this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
11 points (92.3% liked)

Socialism

2843 readers
2 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.


Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] bluegreenzeros@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't fine this article very persuasive. While I don't doubt there's problems with the database or similar, it having an over representation minorities isn't surprising considering the socioeconomic factors that cause organized crime are much more prevalent in minority communities. The part where they discuss increased use of less lethal force to me could be more easily ascribed to racism and prejudice than the database itself.

I very easily could have missed something, but after reading other articles on it, it seems even worse than this article portrays it. Eg: folks being denied jobs and housing due to inclusion in the database, or an audit finding only 1.3 thousand people in the database were rightfully there in a database of 32 thousand people!!!

Good riddance.

[โ€“] millie@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

There are a couple of lines in there indicating that it also wasn't very accurate as to who is in what gang, sometimes listing the same person in opposing gangs. Given that it seems to indicate that cops can just add people to the list, I'd guess there are people on it who aren't actually affiliated.

It could have gone into more detail, but I do think it points out that the lists are inaccurate. It just focuses mostly on the impact rather than demonstrating that beyond a couple of lines.