We can see what the results of this style of policing is when we look at juveniles.<p><a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/03/americas-prison-population" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/03/am...</a><p>> This overreliance on imprisonment can be seen most starkly, and sadly, by looking at the juvenile population, which is just under 71,000 nationally. Around 11,600 are imprisoned for "technical violations" of their probation or parole terms, rather than because they committed a new crime. In 11 states such juvenile prisoners outnumber those in for crimes against other people. In only one state (Massachusetts) did juveniles imprisoned for crimes committed against people comprise a majority of juvenile prisoners. Around 3,000 are locked up for things that aren't crimes for adults, "such as running away, truancy and incorrigibility." Incarcerated children are less likely to graduate high-school and more likely to spend time in prison as adults. If America is interested in reducing its prison population, locking up fewer juveniles for silly reasons would be a good place to start.
"In Chicago, the police have developed a “heat list” of 400 people who are considered far more likely than the average person to be involved in violent crime. Factors in compiling that list included their criminal records, social circles and gang connections. Also a factor was whether they had been victims of an assault or a shooting."<p>Yeah and I'm sure that Chicago detectives had absolutely no clue about those 400 people, they really needed a piece of expensive software to tell them where to look for.
The trend is to think that technology will solve all problems, but it's just wishful thinking imho.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia</a><p>Given the problems in police departments (which have fortunately started to appearing in the news), giving the police a system that will essentially let them see what you want to see is a terrible idea. Police work is already full of "forensic tools" that don't actually work (like idea that fingerprints actually identify someone uniquely, or the various techniques that are examples of the Birthday Paradox).<p>While I'm sure that it's possible to use modern techniques to estimate where crime will occur, it won't work in practice. There are simply too many ways to bias the results (intentionally or not). I suspect giving police this kind of tool is simply a way to give legitimacy and cover to their bad behavior.<p>> including information about friendships, social media activity<p>COINTELPRO is a helluva drug.<p>> advocates say predictive policing can help improve police-community relations by focusing on the people most likely to become involved in violent crime.<p>That sounds <i>suspiciously</i> like an excuse to improve <i>white</i> communities, by focusing on the <i>blacks</i> (who have historically been seen as "violent savages" by racists).<p>> because our predictive tool shows us you might commit a crime at some point in the future<p>The big question is how long until someone tries to use that "predictive tool" as <i>probable cause</i>.
"During an August call-in, the speakers told the men that this was their last chance. Tammy Dickinson, the United States attorney for the Western District of Missouri, related the story of a man in the program who was given a 15-year prison sentence for being caught with a bullet in his pocket."<p>So, yet again software is the new force-multiplier? Strict (IMNHO <i>crazy</i>) sentencing guides, arguably designed for the purpose of reducing crime by being a deterrent, now leads to even more filling up of prisons due to targeted (ab)use against certain groups?<p>On a side note, I wonder how these algorithms handle police brutality etc. I can just imagine sitting in such a meeting, and seeing a couple of police officers in full uniform popping up on that mugshot wall of shame...
There is a thisamericanlife show (Crime Pays) about cops paying kids to give up (or avoid) a life of crime. It is quite amazing how little it takes to prevent someone from costing society $40K a year in jail.
<a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/555/the-incredible-rarity-of-changing-your-mind?act=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/555/t...</a>
I started reading this hopefully. I liked the idea that seemed to be developing at first — reaching out to people before crimes are committed, potentially saving a human being from a life in prison (not to mention saving any potential victims).<p>Instead, it developed into a story of what amounts to pre-meditated blind rage against any and all associated with a given criminal.<p>This isn't new. And it's exactly what we don't need more of.
Step 1: Discriminatory policing against disliked groups.<p>Step 2: Run the results of that through the computer.<p>Step 3: The unbiased computer tells me that disliked groups are more likely to be charged with crimes! That justifies my discrimination! I knew they were up to no good! And it's not me, the COMPUTER says it!
>> But Mr. Brown, 29, got more than he had bargained for. A police captain presented a slide show featuring mug shots of people they were cracking down on. Up popped a picture of Mr. Brown linking him to a criminal group that had been implicated in a homicide.<p>“I was disturbed,” said Mr. Brown<p>Sounds like intimidation.
"(...) an experiment taking place in dozens of police departments across the country, one in which the authorities have turned to complex computer algorithms to try to pinpoint the people most likely to be involved in future violent crimes — as either predator or prey."<p>Interesting (eerie) parallel to the intro in the TV series "Person of Interest", although supposedly this system doesn't get its data from the NSA (as with parallel construction etc), but rather the information comes from more-or-less open data (legal surveillance etc) -- and of course it isn't vigilantes but police that will, 'victim or perpetrator, if your number's up (...) find you':<p>"You are being watched. The government has a secret system: a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know, because I built it. I designed the machine to detect acts of terror, but it sees everything. Violent crimes involving ordinary people; people like you. Crimes the government considered 'irrelevant'. They wouldn't act, so I decided I would. But I needed a partner, someone with the skills to intervene. Hunted by the authorities, we work in secret. You'll never find us, but victim or perpetrator, if your number's up... we'll find you".
This illusion of efficacy, with often detrimental results, is nothing new[0]; a fatal naivety which ignores human agency.
[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Tribes_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Tribes_Act</a>
I figure this will look good and "tough on crime" to the people seeing the news, but intimidation and preemptive punishment will not give people the self confidence they need to make a success of themselves in polite society.<p>Not to mention, I'm sure you can see how this is a breach of justice.