Slashdot Mirror
Chicago's Experiment In Predictive Policing Isn't Working (theverge.com)
The U.S. will phase out private prisons, a move made possible by fewer and shorter sentences for drug offenses, reports the BBC. But when it comes to reducing arrests for violent crimes, police officers in Chicago found themselves resorting ineffectively to a $2 million algorithm which ultimately had them visiting people before any crime had been committed. schwit1 quotes Ars Technica: Struggling to reduce its high murder rate, the city of Chicago has become an
incubator for experimental policing techniques. Community policing, stop and frisk, "interruption" tactics --- the city has tried many strategies. Perhaps most controversial and promising has been the city's futuristic "heat list" -- an algorithm-generated list identifying people most likely to be involved in a shooting.
The hope was that the list would allow police to provide social services to people in danger, while also preventing likely shooters from picking up a gun. But a new report from the RAND Corporation shows nothing of the sort has happened. Instead, it indicates that the list is, at best, not even as effective as a most wanted list. At worst, it unnecessarily targets people for police attention, creating a new form of profiling.
The police argue they've updated the algorithm and improved their techniques for using it. But the article notes that the researchers began following the "heat list" when it launched in 2013, and "found that the program has saved no lives at all."
The hope was that the list would allow police to provide social services to people in danger, while also preventing likely shooters from picking up a gun. But a new report from the RAND Corporation shows nothing of the sort has happened. Instead, it indicates that the list is, at best, not even as effective as a most wanted list. At worst, it unnecessarily targets people for police attention, creating a new form of profiling.
The police argue they've updated the algorithm and improved their techniques for using it. But the article notes that the researchers began following the "heat list" when it launched in 2013, and "found that the program has saved no lives at all."
Having more real cops on the streets would be best. I know that the ghetto is the last place Chicago cops want to be. But, that's where most of their murders take place. To curtail murders requires more than a computer program that does nothing actually predictive, only data mining.
Enforce the laws on minor crimes, and major crimes go down. You don't have to be a hardass, or pick on anyone in particular, just enforce the common, everyday laws that help keep things working.
We know this works.
When people notice that nobody is enforcing the little stuff, they start assuming that they can get away with the larger crimes - and they're usually right.
The problem is that, after a few years of it working, everyone relaxes and thinks "hey, crime is down, we can slack off a bit," and it's okay, for a while. Then things start slowly getting worse again, and the "corrective measures" tend to be away from the policies that were in force a few years before, because "they stopped working."
The problem with predicting where to go to stop crimes is that many of the crimes in Chicago are gang related, instead of property related. Houses to be robbed don't move, but rival gang members can be found anywhere. Predictive algorithms assume fixed targets.
If there was a real crackdown on Gangs, crime would decrease for a while, but I think that too many bribes are preventing that from happening. It would be far better to legalize drugs, defunding the gangs.
Of course, as a privileged white male from the suburbs, I could be wrong.
So, I rob a gun shop in the next State, in the sure knowledge that the Chicago PD will act as my fence? Yah, that's a good idea.
Note, by the by, that many places in the USA (basically all of them, since Chicago has one of the worst crime problems in the USA, and some of the most restrictive gun laws) get by just fine without worrying so much about guns in private hands.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
How is that possible - if 50% of all crimes are committed by black people, less than 50% remains for each of the dozen or so other ethnic minority groups or whites in the US. Additionally 100%? Look at a map of convicted sex offenders and they're pretty evenly spread between black, white, Hispanic and other neighborhoods. Sex offenses are pretty evenly spread across populations because pretty much all men are attracted to pubescent females, it's a rather primitive reflex.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
52% of rapists are white
No. 52% of convicted rapists may be white, but conviction rates vary widely by race even for the same crimes. A white teenage date-rapist is much more likely to "get away with it" than a black guy.
83.5% of the population is white.
Wrong. Whites are about 72% of the population. This isn't 1960.
None of which is good, but those are the facts.
Yup. Other than being wildly inaccurate and misleading, those are indeed the "facts".
There is also still a strong social stigma against seeking mental health. Nobody is embarrassed to say something like "My arm was broke so I went to see the doctor," but the moment someone utters the phrase "mental health" everyone thinks of him as crazy, weak, and pathetic.
There is a big difference between going to a surgeon to fix a broken arm and going to a psychiatrist for a mental illness. A broken arm does not lead to the police coming to your house to take your guns. Depending on the conditions of the mental illness in Illinois the government will revoke your FOID for one year, five years, or the rest of your life for seeking treatment for a mental illness. Getting a FOID is difficult and expensive. Getting a firearm to protect yourself, your home, and your family is also difficult and expensive. Being disarmed in your own home is not pleasant if one lacks the means to move to a better neighborhood or one is bound by some (real or imagined) obligation to stay put.
You want to see crime go down and people get treatment for mental illness? Then get rid of the laws that disarm people and leave them vulnerable to the thugs that the police cannot do anything about. The police can only come when called, they cannot be there every time there is a crime, as much as they might want to be there. When a crime is committed there are certain to be two people present, the perpetrator and the victim. Let's allow the victims to be armed so that they can defend themselves.
Illinois was the last state in the federation to lift the ban on concealed carry of weapons. Even though they are technically available the process to get the license is lengthy and expensive, something not everyone that need them can afford. The license alone costs $150. Then there is the required training, photograph, fingerprints, and probably more that have to be paid for. The time to do all of this is likely out of the question for the average blue collar worker.
This brings up the question on why Illinois even needs a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Would you believe me if I said six states do not require permits to carry a concealed weapon? Well, you shouldn't because the real number is more like eleven, depending on how one defines permitless carry. Carrying a weapon in the open, not concealed, does not require a permit in 25 or 30 states.
Where is all of this crime happening? There seems to be a strong correlation between restrictions on the carry of self defense tools and violent crimes. There is also a strong correlation between Democrat governance and crime. Think about that the next time you vote.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.