Is 'Predictive Policing' Helpful or Harmful to Society?

by Fef Posted 2012/07/13 19:00:00

Related Topics: Predictive Policing, Constitution, Law Enforcement, Civil Rights, Police, Crime

902 votes
Read all 786 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Helpful to Society	369 votes	41%
	Harmful to Society	533 votes	59%

Predictive policing uses algorithms to predict where crime will occur and sends extra law enforcement patrols into those neighborhoods. The police processes historical data through a computer program and determines "hot spots" based on modeling by social anthropologists.

Reason.com asks, "How might predictive policing interfere with the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantee that Americans are to be free unreasonable searches and seizures?" Reason.com claims to provide an alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinions with its focus on liberty and individual choice. Ronald Bailey's article discusses the benefits (less crime, more efficient law enforcement) and costs (possible violation of Civil Rights?).

REASON.COM reports:
Predictive policing helps police protect citizens. It could also be used to oppress them.

Chart from Memphis Police Department’s Blue CRUSH initiative uses IBM predictive analytics software to analyze past and present crime records in seconds to create multi-layer “hot spots” and better deploy officers to combat crime.

+37

Add a comment above

iamco2000 2012/07/14 02:39:38

Harmful to Society

+11
hmmm, slowly edge our way into an Orwellian nightmare shall we? Haven't we been told that slow, metered, indoctrination causes us to not notice societal changes or ask questions? 1920's Germany experienced the same thing....the gov. said "every self-respecting German citizen will be proud to register their guns", then when it became time for Hitler to bring the hammer down it was a piece of cake for the Gestapo and SS to round up....they'd already been given the addresses and names.

Talk about a real-life acting out of the Minority Report, you might be arrested because an algorithm decided you would be, sorry but we have a Constitution that specifically and clearly states Innocent until PROVEN guilty, not suspect until preemptively apprehended.

Talk about a sign of the times, what's next death sentences by self-aware "predictive enforcement" drones?

Grace to you, Glory to God!
>> See Replies

More polls by Fef

TheCouchF*cker 2012/07/13 19:01:04

Harmful to Society

This is even a debate?

reply
Sew to TheCouc... 2012/07/13 19:24:52

+3
Did you even read the article? Tell me where it says people who have not committed a crime are going to be arrested? It says that police departments are using historical crime data and computer software to determine where a crime is most likely to occur and place more patrols in that area. By doing so they are ensuring that their limited resources are allocated to the areas that need it most. This is no different from what they've been doing for a long time, just now they have advance computer software to help them identify areas of interest more accurately.

reply
Charles E to TheCouc... 2012/07/13 20:25:28

+1
Not really. Putting police where records indicate crime is most likely to happen is a good use of resources.

Nothing in this article even mentioned arresting people before a crime occured.

reply
3kidsandamom 2012/07/13 18:56:45

Harmful to Society

+1
Charging someone with a crime they have NOT yet committed is in effect jailing then for nothing. If a crime has not yet happened then there is nothing to charge someone with, therefore they are being jailed and held for nothing but a hypothetical crime. No evidence equals no proof, equals no crime. There's no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt what someone will do in the future!

reply
Sew to 3kidsan... 2012/07/13 19:20:49

+3
Did you actually read or understand the article? If you just read the title you'd be misled. Nowhere do it say that they go and arrest people who have not commited a crime on assumption. It says they use historical crime records to determine statistically where crime is most likely to occur and then deploy more officers to that region. In other words they use math to help them better allocate the precious few officers they have to areas that need it most. They are not in anyway just arresting people for nothing. This is nothing like the movie "Minority Report" which is what I think you believe it is.

reply
3kidsan... to Sew 2012/07/13 23:46:12

+1
The problem with sending all or most officers to one area the criminals will change their location to where the cops are not located, this has been shown not to work, criminals don't stay in a location that's loaded with cops, they aren't that stupid!

reply
Sew to 3kidsan... 2012/07/14 13:16:43

Ok. They don't send all their officers there. They send MORE. The police are not that stupid. And criminals don't know where the "Hot Spots" are. Plus criminals are not usually professionals. The have a specific area they're comfortable with and don't really wander out of it. And thats if they're repeat offenders. Most aren't.

reply
3kidsan... to Sew 2012/07/14 19:19:18

+1
Umm criminals don't know where the hot spots are are you serious? Many do & they also use scanners to know where the cops are at. I never said that criminals were professionals however most who live in areas that are high crime pay attention to the amount of police traffic in their area, it doesn't take a lot of brain power to realize this!

reply
Sew to 3kidsan... 2012/07/15 14:57:38
3kidsan... to Sew 2012/07/15 23:25:11

+1
Example in Grand Rapids, Michigan when more police were sent in the crime rate went down in high crime areas, arrest and convictions didn't go up at the same rate, when the number of police were then reduced the crime rate went back up almost equal to where it was before.

reply
Sew to 3kidsan... 2012/07/16 00:05:02

Did the study show the crime rate spike in areas it had been low before?

reply
3kidsan... to Sew 2012/07/16 04:55:38

+1
It wasn't a study it's an example of reality, and yes crime went up in formerly lower crime areas where there was less of a police presence. The same thing occurred in Muskegon Heights, Michigan. Criminals tend to go where there's greater opportunity with a lower chance of getting caught.

reply
Dagon 2012/07/13 18:56:17
Charles E to Dagon 2012/07/13 20:21:33

+2
I have little concern for stops that might remove impaired or illegal drivers from the road, but when they start looking for drugs that is a warrentless search in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

reply
Dagon to Charles E 2012/07/13 21:17:35 (edited)
Charles E to Dagon 2012/07/13 21:51:39

+1
To search after he sees an illegal substance is probable cause. To demand that every - or only some - motorists open their trunks or wait for search dogs is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I have never used or possessed drugs, but that is more of an inconvenience than I am willing to tolerate.

But I will never consent to a warentless search.

reply
Elaine Magliacane 2012/07/13 18:52:23

Helpful to Society

+4
Why deploy police to neighborhoods with ZERO crime.... when the computer can put them in the area where it MAY very well be happening NOW. Sorry I don't see the 'ISSUE' on this one.

reply
Dagon to Elaine ... 2012/07/13 18:56:54
Sew to Elaine ... 2012/07/13 19:19:54

+4
Most people didn't bother reading the article. I think they just say the title which is misleading and became outraged assuming this was like something out of the movie "Minority Report"

reply
Lord Emperor of Dune 2012/07/13 18:50:15

Harmful to Society

+4
It's not our job to remove free will from the human equation. It never ends well...

reply
Charles E to Lord Em... 2012/07/13 20:17:47

+1
People are still free to get drunk, fight, or steal. Predictive policing only increases the odds of misconduct being punished. No one is arrested for what might happen.

reply
Lord Em... to Charles E 2012/07/13 23:00:31

+1
So you think this is a good idea? Making predictions about misconduct? This is a little different than having a few extra LEOs on duty when you think it might be a good idea...

reply
Don Leuty 2012/07/13 18:49:48

Harmful to Society

+3
If our systems "engineers" designed bridges, no one would be safe. at just about the time the system was achieving a reasonable level of competency, another .0 version would start the debugging process all over again.

The Bill of Rights works well enough for now.

reply
Nimitz 2012/07/13 18:49:22

Helpful to Society

+2
Predictive policing isn't 'individualized.' It's aggregate. It just tells municipalities where they need to put the piggies on the basis of algorithms in which past crime rates and current trends are inputs.

reply
Heisenberg 2012/07/13 18:48:13

Harmful to Society

+5
As our republic collapses the socialist police state will emerge.

reply
Charles E to Heisenberg 2012/07/13 20:01:18

+3
We usually agree but I think on this question you are wrong.
Putting extra Saturday night patrols in an area with a history of Saturday night fights is not a search of people who are not fighting.
It makes everyone safer by reducing the number of fights due to police presence, or reduces the injuries by breaking up fights sooner and taking the combatants off the street sooner.

reply