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
It’s intuitive and true that poor homes and neighborhoods are going to house more crime. Now, is the solution to arrest them and send them to jail for long periods of time? I don’t know. Arguing that the poor aren’t more susceptible to crime is a losing battle though.

>>jimbob+no
> It’s intuitive and true that poor homes and neighborhoods are going to house more crime.

I challenge your assumption. To me it seems intuitive that crimes are committed at higher rates by the socioeconomically advantaged, because they can get away with it.

See for example that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the general population.

https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-immigrants-crime-assessing...