The tragic episodes of citizen insecurity that occurred in Catalonia a week ago resulting in three deaths in Barcelona, Esplugues de Llobregat, and Salt, had an institutional response that seemed taken from a manual created by Artificial Intelligence (AI). That is, the AI is programmed to tell us what to respond when consecutive cases of deadly crimes occur and is instructed that the goal is to reduce social alarm. And that manual, programmed by someone without a soul, proposes that positive security data must be presented to counteract these serious incidents.
And so it was. When the corpse of the poor woman who was slashed in broad daylight in Esplugues was still fresh, the political and police officials responsible for security rushed out to tell us that the crime data is good because it shows a decrease thanks to police pressure. So, don’t worry, there’s no need to be alarmed. As if cold Excel sheets were enough to comfort neighbors who live alarmed because, no matter how much they explain, the horrible murder they witnessed in their neighborhood is not normal at all.
The official response to crimes must be human and not remain in cold statistics
Can you imagine what would happen if, after the death of a woman at the hands of her partner, the political official of the moment came out to say there is no need to be alarmed because the number of victims of gender-based violence has decreased compared to last year? Or what would happen if a leader tried to downplay the severity of a fatal traffic accident by showing the decrease in the number of road deaths? Without a doubt, they would face a storm of criticism because a single victim in either of these two areas is a tragedy and no one would think of countering it with cold data. So, why do we insist on persisting in the mistake of using a manual that neither empathizes with the victims nor with their environment, which is all of us?
I imagine the incredulous faces of the neighbors of the woman slashed in Esplugues hearing that the insecurity data is good. Although no one doubts that the figures are positive, this official reaction was not appropriate because, far from giving them comfort, it seems to downplay a terrible event and sends a misleading message that fuels unease. Moreover, unintentionally, there is a risk of pushing people into the arms of populist and extreme discourses that twist reality to attract votes.
Read more The rearmament of the European Union clashes with its greatest weakness: fragmentation
We must change the response manual or give other instructions to the AI that are more human, more understanding of the suffering of relatives and neighbors, more linked to what we are going to do than to what we have done. After a crime, protocols must be reviewed, it must be checked if something failed and corrected, it must be seen if previous warnings were properly attended to, and social complicity must be sought to find solutions. No matter how good the data is, statistics cannot be the first thing you show after a murder.
That is why, after this misstep, I hold on to the more human reaction of Minister Núria Parlon days after applying the dreaded manual when she acknowledged that what had happened made her feel “rage and anger.” And she added: “These are difficult moments after a shocking weekend.” Parlon spoke this way to the Mossos d’Esquadra, whom she encouraged to “strengthen and expand” their work so that the “feeling of impunity is not general.” In the same vein, the head of the General Criminal Investigation Commissariat of the Mossos d’Esquadra, Ramon Chacón, described what happened as a “tragic week that has shocked us all.”
These two reactions do have a soul and society can recognize itself in them. The other is a cold and simple outdated manual.
Read more Trump and Xi Jinping will discuss the Iran war at Thursday’s summit
