Skip to content

Bi-Weekly Discussion - Public Safety & Civil Liberties

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Bi-Weekly Discussion - Public Safety & Civil Liberties

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, not too far from our summer meeting spot in Washington Square Park. The cafe is near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.

The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east & 1 block north. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

----------------------------------------------------------

BALANCING PUBLIC SAFETY & CIVIL LIBERTIES

INTRODUCTION:

Following up on our discussion of gun violence from last time, this meetup will compare different ways of evaluating risks to "public safety" (i.e. risks we impose on others rather than merely on ourselves). We will try to devise a consistent moral framework that combines utilitarian (harm reduction) & deontological (civil libertarian) elements, and then apply it to firearms, automobiles, and alcohol, all of which cause about 30,000 deaths per year in the U.S. with partial overlapping (i.e. drunken gun crimes & drunk driving). We'll also analyze drug prohibition, as well as the crime reduction benefits of gated communities & public surveillance.

If you're not familiar with the "fact-value distinction" in moral philosophy and the varieties of utilitarianism and some common objections to it, it may be worthwhile to check out the outline from a discussion we had last spring entitled, "The Debate over Scientism, Naïve Utilitarianism & Technocracy":
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/236906739/

Also relevant is our meetup from last August entitled "Locke & Mill Revisited", specifically Section I where we looked at balancing the Lockean right of self-defense with Weber's "[state] monopoly of violence", which is complicated by the fact that SCOTUS has ruled police have no "duty to protect". In Section II, we looked at the question of whether or not Cass Sunstein & Richard Thaler's conception of "libertarian paternalism" (i.e. using "choice architecture" to make the healthiest options the default, but with freedom to opt-out) violates Mill's "harm principle" - i.e. the principle that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others:
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnywkbfc/

In general, there's several different moral frameworks we could use to do cost-benefit analyses for public safety issues:

(1) The "public health" framework tends to treat self-harm and harm of others as equally worth addressing, and it considers any sort of government intervention justified if it reduces the net incidence of injury & death. This method uses several metrics for cost-benefits analysis like "number needed to treat" (NNT), "number needed to harm" (NNL), and "likelihood of being helped or harmed" (LHH). The public health framework often accounts for the public costs of policy enforcement, but seldom addresses the private costs of compliance (e.g. the loss of enjoyment of banned substances or activities) or the costs of "blowback" (i.e. unintended consequences stemming from black market activity). In terms of moral philosophy, the public health framework would qualify as both "strong paternalism" and "hard paternalism" -- it has no problem overriding a person's preferences if this increases their welfare, typically measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and lowers overall social/medical spending.

(2) "Libertarian paternalism" is a similar but slightly less paternalistic framework than "public health", insofar as it advocates subtle, low-cost government interventions -- a.k.a. "nudges" -- to reduce self-harm that include an option for dissenters to opt out. In terms of moral philosophy, "libertarian paternalism" is close to "weak paternalism" and "soft paternalism" -- terms which indicate a limited form of paternalism intended merely to ensure that a person is acting voluntarily & knowledgeably. Libertarian paternalism is associated with behavioral economics, and this approach could be thought of as an intermediate framework between public health & welfare economics.

(3) The "welfare economics" framework tends to focus solely on harm to others, and is thus non-paternalistic, but it shares the public health framework's pro-active approach to risk reduction provided the benefits outweigh the costs. Welfare economics accounts for the public costs of enforcement (e.g. police, courts, prisons, etc.), the public costs of "blowback" from non-compliance (e.g. black market activity), and the private costs of compliance (e.g. loss of enjoyment of banned substances or activities). Since some of the costs & benefits of a given intervention are subjective, the analysis requires an assessment of preferences expressed in monetary terms. The monetary value of costs (e.g. loss of privileges) and benefits (e.g. greater public safety) sometimes uses "stated preferences" -- i.e. polling the public & asking them to assign a dollar value to each -- but can also use "revealed preferences" by looking at the public's behavior (e.g. moving to/from an area, retail activity in various neighborhoods, home & commercial security spending, etc.) and assigning costs to these behaviors. Welfare economics treats risks to others as "negative externalities" and often uses Pigouvian taxes to address them.

(4) The "rights & responsibilities" framework is somewhat similar to welfare economics in its use of cost-benefit analysis. However, it eschews monetary values and draws instead on legal & political philosophy to assess public safety interventions in the broader context of the appropriate relationship between the individual, the community & the state. This framework ties in with the idea of "qualified rights" -- i.e. rights where government interference is allowed in special circumstances and only when necessary. Government interference with qualified rights must fulfill a pressing social need, pursue a legitimate aim, and be proportionate to the aims being pursued. Qualified rights may require a citizen to pass an evaluation in order to show they have the moral character & skill to use a substance or engage in an activity responsibly, and these rights may also be contingent upon showing one has a special need (e.g. due to one's occupation, medical condition, etc.).

(5) There's also a 5th framework to consider - a deontological approach to public policy based on the "Non-Aggression Principle" (NAP), which is often favored by libertarians. The NAP framework allows reactive forms of government intervention to punish criminal aggression against human life, limb or property but prohibits any proactive forms of government intervention to decrease risks to public safety. The NAP framework ties into "absolute rights" and "limited rights". Absolute rights are those afforded to everyone without any limitation -- including children, prisoners & the mentally incompetent -- whereas limited rights are those afforded to all law-abiding, sane adults without any further qualification.

As noted above, this discussion will focus on "PUBLIC SAFETY" and the risks & harms to others, particularly those caused by violent crime & criminal negligence. Therefore, we'll suspend consideration of self-harm and the public health & libertarian paternalism frameworks for now, and focus on the other 3 frameworks: welfare economics, rights & responsibilities, and the NAP. The first section will look into these 3 frameworks a bit more, and then we'll look at how public policy can address the 3 factors that contribute to crime: means, motive, opportunity.

----------------------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major findings from moral philosophers, economists & epidemiologists on public policy as it relates to guns, cars, drugs & alcohol, as well as the crime reduction effects of gated communities & public surveillance. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about 44 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------------------

I. MORAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CRIME HARM REDUCTION & CIVIL LIBERTY PROTECTION:

  • HOW COULD WE POTENTIALLY MEASURE THE PUBLIC RISK/HARM FROM CRIME AND USE IT TO EVALUATE CRIME REDUCTION EFFORTS?

  • HOW SHOULD WE WEIGH HARM FROM NEGLIGENCE VS INTENTIONAL HARM? SHOULD THE PUBLIC FEAR GENERATED BY A PARTICULAR TYPE OF CRIME BE FACTORED IN?

  • HOW COULD HOW COULD WE POTENTIALLY MEASURE THE VALUE OF OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES & THE HARM TO THESE LIBERTIES BY OVER-REGULATING & OVER-POLICING?

  • HOW COULD WE USE THE CONCEPT OF "PARETO OPTIMALITY" FROM WELFARE ECONOMICS TO FIND WIN-WIN (OR WIN-NO LOSE) SOLUTIONS?

  • IF PUBLIC COMPLIANCE WITH A DRACONIAN INTERVENTION IS LIKELY TO BE LOW & HAVE LOTS OF BLOWBACK, SHOULD WE OPT INSTEAD FOR "HARM REDUCTION"? SHOULD THE "HARM REDUCTION" FRAMEWORK APPLY TO ONLY REDUCING SELF-HARM OR TO 3RD PARTY RISKS AS WELL?

  • HOW COULD WE INCORPORATE THE "I.N.T. FRAMEWORK" (IMPACT-NEGLECTEDNESS-TRACTABILITY) FROM EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM?

1a) Douglas McIntyre, "The most dangerous states in America" (video - 1:13 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBvqhScInoY

1b) Cato Institute, "Freedom in the 50 States 2011" (video - 3:20 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bQBAkhz_-A

II. CRIMINAL MEANS REDUCTION: EVALUATING GUNS & AUTOS

  • SHOULD IT MATTER FOR OUR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT GUNS ARE "DESIGNED TO KILL" WHEREAS CARS ARE NOT, AND THAT MOST GUN DEATHS ARE INTENTIONAL WHEREAS MOST CAR DEATHS ARE ACCIDENTS?

  • DO STUDIES THAT INDICATE THE AVERAGE GUN OWNER IS MORE LIKELY TO KILL HIM/HERSELF OR A FAMILY MEMBER THAN KILL A CRIMINAL IN SELF-DEFENSE MEAN THE DEFENSIVE VALUE OF A GUN IS ALMOST NON-EXISTENT? WHAT HAPPENS IF WE EXCLUDE SUICIDES, LIMIT IT TO LEGAL GUN OWNERS, AND LOOK AT "DEFENSIVE GUN USES" (DGUs) INSTEAD?

  • IF AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THEY POSE RISKS THAT EXCEED THEIR VALUE FOR SELF-DEFENSE, WOULD A BAN ON SUVs & SPORT CARS BE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THEY POSE RISKS THAT EXCEED THEIR VALUE FOR TRANSPORTATION?

  • ARE SAFETY FEATURES FOR GUNS (E.G. GUN SAFES, SMART GUNS) AND CARS (E.G. ALCOHOL IGNITION INTERLOCKS, SPEED LIMITERS, CELL PHONE BLOCKING) "PARETO OPTIMAL" - I.E. CAN THEY MAKE MANY PEOPLE BETTER OFF WITHOUT MAKING ANYONE WORSE OFF?

  • IF THE RISE OF RIDE-HAILING SERVICES HAS DECREASED DRUNK DRIVING, WOULD INCREASING PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES BE A GOOD WAY TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KEEPING GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE?

  • ARE THE INFRINGEMENT OF 4th AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY "STOP & FRISK" & DUI CHECKPOINTS JUSTIFIED IF THEY REDUCE GUN HOMICIDES & DUI DEATHS?

  • IS INSURANCE & PIGOUVIAN TAXATION A SENSIBLE WAY TO ADDRESS THE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES THAT GUNS & AUTOMOBILES POSE?

2a) Vocativ, "The [17] States Where Guns Kill More People Than Cars" (video - 0:56 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Noex0sRmgoo

2b) Healthcare Triage, "A Brief History of Guns and Public Health" (video - 8:46 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZzmgqpwG-s

2c) Freakonomics, "The Most Dangerous Machine" (podcast - 31:37 min, listen from 18:30 to 27:20)
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-most-dangerous-machine-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

*Jacob Sullum, "Does the Latest Study Finally Show That Owning a Gun Makes You Less Safe?"
http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/21/does-the-latest-study-finally-show-that

III. CRIMINAL MOTIVE REDUCTION: EVALUATING DRUGS & ALCOHOL

  • SHOULD IT MATTER FOR OUR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT DRUGS & ALCOHOL ARE NOT "DESIGNED TO KILL" AND TEND TO RESULT TO HARM TO 3RD PARTIES EITHER VIA ACCIDENTS OR AMPLIFYING LATENT CRIMINAL MOTIVES?

  • CAN A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DRUG & ALCOHOL PROHIBITION BE JUSTIFIED IF IT LOWERS THE MOTIVE TO COMMIT CRIMES?

  • WHAT ARE THE DIRECT COSTS OF THE WAR ON DRUGS IN TERMS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, COURT COSTS & IMPRISONMENT?

  • SHOULD WE INCLUDE THE VALUE OF DRUGS & ALCOHOL FOR "COGNITIVE LIBERTY" INTO OUR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS?

  • HOW CAN WE DETERMINE THE INDIRECT COSTS FROM "BLOWBACK" FROM DRUGS PROHIBITION IN TERMS OF VIOLENCE CAUSED BY DRUG GANGS, ADDICTS, & OVERZEALOUS POLICE?

  • IS THE WAR ON DRUGS DOOMED DUE TO THE LAWS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND - I.E. STEEP, INELASTIC DEMAND CURVES? IF SO, CAN DEMAND FOR DRUGS BE AFFECTED BY PIGOUVIAN TAXES & REGULATIONS THAT REDUCE SUPPLY?

  • IF DEMAND FOR INTOXICANTS IS FAIRLY HARD TO CHANGE, COULD WE REDUCE HARM BY USING POLICY TO SHIFT WHICH DRUGS PEOPLE USE AND HOW/WHEN/WHERE THEY USE THEM?

  • WHY DO YOU THINK THAT ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAMS OFTEN DON'T HAVE THE SAME PUBLIC APPEAL AS ANTI-DRUG PROGRAMS, SEEING AS BOTH REDUCE CRIMINAL MOTIVES? IS IT BECAUSE POVERTY IS A "DISTAL CAUSE", WHEREAS DRUGS ARE A "PROXIMATE CAUSE" OF CRIME?

3a) NPAMC, "Alcohol Misuse and Crime: Crippling Criminal Justice" (video - 2:54 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWH7Fr8hNno

3b) Healthcare Triage, "Reduce Crime AND Save Money: Treat Addiction Instead of Punishing People" (video - 5:36 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATaSk7NzXLc

IV. CRIMINAL OPPORTUNITY REDUCTION: EVALUATING GATED COMMUNITIES & PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE

  • ARE THE CRIME REDUCTION OF GATED COMMUNITIES WORTH THE COSTS IN TERMS OF LIMITING THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S "FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT"?

  • HOW SHOULD WE ACCOUNT FOR THE WAY GATED COMMUNITES MAY LEAD RESIDENTS TO DISINVEST IN BROADER SOCIETY, POSSIBLY LEADING TO HIGHER CRIME RATES IN THE LONG TERM?

  • IF GATED COMMUNITIES CAN'T MANAGE TO KEEP THE CRIMINALS OUT, SHOULD WE DOUBLE DOWN ON MASS INCARCERATION TO SEGREGATE CRIMINALS FROM LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS?

  • IS THE CRIME REDUCTION FROM PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE WORTH THE COSTS IN TERMS OF LIMITING THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S "RIGHT TO PRIVACY"?

  • COULD MASS SURVEILLANCE CAUSE LONG-TERM PROBLEMS FOR LIBERAL DEMOCRACY (E.G. "CHILLING EFFECT" ON LEGAL BUT SOCIALLY CONTROVERSIAL BEHAVIOR) THAT MIGHT NOT BE CAPTURED BY LOOKING AT SHORT-TERM BENEFITS IN TERMS OF REDUCING CRIME?

4a) Khan Academy, "Neighborhood safety and crime"
(video - 4:14 min.)
https://youtu.be/XTdvyM2PT_4

4b) Utah Law, "The Surveillance Society: Automatic License Plate Readers" (video - 5:47 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJu2NaAS7I

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
See more events
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
public group