United healthcare CEO assassinated, the P&E edition {This is not a gun debate/statistics thread!}

[Pedro]

@Kimstu

In particular, the police should not be spending one red cent making advance evaluations of which murder victim is more “worthy” of having their case pursued, based on criteria like age, gender, murder location, murder method, drug-peddling history, etc. That’s a complete pointless waste of money.

How about the criteria that in my hypothetical one victim is an innocent person who died too young and belongs to an especially vulnerable class of people that need to be protected and the other victim is an amoral criminal who routinely uses violence to victimize others for personal gain? Are we allowed to use that criteria to prioritize investigative resources?

I do agree that biggest breakthrough bang for the buck is a valid criteria, just nowhere near the most important one. If it only takes spending one or two or five coins to close the case on Joe Blow, it is probably a good idea to spend those coins in detriment of other investigative resources that could be allocated to Sally.

[Der_Trihs]

@Pedro

How about the criteria that in my hypothetical one victim is an innocent person who died too young and belongs to an especially vulnerable class of people that need to be protected and the other victim is an amoral criminal who routinely uses violence to victimize others for personal gain? Are we allowed to use that criteria to prioritize investigative resources?

Considering that in real life that means that the police will (and do) simply label anyone with darker skin or less money an “amoral criminal”, not really. And demonstrably, as far as they are concerned the “especially vulnerable class of people that need to be protected” is “rich white men”.

Mind, I don’t think any amount of tweaking the rules will help when the people who are supposed to be following them are bigoted and corrupt.

[ShadowFacts]

@Cervaise

Also, assume Sally is a sphere.

golf clap

[eschereal]

@Pedro

How about the criteria that in my hypothetical one victim is an innocent person who died too young and belongs to an especially vulnerable class of people that need to be protected and the other victim is an amoral criminal who routinely uses violence to victimize others for personal gain? Are we allowed to use that criteria to prioritize investigative resources?

What you are talking about here amounts to utilitarianism. The emotional aspect attached to the cases is minimally relevant to the calulation. We do not want psychopaths inclined to torture helpless victims to death to believe that they can act with impunity, but organized crime causes broader social harm to more people than one heinous incident.
       By that measure, both cases are approximately comparable, but the public perception of the torture case is likely to force more resources to be devoted to it while the gangs involved in the other case probably should be pursued with at least equal vigor, for the greater good.
       It is not the best example for this thread, but the most important factor to consider here is publicty. The CEO’s murder gained a lot of coverage, and that is problematic. It became terrorism because the media seized on it and turned it into a major event. It could have been just another shooting in the big city, where there are a fair number of shootings in a week, but it got more coverage than the others. We do want a free press, but their coverage tends to be uneven and driven by factors that are counter-utilitarian.

[crowmanyclouds]

@eschereal

The CEO’s murder gained a lot of coverage, and that is problematic. It became terrorism because the media seized on it and turned it into a major event. It could have been just another shooting in the big city, where there are a fair number of shootings in a week, but it got more coverage than the others.

IF the CEO’s murder was just a mugging gone bad would 12-year old Sally’s rape and murder by a masked intruder be treated with more or less urgency.

History tells us much, that isn’t very palatable, about what would happen.

[Kimstu]

@Pedro

How about the criteria that in my hypothetical one victim is an innocent person who died too young and belongs to an especially vulnerable class of people that need to be protected and the other victim is an amoral criminal who routinely uses violence to victimize others for personal gain? Are we allowed to use that criteria to prioritize investigative resources?

Nope. Glad to help clarify that for you.

“Equality before the law” means what it says. The moral purity or emotional appeal of one murder victim versus another is not a legitimate criterion for allocating resources in murder investigations.

And we’re all better off because that’s the case. Imagine, for example, that your (hypothetical) teenage daughter goes out on a date for the evening and makes some unwise choices and ends up in a compromising situation in a bad part of town where she tragically gets murdered.

Do you want the (hypothetical) police deciding that because your (hypothetical) daughter was evidently some kind of delinquent little floozy, they’re going to deprioritize her murder investigation in favor of concentrating on the murder of the (hypothetical) saintly old town librarian who was slaughtered while he was trying to rescue a kitten from a brutal attack by a home invader?

People who advocate for a hierarchical approach to human rights, where some people are prioritized as intrinsically more “deserving” than others, always assume that they themselves will be high up in that hierarchy. But in the sort of system that they think they want, they’re not the ones who’ll actually get to make that call.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Kimstu

Do you want the (hypothetical) police deciding that because your (hypothetical) daughter was evidently some kind of delinquent little floozy

There are a number of US serial killers who had their ‘’‘careers’‘’ lengthened because their victims of choice were sex workers.

[Kimstu]

Another good point. When we deprioritize murder investigations whose victims are perceived as somehow “less worthy” in a moral sense, we are often making it easier for those perpetrators to continue their murderous activities.

Even if Pedro has decided that he really isn’t all that bothered, relatively speaking, about the murder of amoral violent drug dealer Joe Blow, he might feel differently about the next person Joe Blow’s unapprehended murderer decides to kill.

[DrDeth]

@Der_Trihs

Considering that in real life that means that the police will (and do) simply label anyone with darker skin or less money an “amoral criminal”

This is not true.

[Der_Trihs]

@DrDeth

This is not true.

Of course they do, they are notorious for it. And for framing crimes on people who aren’t white to support their narrative.

[Kimstu]

Sigh. D_T, Imma send you a box of verbal qualifiers for your birthday, if I knew when it was.

So many of the things you say would be perfectly reasonable if they only had a word like “often”, “many”, “sometimes”, “frequently”, “most”, etc., in a strategic location.

No, it is factually not true that “the police” (no qualifier) label “anyone” (no qualifier) with darker skin or less money an “amoral criminal”.

Do US police departments on average show significant patterns of discrimination against non-white and poor people? Yes, they unquestionably do. Is that the same thing as what you said? No.

I usually don’t bother posting these caveats about your habit of sweeping overgeneralization, but yeah, it isn’t improving the quality of discourse.

[Lumpy]

In the case of @Der_Trihs, I’m not so sure it’s overgeneralization or hyperbole but genuine belief.

[Der_Trihs]

@Kimstu

Sigh. D_T, Imma send you a box of verbal qualifiers for your birthday, if I knew when it was.

So many of the things you say would be perfectly reasonable if they only had a word like “often”, “many”, “sometimes”, “frequently”, “most”, etc., in a strategic location.

I stopped using those years ago because people kept accusing me of using “weasel words”. Then they switched to complaining about how I “talked in absolutes”. At which point I noticed the pattern and decided there was no point in caring about the nitpicking.

And in this case, what does it matter if some powerless minority of police officers aren’t racist? Black police officers have been harassed out of uniform, even. Are we supposed to never criticize the institution because they never reach an impossible 100% unanimity? Demanding an impossible standard is nothing more than an attempt to shut the conversation down.

[Pedro]

@Kimstu

Nope. Glad to help clarify that for you.

“Equality before the law” means what it says. The moral purity or emotional appeal of one murder victim versus another is not a legitimate criterion for allocating resources in murder investigations.

That’s not how it works. Equality before the law means different people accused of similar crimes in a court of law should be treated the same and receive similar outcomes, regardless of their money or influence or anything else not related to the case.

It doesn’t mean murder is murder and logic and common sense must fly out the window when assigning investigators and overtime pay to murder cases.

@Kimstu

Do you want the (hypothetical) police deciding that because your (hypothetical) daughter was evidently some kind of delinquent little floozy, they’re going to deprioritize her murder investigation in favor of concentrating on the murder of the (hypothetical) saintly old town librarian who was slaughtered while he was trying to rescue a kitten from a brutal attack by a home invader?

No I want the police to make good smart decisions, not rushed capricious judgements without any factual basis. If my son was murder victim Joe Blow killed in gang-related violence I would absolutely expect police to prioritize the murder investigation of Sally.

@Kimstu

People who advocate for a hierarchical approach to human rights, where some people are prioritized as intrinsically more “deserving” than others, always assume that they themselves will be high up in that hierarchy. But in the sort of system that they think they want, they’re not the ones who’ll actually get to make that call.

I didn’t say anything about human rights but criminals, especially violent ones, do have less value to society than upstanding law abiding citizens.

[Measure_for_Measure]

FWIW, I’ve seen less reference to, “Weasel words”, in recent years. I suspect the champion of that concept has left the board. No I don’t recall the name.

Weasel words exist when someone adds qualifiers to statements of opinion. But qualifiers are entirely appropriate when they increase the accuracy of factual claims.

“I mostly believe that aAccusations of weasel words were overblown”. Removing the qualifiers strengthens the argument.

“Too many members of group X believe in fairy tails.” Ok, I admit that “Too many” is definitely weaseling because it’s always true insofar as, “One is too many.” But like qualifiers most or even some add value.

[Dr.Drake]

You really, really don’t want authorities making assessments of the moral purity of victims. That gives a boost to racism and to classism. A lot of people already believe in the Just World theory; it is better for everyone if you’re not directing resources to follow your feelings.

[eschereal]

@Pedro

If my son was murder victim Joe Blow killed in gang-related violence I would absolutely expect police to prioritize the murder investigation of Sally.

Again, that is a non-urilitarian view of a utilitarian question. Gangs are more broadly damaging to society than one psychopath and should have at least equal resources devoted to stopping them.

[We_re_wolves_not_werewolves]

@Der_Trihs

And in this case, what does it matter if some powerless minority of police officers aren’t racist? Black police officers have been harassed out of uniform, even. Are we supposed to never criticize the institution because they never reach an impossible 100% unanimity? Demanding an impossible standard is nothing more than an attempt to shut the conversation down.

the problem is that you make absolute statements when even a generalized statement wouldn’t be accurate. There is absolute NO evidence that the majority of police officers are racist. Please provide a reputable cite for this. You make random proclamations of outrageous claims and then try to justify them by saying you will just get accused of using “weasel words” if you don’t.

[Kimstu]

@Pedro

Equality before the law means different people accused of similar crimes in a court of law should be treated the same and receive similar outcomes, regardless of their money or influence or anything else not related to the case.

Equality before the law doesn’t only apply within a courtroom. It’s a fundamental principle meaning that all people are equally entitled to the protection of the law, in its application and its enforcement.

You are essentially arguing that the murderer of a drug dealer is intrinsically more entitled to get away with his crime than the murderer of a pre-teen girl. That’s not equality before the law.

@Pedro

No I want the police to make good smart decisions, not rushed capricious judgements without any factual basis. If my son was murder victim Joe Blow killed in gang-related violence I would absolutely expect police to prioritize the murder investigation of Sally.

In other words, you want the police to prioritize murder investigations based on their opinions of the moral worth of the victims, as long as their opinions on the subject agree with yours.

If the police think your (hypothetical) son Joe Blow was a shady drug dealer and you agree with them, then you’re okay with the police deprioritizing the investigation of his murder. If the police think your (hypothetical) teenage daughter was a delinquent little floozy and you don’t agree with them, then you object to their deprioritizing the investigation of her murder, because you assume that their assessment is a “rushed capricious judgement”.

Can you see how potentially subjective and debatable this line of reasoning is? And how wasteful it would be to have to get everybody agreeing on the moral worth of a murder victim before the police could decide whether to investigate their murder?

In the long run, as I said, it’s better and more efficient for everybody if the baseline assumption is just “murder is murder”.

@Pedro

I didn’t say anything about human rights

You sure did: equal protection under the law, including the equality of assuming that someone’s not more entitled to literally get away with murder because their victim happened to have a criminal conviction, is most definitely a human-rights issue.

@Pedro

but criminals, especially violent ones, do have less value to society than upstanding law abiding citizens.

And we as a society can express that value judgement by not electing those criminals to be mayor (or for that matter, President), by refusing to admit them into our social circles, by not hiring them to do their criminal activities, by not putting up statues to them, and by denying them all sorts of other forms of recognition of social value and esteem. And also, most importantly, by legally convicting and punishing them for their crimes, in accordance with the provisions of our criminal code.

But we should not express that value judgement by unequal application of the law, such as treating the murder of criminals as more allowable and less punishable than the murder of non-criminals.

[Kimstu]

@Der_Trihs

Are we supposed to never criticize the institution because they never reach an impossible 100% unanimity? Demanding an impossible standard is nothing more than an attempt to shut the conversation down.

False dichotomy. It’s perfectly possible to criticize an institution for the overall trends of its behavior, as when I noted above that “US police departments on average show significant patterns of discrimination against non-white and poor people”, without making qualifier-free claims that imply that literally all members of an institution are engaging in that behavior.