zlacker

>>pseudo+(OP)
This doesn't seem to make sense. By more accurately predicting where crimes will occur, the police departments can reduce the amount of patrols needed.

>>koheri+9e
Except this is not how it works. We are not accurately predicting where crimes will occur, but maximizing the amounts of arrests.

Indeed, sending a police patrol will only catch the kind of crime that happens in socio-economically disadvantaged communities, which in turn contributes to skewing the data to suggest that more crimes there, which leads to more policing, which leads to more crime, and so on.

Meanwhile, wage theft, over twice the size of all other kinds of theft put together, keeps growing year after year.

Police patrols should be entirely reactive, and not proactive. Proactive policing does not work.

>>sudosy+Zh
This is false. Socio-economically disadvantaged areas genuinely have more crime than elsewhere. They require more policing as a result. Without more policing, the crime problems get worse not better. Your sort of thinking has been tried out with disastrous results in cities throughout the US. It is actively harming law abiding citizens living in poor communities.

Policing is not causing crime. People committing crime is causing crime.

>>retort+ak
I think it's disingenuous to say this in absolute terms. Simply by pointing out that poor people many times can't bail themselves out before a hearing, and suffer all the consequences (like lost job, lost home) that come with that, is proof that the system is at least to a degree stacked against poor people.