Predicting Crime

Can you imagine walking down a dark alley, the fear of seeing a shadowy figure, only to see the police immediately show up and arrest that person. Or could you imagine a bank robber being arrested before they rob the bank. If you are getting vibes of the science fiction classic movie “Minority report” with Tom cruise you are correct. That movie explored the concept of stopping all crime before it was committed. The debate is ongoing if predicting crime before it happens is a viable and ethical solution to help reduce crime. It is also debated what makes an individual more likely to commit a crime if it is a biological basis or environmental. (Gruman) Social psychology theories such as the social-psychological model into criminal behavior suggest that criminal activity is correlated with education level. (Gruman 2016) Those without a high school diploma are more likely to commit criminal behavior. (Gruman 2016)

“Metro 21” is a project in 2017 from Carnegie Mellon University in partnership with the Pittsburgh city police working together to reduce violent crime without increasing arrests. They do so by predicting locations or “hotspots” for criminal activity to take place. (CMU 2019) The project did not include racial, demographic or socioeconomic variables when predicting crime to be void of ethical concerns. The project was molded from a model of prediction that used 911 calls and crimes that involved victims to target areas where crimes were most likely to be committed. CMU researchers found areas that were highly likely according to their algorithm to have violent criminal activity. They compiled both recent and old data from previous years to determine the locations. Police were sent out to these locations completely unaware if anything would happen. The Pittsburgh police changed their patrolling with the recommendation from CMU. During the experiment, those hotspot areas had a 34% drop in serious crime in temporary hotspot locations and 24% decrease in crime in chronic hotspot locations. (CMU 2019) Concerns of racial bias shut down the project in December 2019. Additionally, Concerns that the public was not made aware of the additional patrolling also contributed to shutting down the program. The program was successful in reducing crime in a measurable and quantifiable way. Chris Deluzio, policy director for Pitts cyber and task force said “there should be a public process around any policing algorithm”. Even though the project was successful in reducing crime, anticipation of possible ethical concerns led to a shutdown.

On a personal note, living in the city of Pittsburgh in a crime watch neighborhood, I personally witnessed this program in effect. In my area theft is the most common crime. I remember seeing an increase in police patrolling 3 blocks away from my house and wondering why. During that period of time, the overall crime was much lower. I remember having a conversation with a neighbor telling me it’s been a while since we heard of any home break ins. My community is close and everyone knows one another, allowing us to look out for one another and spread the word. I am fortunate to have that trust with many of my neighbors. But unfortunately, they can do little to prevent crime; However, the physical presence of officers in the area put a stop to a lot of crime.

Currently, there are no plans to reboot the project. For this project to be successful in the future patrol activities must be accepted more in the public community. The project must not use any bias or profiling in the algorithms. Communication between the police community and the general public is essential to have this program return. I believe it would be unethical to execute this program in an area that doesn’t support it. This is the main reason the project was terminated. However, I do not see much cause to oppose a motion that would halt crime and ultimately lead to fewer arrests or jailing. By preventing crime we are aiding both the victims and perpetrators, by saving them from facing the consequences that come after the crime has already been committed. Predictive policing is still a fairly new strategy to deter crime, and I feel it needs more public support. Communities can work together with law enforcement to help reduce crime, so it is mutually beneficial. We are living in a culture where relations between communities and law enforcement are not the most civil. Some call for defunding the police and others call for funding the police further. It is a very polarizing subject dividing Americans as taking any side can spark controversy. I believe a middle ground can be reached through civil dialogue and policy reformation.

Christopher R. Deluzio, JD: Institute for Cyber Law, Policy, and Security: University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2020, from https://www.cyber.pitt.edu/people/christopher-r-deluzio-jd

University, C. (n.d.). Pittsburgh Crime Hot Spot Project: Preventing Crime with Predictive Policing – Metro21: Smart Cities Institute – Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved October 15, 2020, from https://www.cmu.edu/metro21/projects/reducing-crime.html

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W. , &. Coutts, L.M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems 3rd edition. SAGE Publications.

2 comments

  1. I think giving the public knowledge of these “hotspots” would give the criminals a heads up to where the police will be. Consequently, this will give the criminal an advantage. For the time being the program is terminated.

  2. Hello,

    The “Metro 21” project appeared to be an appropriate way to predict crime.

    I don’t understand why the public should have access to any policing algorithm. I believe it isn’t our right to know, where these hotspots are. If criminals aware about the policing locations, they would move their criminal activities to another location. It just seems like a window for more crime to be developed, if the public had knowledge for policing hotspots.

    What are your thoughts?

Leave a Reply


Skip to toolbar