<html><head></head><body><div><span data-mailaddress="sparge@gmail.com" data-contactname="Dave Sill" class="clickable"><span title="sparge@gmail.com">Dave Sill</span><span class="detail"> <sparge@gmail.com></span></span> , 22/8/2014 12:17 AM:<br><blockquote class="mori" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:2px blue solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="mcntgmail_extra"><div class="mcntgmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:59 PM, William Flynn Wallace <span><<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com" target="_blank" title="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com" class="mailto">foozler83@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="mcntgmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Whatever they are using to screen potential police men and women are not doing the job.</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="mcntgmail_extra">
I think the problem is more due to the salary that police work pays and the type of person who's attracted to that work at low pay.</div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>In The Economist's coverage of the current US trouble they point out that police in the US kill people at a rate about a hundred times above places in Europe like Germany (and Japanese police has killed one person in six years!) But this is likely not because they are *bad*, but because they are very nervous - there are a lot of guns around, so it is rational for the police to use a lot of force if there is even a slight chance of danger. Which of course causes plenty of collateral and false positive damage.</div><div><br></div><div>While I think we can reduce police violence significantly by having them wear cameras (look at http://www.policefoundation.org/sites/g/files/g798246/f/201303/The%20Effect%20of%20Body-Worn%20Cameras%20on%20Police%20Use-of-Force.pdf and current UK experiments) it doesn't solve the above jitteriness problem.</div><div><br></div><br>Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University</body></html>