Pre-Crime?

[scooter22]

Apparently, Chicago police are using computer algorithms to "help" suspects before they commit future crimes.

Seems legit...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3613526/Chicago-police-use-algorithm-combat-gun-violence.html

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/05/31/going-inside-the-chicago-police-departments-strategic-subject-list/

http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57b38-14eabf49-88714-eabf-585e2775112f376d.html

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/predictive-policing/Pages/welcome.aspx

[WickedWillis]

Minority report style. This is pretty insane.

[SteyrAUG]

Sounds more like proactive policing.

Here is the criteria:

"by analyzing data such as gang affiliations, criminal records, past shootings, and previous contact with police."

Here is the response:

“those individuals need to know that if they choose to stay in that lifestyle, we’ll come after them with everything that we have.”

They aren't arresting anyone for fitting a pattern, they are keeping closer watch on those who fit a pattern. Isn't that what police are supposed to do?

This is enforcement targeted at individuals who are likely to be a real problem. Would you prefer a totally non random TSA model where police just drive around and assume known gang members and drug dealers are just like everyone else and they spend their time shaking down the old ladies and quizzing them about their purse full of cash right after they got their social security check?

[Firefly]

Not really anything new. Used to it was a guy with compilation reports, a TI-83, a matrices ('memba them?), a dot map, and a fair to middling command of basic Calculus.

Now they just put it in their bat computer and it tells people a probability within a percentage of probability.

Nothing like Spyware or anything Orwellian. It actually works.

Most people are stupid and lazy and make a habit of having habits.

This merely gives likelihoods and averages.

[scooter22]

I realize the intent, and that there haven't been any arrests made. However, it still gives me the creeps. I'll be keeping my tinfoil snuggly secured.

[Firefly]

I realize the intent, and that there haven't been any arrests made. However, it still gives me the creeps. I'll be keeping my tinfoil snuggly secured.

Think of it as prepping for ambush arrests on hoods and gang members.

The problem is finding people, especially now, willing to do that.

It is an inconvenient truth but sadly the demographics of the gang members will not support the current narrative.

[Bulletdog]

If the criteria are gang affiliations, past shootings, arrests, etc… Then we are talking about violent felons. Convicted violent felons don't get the same freedoms and privacy as the rest of us who don't go around beating and murdering people. I've got no problem with the .gov spying on convicted violent felons that have served their time and are out loose with the rest of society now.

Your one of these criminals and you don't like it? Too bad. Your victims didn't like what you did to them either.

[T2C]

Per the policy you posted, CPD will monitor up to 110 violent convicted felons that fit T.R.A.P. criteria. There are roughly 600 gangs totaling 70,000 gang members in Chicago. I doubt most people would even notice CPD is tracking 110 of the most violent and I'll bet they appreciate the initiative.

[SteyrAUG]

I realize the intent, and that there haven't been any arrests made. However, it still gives me the creeps. I'll be keeping my tinfoil snuggly secured.

This is exactly the same thing they have done for years with informants and other tips. If you have several unrelated sources telling you more or less exactly the same thing about some drug dealers who are talking about killing somebody then you keep an eye on them. You don't have enough info to arrest them yet, but you don't just jam a thumb up your ass and wait for it to happen.

The only thing different is the use of computers. It's just new technology, it's no more worrisome than police using GPS and Google Maps to find the source of a complaint than using a paper map. An alarmist could say "Police now using GPS to track suspects" and it would technically be true, but not really what is actually happening.

The most shocking thing to me is that CPD is actually engaging in proactive police work and seem to be targeting actual criminals.

[Skyyr]

If the criteria are gang affiliations, past shootings, arrests, etc… Then we are talking about violent felons. Convicted violent felons don't get the same freedoms and privacy as the rest of us who don't go around beating and murdering people. I've got no problem with the .gov spying on convicted violent felons that have served their time and are out loose with the rest of society now.

Your one of these criminals and you don't like it? Too bad. Your victims didn't like what you did to them either.

A released felon is still a citizen. Once you go down the "but they're felons" route, it quickly turns into "but they're Muslims" or "but they're likely terrorists," which shortly turns into "but they're Christians" and "gun owners." Regardless of the convenience, we cannot tread on the rights of citizens.

I think a better way to look at it is this: if you can't be trusted after being released... then why were you released?

Someone here once posted that they believed sentencing should either be a term of one year, or the death penalty. If you couldn't be rehabilitated in one year, then you should be given the death penalty. While that might be a bit too one-size fits all, the underlying logic is sound. With perhaps some rare exceptions, if someone can't be rehabilitated to full citizen status (and all of the rights that entails), then maybe they should be removed permanently from our society and way of life.

[Big A]

Think of it as prepping for ambush arrests on hoods and gang members.

The problem is finding people, especially now, willing to do that.

It is an inconvenient truth but sadly the demographics of the gang members will not support the current narrative.
G9cut yfyfrru tguuhftgg uffeerrf uut f65fy6on 5Yu yu uhy gu ryu

Not really anything new. Used to it was a guy with compilation reports, a TI-83, a matrices ('memba them?), a dot map, and a fair to middling command of basic Calculus.

Now they just put it in their bat computer and it tells people a probability within a percentage of probability.

Nothing like Spyware or anything Orwellian. It actually works.

Most people are stupid and lazy and make a habit of having habits.

This merely gives likelihoods and averages.

Edit: the above is what happens when you don't close your phone properly and put in your pocket.

[MountainRaven]

A released felon is still a citizen. Once you go down the "but they're felons" route, it quickly turns into "but they're Muslims" or "but they're likely terrorists," which shortly turns into "but they're Christians" and "gun owners." Regardless of the convenience, we cannot tread on the rights of citizens.

I think a better way to look at it is this: if you can't be trusted after being released... then why were you released?

Someone here once posted that they believed sentencing should either be a term of one year, or the death penalty. If you couldn't be rehabilitated in one year, then you should be given the death penalty. While that might be a bit too one-size fits all, the underlying logic is sound. With perhaps some rare exceptions, if someone can't be rehabilitated to full citizen status (and all of the rights that entails), then maybe they should be removed permanently from our society and way of life.

That's the way it should be.

Unfortunately, the way that it is involves malum prohibitum felons being released early while malum in se misdemeanants and felons get locked up for longer and longer.

[26 Inf]

I think it is 1) constitutionally allowed; 2) a good deal.

I'd been working about 6 months, got a call to a shoplifting at a grocery store, 11 year old kid not a rocket scientist, trying to get along with the in crowd. Took him home, talked to mom and dad, made him a project for about a month - made it a point to be around school when school let out, waved at him, talked to him, etc. Then slacked off, I always said hi and chatted with him when our paths crossed, but it wasn't like I was a big brother. I like to think that knowing a cop, and knowing the cop knew him, and was watching in a non-bullying way made a difference.

I also stopped back at DV addresses a couple days later when I was sure both parties were at home to see how things were going. This was before mandatory arrest, and quite frankly, we didn't arrest that often at DV's unless they took us on. We practiced a half-assed mediation response and were supposed to make an effort to get them to agree on the problem and a solution. I was in my young 20's and I always felt a little foolish telling folks about churches that offered counseling. Anyways back on track, I would check back and ask if things were going okay, and if they'd had a chance to contact whoever we'd agreed on. Uncomfortable, but I wanted them to know I remembered the house and them.

Problem is that soon there were too many shoplifters and vandals, and DV's, etc. for an officer to do that consistently, plus not a lot of officers with the desire to do that type of follow-up.

I think it is a model that works, but it is labor and time intensive. That point is driven home by the fact that Chicago PD can only target a small percentage of their gangsters. If I was working the model I would look at folks who were with the person and not arrested - try to get to them before they get that first arrest.

[duece71]

A released felon is still a citizen. Once you go down the "but they're felons" route, it quickly turns into "but they're Muslims" or "but they're likely terrorists," which shortly turns into "but they're Christians" and "gun owners." Regardless of the convenience, we cannot tread on the rights of citizens.

I think a better way to look at it is this: if you can't be trusted after being released... then why were you released?

Someone here once posted that they believed sentencing should either be a term of one year, or the death penalty. If you couldn't be rehabilitated in one year, then you should be given the death penalty. While that might be a bit too one-size fits all, the underlying logic is sound. With perhaps some rare exceptions, if someone can't be rehabilitated to full citizen status (and all of the rights that entails), then maybe they should be removed permanently from our society and way of life.

Interesting concept. What about the percentage of people that are wrongly convicted? They too would get one year or death??? I see where you are going and I am not disagreeing completely. I would be terrible to get a death sentence for a 5th or 6th jay walking conviction. 3 strikes your out, right???

[Benito]

A released felon is still a citizen. Once you go down the "but they're felons" route, it quickly turns into "but they're Muslims" or "but they're likely terrorists," which shortly turns into "but they're Christians" and "gun owners." Regardless of the convenience, we cannot tread on the rights of citizens.

I think a better way to look at it is this: if you can't be trusted after being released... then why were you released?

Someone here once posted that they believed sentencing should either be a term of one year, or the death penalty. If you couldn't be rehabilitated in one year, then you should be given the death penalty. While that might be a bit too one-size fits all, the underlying logic is sound. With perhaps some rare exceptions, if someone can't be rehabilitated to full citizen status (and all of the rights that entails), then maybe they should be removed permanently from our society and way of life.

Muslims are different that Christians, gun owners, blacks, Asians, etc.

It's an ideology, not an arbitrary physical characteristic, and one that is explicitly contradictory to the US Constitution, individual freedom, yadda, yadda.
Those who adhere to it simply do not only not belong in the USA, but belong nowhere. Even in their "own" lands, they rape, enslave, subjugate, kill, torture and terrorize anyone who is not Muslim or who converts away from Islam.

Being Muslim is not a pre-crime thing. It is a crime in and of itself.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The idea is sound, the issue is using cops to implement it. When you tie in social worker and law enforcement into the same roll, that, to me, is not a good idea. Hell, even in a family most parents take one roll or the other. How are you supposed to work thru social issues with a cop who can bust you for most of what you are going to tell him. Then you put the cop into the roll of deciding when and when not to go arrest someone- and cops will have different thresholds for that.

Pre-crime? Uhm, you don't have a dad present, your mom is not a HS graduate and your grandma is closer to getting a free drink at ladies night than an AARP meal discount. Throw in a crappy neighborhood, and how sophisticated does the algorithm need to be?

I'm all for intervention and I think it was in Las Vegas where they have had a lot of success cutting down on retaliatory gang shootings.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Somehow this just has to be "racist" . . .

[Falar]

A released felon is still a citizen. Once you go down the "but they're felons" route, it quickly turns into "but they're Muslims" or "but they're likely terrorists," which shortly turns into "but they're Christians" and "gun owners." Regardless of the convenience, we cannot tread on the rights of citizens.

I think a better way to look at it is this: if you can't be trusted after being released... then why were you released?

Someone here once posted that they believed sentencing should either be a term of one year, or the death penalty. If you couldn't be rehabilitated in one year, then you should be given the death penalty. While that might be a bit too one-size fits all, the underlying logic is sound. With perhaps some rare exceptions, if someone can't be rehabilitated to full citizen status (and all of the rights that entails), then maybe they should be removed permanently from our society and way of life.

That's yet another thing I don't like about our "justice" system.

Ok, you're free! But with a few caveats.

So, is this guy still dangerous? So dangerous he can't have the freedoms every other citizen has? Why is he out?

Why are people losing these freedoms for trivial shit?

I'm all for an eye for an eye as well but I do have a beef with the death penalty: it is enacted by the government. We can't trust them to do ANYTHING right, and now they get to kill people? How many convictions get overturned years after the fact due to corrupt cops, bribery, or unreliable witnesses? How many innocent people have been executed? If the answer is greater than zero, that's the wrong ****ing answer.