Chicago: 12 hours, 1 neighborhood, 7 murders

[Belsnickel]

(04-01-2017, 06:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is exactly what I said when addressing these percentages earlier

I know, I just wanted to reiterate that point for some people. Sometimes a point like that does well coming from both sides of the spectrum.

(04-01-2017, 06:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're smart enough to know that the effectiveness can be manipulated to support the view of those posting them.

For example how many people would be surprised to find that a study by the ACLU found the practice to be ineffective?

Conversely look what Heather MacDonald has to say about the exact same data:

What percentage of success rate do we place on whether it is effective? 10/20/30/40.......

As I've said: If no one's rights are violated and (conceding the ineffective point) the procedure results in only a handful of ciminals being arrested for their crimes.  What isthere to complain about?

Effectiveness can of course be manipulated, that's what policy analysis is all about. Tying outcomes to inputs is a difficult thing and one that can be very subjective. This difficulty in tying in outcomes to policies is why you can have the conflicting analyses. Being that stop-and-frisk was only one part of the proactive policing strategies in NYC it would be hard to actually ascertain the effectiveness of that one component. My perception was based on the graphs Sunset provided only showing a brief period of stop-and-frisk with a longer trend of a decrease in violence. This would be why I specified my statement as surface level.

All of that being said, you state that no one's rights are being violated, but how do you know that for certain? The moving and subjective goalpost of reasonable suspicion is difficult, and many people who would be in that situation and had their rights violated would not come forward. I'd wager there were quite a few instances of rights being violated. One just needs to determine whether the outcomes outweigh the liability for the policy.