I’m not sure your Ideological Turing Test really captures the essence of the article. The key conclusion isn’t just that civilians can’t fully replace traditional police, it’s that (this piece of) the evidence doesn’t support the activists’ claims that there is any aspect of policing which should be de-policed. Presumably the target audience is anyone who might have otherwise believed the suggestions in the other referenced articles that this de-policing policy was beneficial.
I don’t like the possible implication that unhoused individuals are more prone to violence.
Is this not true? My very quick googling (1)(2) suggests homeless people are disproportionately violent, and I would guess the problem is worse among those not using shelters, as being violent or abusing drugs might have been the reason they were kicked out. Given the demographics of the homeless it would be pretty surprising if they were not more prone to violence than the average person.
I think you’re right that my Turing Test doesn’t capture the full extent of the author’s implications, but I’m not sure I agree on your reframing.
Given the headline and the phrase, “unarmed civilian alternatives will always be reliant on the police as a backup,” I can see how the article is implying that mental health responders might not replace police at all (if police are equally effective). However, the author also suggests that “it [B-HEARD] frees up cops’ time to focus on fighting crime” which reads to me as reducing police presence in specific cases (i.e. the MH calls that B-HEARD would be taking).
Agree on the target audience—I was too blinded by my bubble to consider that a significant audience!
It also makes sense to me that unhoused individuals are statistically more likely to have a violent history. I didn’t consider that some individuals might have been barred from shelters—I was very much pulling from priors of individuals voluntarily refusing to enter NYC shelters—and so that is a fair point!
My comment was not that the implication is not true but rather, that it’s not a very insightful or helpful point. To me, it’s akin to citing statistics showing that Black people commit crimes at higher rates, which seems disingenuous given that the clearer statistical relationship is between socioeconomic status and crime.
To me, it’s akin to citing statistics showing that Black people commit crimes at higher rates, which seems disingenuous given that the clearer statistical relationship is between socioeconomic status and crime.
I don’t understand this comparison. If there’s a clear statistical relationship between socioeconomic status and crime, isn’t the implication that unhoused status is correlated with criminal behavior making use of exactly that relationship? It’s hard to think of a more effective proxy for socioeconomic status than not having a place to live.
I’m not sure your Ideological Turing Test really captures the essence of the article. The key conclusion isn’t just that civilians can’t fully replace traditional police, it’s that (this piece of) the evidence doesn’t support the activists’ claims that there is any aspect of policing which should be de-policed. Presumably the target audience is anyone who might have otherwise believed the suggestions in the other referenced articles that this de-policing policy was beneficial.
Is this not true? My very quick googling (1) (2) suggests homeless people are disproportionately violent, and I would guess the problem is worse among those not using shelters, as being violent or abusing drugs might have been the reason they were kicked out. Given the demographics of the homeless it would be pretty surprising if they were not more prone to violence than the average person.
Thanks for reading + responding! Some responses:
I think you’re right that my Turing Test doesn’t capture the full extent of the author’s implications, but I’m not sure I agree on your reframing.
Given the headline and the phrase, “unarmed civilian alternatives will always be reliant on the police as a backup,” I can see how the article is implying that mental health responders might not replace police at all (if police are equally effective). However, the author also suggests that “it [B-HEARD] frees up cops’ time to focus on fighting crime” which reads to me as reducing police presence in specific cases (i.e. the MH calls that B-HEARD would be taking).
Agree on the target audience—I was too blinded by my bubble to consider that a significant audience!
It also makes sense to me that unhoused individuals are statistically more likely to have a violent history. I didn’t consider that some individuals might have been barred from shelters—I was very much pulling from priors of individuals voluntarily refusing to enter NYC shelters—and so that is a fair point!
My comment was not that the implication is not true but rather, that it’s not a very insightful or helpful point. To me, it’s akin to citing statistics showing that Black people commit crimes at higher rates, which seems disingenuous given that the clearer statistical relationship is between socioeconomic status and crime.
I don’t understand this comparison. If there’s a clear statistical relationship between socioeconomic status and crime, isn’t the implication that unhoused status is correlated with criminal behavior making use of exactly that relationship? It’s hard to think of a more effective proxy for socioeconomic status than not having a place to live.