
FBI director's speech at U. Chicago Law School - emgoldstein
https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/law-enforcement-and-the-communities-we-serve-bending-the-lines-toward-safety-and-justice
======
tptacek
This is an egregiously editorialized title.

~~~
dang
Yes, that breaks the guidelines. All: please don't editorialize when
submitting titles. Use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait,
and when changing a title, make it accurate and neutral. Use representative
language from the article itself wherever possible.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

(Submitted title was "FBI director's defense of mass incarceration".)

~~~
emgoldstein
The original speech title (from the URL) was "Law enforcement and the
communities we serve: bending the lines toward safety and justice." I don't
know if this is either misleading or linkbait, but I know it's not good, and
you're not using it.

"Defense of mass incarceration" seems like a neutral summary of the content of
the speech. The author's main point, from the content: 'to speak of “mass
incarceration” I believe is confusing, and it distorts an important reality.'
But the literal words "mass incarceration" seem simply factual, although
"mass" might be more neutral as "large-scale."

Replacing this summary of the content with the author and location, as above,
replaces it with an irrelevant, content-free title, which couldn't be better
designed to go unread. How many HN posts are labeled "Article by Walter
Mossberg in the Wall Street Journal?"

It seems better to simply describe the link as inappropriate. But many pieces
on this subject appear on HN...

~~~
krapp
"Defense of mass incarceration" is only a neutral summary in an environment
where mass incarceration is not a volatile topic, which would not be Hacker
News.

The article is probably going to go mostly unread anyway, since most people
never bother to RTFA to begin with, but at least the title doesn't have to be
snark bait.

~~~
emgoldstein
I guess the reason the original title seems neutral: I couldn't even tell you
whether others think has a left-wing or right-wing bias.

I do know it was being strongly upvoted under this title, which might be
objective proof of linkbaitiness...

~~~
dang
If you used "defense of mass incarceration" in the spirit of the HN
guidelines, i.e. because you thought it would make for an accurate and neutral
title, then we definitely misread your intention and I'm sorry.

But I still think that title was a mistake. "Mass incarceration" has become a
pejorative that signals a certain position (or cluster of positions) on this
controversial issue, so saying "defends mass incarceration" comes across as a
provocative critique, a la "defends wife-beating". For a really neutral title,
maybe "FBI director's speech defending current prison policy" or some such
would have worked—assuming that's what the speech actually is.

Certainly the title we hastily gave it wasn't great, except as a cooler-offer.
It's actually rare for an article to be quite so unhelpful at indicating what
a good title for itself might be.

There's a standing invitation, btw, for any HN user to suggest a better title
if they don't like the one that's up there. When people do, we often use them.

------
peter_l_downs
_I spoke to officers privately in one big city precinct who described being
surrounded by young people with mobile phone cameras held high, taunting them
the moment they get out of their cars. They told me, “We feel like we’re under
siege and we don’t feel much like getting out of our cars.”_

Even if this were true, it wouldn't mean the blame lies with those holding the
video cameras. If you, a police officer, are scared of being watched by those
you police, of having your actions with those citizens recorded, maybe the way
you approach your community needs to change.

------
stellar678
"Each drug dealer, each mugger, each killer, and each felon with a gun had his
own lawyer, his own case, his own time before judge and jury, his own
sentencing, and, in many cases, an appeal or other post-sentencing review."

This statement is demonstratively incorrect, given how the accused tend to be
pushed hard from all directions to accept a plea deal and skip judge, jury and
sentencing.

------
koenigdavidmj
[0] includes a segment about Richmond, CA's program to reduce violent crime. I
wasn't particularly interested in the ethics of "paying criminals not to
commit crime", but rather how such a small group of people were responsible
for so much of it. If I remember the segment correctly, the first group of
participants (few enough to fit around a table in a conference room) were
believed to be responsible for over half the crime in the city.

[1] is similar. A single handgun is believed to have been used in ten
shootings in Seattle (and I think there have been more added to that number
since then), so SPD were investing quite a lot of effort in trying to find the
possessors of that one firearm.

0: [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/555/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/555/the-incredible-rarity-of-changing-your-mind)

1: [http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2015/07/16/police-looking-
for-...](http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2015/07/16/police-looking-for-gunmen-
pistol-tied-to-ten-shootings/)

------
angersock
Some entertaining bits:

 _Each drug dealer, each mugger, each killer, and each felon with a gun had
his own lawyer, his own case, his own time before judge and jury, his own
sentencing, and, in many cases, an appeal or other post-sentencing review._

Then again, it's pretty common knowledge that public defenders are woefully
understaffed, overworked, and underfunded.

 _The young men dying on street corners all across this country are not
committing suicide or being shot by the cops. They are being killed, police
chiefs tell me, by other young men with guns._

Except when, you know, we've got a lot of documentation where they very much
are being shot by the cops. Pesky fact, that.

 _Lives are saved when those potential killers are confronted by a strong
police presence and actual, honest-to-goodness, up-close “What are you guys
doing on this corner at one o’clock in the morning?” policing_

How much of this sort of policing happens nowadays? How much is cops
intervening without throwing the book or calling in reinforcements?

------
revelation
We are in deep trouble if this is the kind of simpleton that makes policy at
the FBI.

 _Although we have come far as a nation, we still have weed-choked
neighborhoods._

 _Lives are saved when those potential killers are confronted by a strong
police presence and actual, honest-to-goodness, up-close “What are you guys
doing on this corner at one o’clock in the morning?” policing._

NYCs stop and frisk was found to have zero correlation to crime outcomes.

------
emgoldstein
Once again, HN surprises me with its open-mindedness.

If you read this and feel strong emotional disagreement, one way to manage
that emotion productively is to imagine yourself in the room with the speaker,
and try to express your perspective in the way you'd find most likely to
convince.

Another way to say that: the way to productively disagree is to talk _to_ your
opponent, not _at_ your opponent.

~~~
striking
Or more specifically: Misleading/clickbait title. Hopefully someone changes
that.

------
hugh4
Given the number of criminals I see on the streets, I certainly wouldn't call
the US's current situation "mass incarceration".

I would say the US has a shockingly massive crime problem.

~~~
DanBC
Given that the US incarcerates more than any other nation (however you measure
that), and assuming you're correct[1] would you then say that more prison is
needed? Or would you say that prison clearly isn't working, and maybe we
should try something that is cheaper, provides better justice to the victims
of crime, reduces recidivism, and doesn't destroy the lives of criminals or
their relatives?

[1] that you see many criminals, and that the US has a shockingly massive
crime problem

~~~
hugh4
I certainly think that corporal punishment is an idea worth revisiting for
minor crimes, and that perhaps we could expand the use of the death penalty
for repeat offenders, but these ideas have fallen out of fashion too.

~~~
DanBC
...they fell out of fashion because they don't work, let alone that they're
horrific human rights abuses.

