invent unrealistic reasons for their multiple layers of CCTV, Internet snooping, etc. have all fallen through the cracks for a particular case. It's kind of hilarious.
I think you could make an incredibly good show revolving around some evil Ed Snowden equivalent who knows all about the CCTV/surveillance system and uses it to construct incredibly tight alibis etc in order to commit a series of murders. You get to have the conflict between the hardened old detective with a distrust for the new high-tech methods, arrogant political appointees claiming the Panopticon is infallible, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it’s also somewhat a preventative measure. It puts potential criminals on notice that the cops are present and active in a given area, thus it’s more dangerous to carry drugs or a weapon in that area. This would naturally lower the rate of drug related crimes and murders.
I think that even with “potential abuses” stop and frisk and broken windows work well enough to be well worth the trade offs. The entire community benefits when ordinary people can walk in their city without fear of street crime or gunfire.
I don't think it is particularly useful to combine stop and frisk with broken windows. The latter is simply the enforcement of law, while the former is, often, the violation of law. (eg: In NYC "[b]etween January 2004 and June 2012, the NYPD conducted over 4.4 million Terry stops. . . .52% of all stops were followed by a protective frisk for weapons. A weapon was found after 1.5% of these frisks. In other words, in 98.5% of the 2.3 million frisks, no weapon was found.". Given that police are permitted to frisk only when they have reasonable suspicion that a detained person is armed,* the police were clearly engaging in widespread Fourth Amendment violations.
And, while it is perfectly true that "[t]he entire community benefits when ordinary people can walk in their city without fear of street crime or gunfire[,]" one can say that of most civil liberties. "It is OK to violate the civil liberties of a small number of people if the community benefits" is a recipe for the complete evisceration of civil liberties.** It is certainly the rationale that has been given in the past for the evisceration of civil liberties.
*Though if Justice Scalia had had his way, they would not be able to frisk without probable cause, a higher bar. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (concurring opinion)
**Obviously Including, given this particular rationale, Second Amendment rights.
I think there’s a faulty assumption here in the sense that I don’t think the actual discovery of weapons in a stop and frisk is nearly as important as the show of force S&F represents. There are more efficient ways to find contraband. However the show of force, the fact that cops are making a point to stop people likely known to police as troublesome serves as a strong deterrent to carrying weapons or contraband around.
Yes, I understood that to be your point. It is obvious that a show of illegal force will result in fewer people carrying weapons, and hence less crime.
I mentioned the low percentage of frisks that resulted in the discovery of weapons merely to demonstrate that the NYPD was conducting illegal frisks. If they had been only frisking when they had a reasonable suspicion that the detained person was armed, they would have found weapons more frequently.
But I don’t see that you have addressed the central objection that I raised, which is that your argument that it is ok to ignore the civil liberties of individuals if doing so will benefit the broader society is a recipe for having no civil liberties at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and DNA if the frisk leads to an arrest on a lesser crime. That is a big part of why police do stop and frisks. See the oral argument in Maryland v. King, which okayed taking DNA from arrestees, where the Maryland AG said, "Since 2009, when Maryland began to collect DNA samples from arrestees charged with violent crimes and burglary, there had been 225 matches, 75 prosecutions and 42 convictions, including that of Respondent King." King's crime was rape FWIW.
PS: Note that this not meant to be an argument in favor of stop and frisk, which is far too subject to abuse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link