Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VaccumSaturdays t1_ivfwvpq wrote

Reply to comment by NetQuarterLatte in Left Unmonitored In His Cell, He Etched His Suicide Note Into a Wall On Rikers Island by hau5keeping

That article you’d posted is gross. Here’s a realistic, eloquent, smart response to it.

Your political bias is showing. And it’s scary. No matter how many awards your posts are showered with. We also know where those originate, by the way.

21

HEIMDVLLR t1_ivg1vr7 wrote

> Your political bias is showing. And it’s scary. No matter how many awards your posts are showered with. We also know where those originate, by the way.

FACTS!

This the same clown that made post about removing Alvin Braggs by any means. Ignoring the fact that Braggs was elected by the communities that watch friends and family members suffer on Rikers Island because they can’t post bail.

9

NetQuarterLatte t1_ivg78zm wrote

>This the same clown that made post about removing Alvin Braggs by any means.

Any attorney in NY can be fired for any reason, at any time. Firing the DA should be no different than firing any other attorney in NY, considering that the district is the client here.

District voters should have the right to express their will to fire the DA.

The lack of such right is causing a distortion in our elections. If Manhattan had the right to vote for that, it would be a heck lot easier for people to vote for Hochul.

−1

HEIMDVLLR t1_ivg9t2z wrote

Remind me why Manhattan residents that don’t like Alvin Braggs, didn’t vote against him?

4

shamam t1_ivgwuyc wrote

Isn't this is first term? Were we supposed to predict the future?

0

HEIMDVLLR t1_ivh6n4x wrote

You think he didn’t campaign or promote his bail-reform agenda? What he’s doing as Manhattan DA, is exactly what he ran on.

4

princessnegrita t1_ivhbcom wrote

Thanks for linking this!

I also looked into the article and I saw an old professor of mine (who literally wrote one of the most cited recent books on criminal justice AND has extensive experience working with people in Rikers) called their ideas nonsense and a waste of resources.

2

VaccumSaturdays t1_ivhoe20 wrote

Absolutely my pleasure. It’s wild this article came from the minds of Harvard folks, and was actually published

1

princessnegrita t1_ivkjmq5 wrote

I’m gonna get a bit nerdy because social science is my field (which feels really weird to say). There’s been a focus on quantitative statistical methods in social science to “legitimize” the research and it’s been a disservice.

Basically, social science journals prioritize publishing this kind of research, so schools prioritize teaching these particular research methods. It becomes less about actually trying to explain the world around us as a complex interconnected beast than about isolating one particular issue, disregarding the complexities (because that’s too difficult to calculate) and trying to use stats to make an argument.

In the article linked, the professors do exactly that and simply dismiss the complexities of policing in the US because it fucks up their models and their arguments.

1

NetQuarterLatte t1_ivg5sz6 wrote

I saw the twitter threat. There's a lot of fear-mongering in his retorts filled with "anti-cop" political agenda.

Filtering out the fear-mongering/political stuff, the main logical gap in the counter-argument from Alec Karakatsanis is that he's trying to count any law-enforcement as "police". We all know that the typical border patrol officer is not investigating murder cases in our communities, for example.

The second gap: he points out the undercounting of "private police" as problem in the study. It's actually the other way around: the emergence of "private police" only bolsters the study argument that many locations in the US are severely under-policed.

1

VaccumSaturdays t1_ivg84yb wrote

I think the fear mongering is the entire length of your post and comment history.

Thank you, good night.

1

Rottimer t1_ivhc5zy wrote

>The professor then admitted privately over email that the U.S. census count is actually 1,227,788 police. That’s 76% higher than the number they chose to use in their public article. What’s the significance of this? Using this number, they admitted to me, would mean the U.S. truthfully has “1.1 times the median rate in rich countries.”

I mean, that's fairly devastating to your argument if you're using that as a source. And while you poo poo counting border patrol, or the FBI as law enforcement, the authors in the article you linked don't make that distinction for other countries either.

1

NetQuarterLatte t1_ivhpdo3 wrote

>The professor then admitted privately over email that the U.S. census count is actually 1,227,788 police.

It took me 5 minutes to figure out that the 1.2M figure includes police and correctional officers.

The BLS currently indicates:

  • 808,200 Police and Detectives [1]
  • 419,000 Correctional Officers and Bailiffs [2]

Which adds to 1,227,200. That's obviously counting the head-count of policing and incarceration personnel, which is exactly what the cited article is aiming to separate.

Alec Karakatsanis is just being sloppy and hasty in trying to push his political agenda, and making himself look intellectually dishonest in the process.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/police-and-detectives.htm

[2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/correctional-officers.htm

2