Predictive Policing And Ethical Concerns
Predictive Policing: Overview
Predictive policing refers to the use of data analysis, algorithms, and machine learning to predict where crimes are likely to occur, who might commit them, or who might be a victim. Law enforcement agencies use these tools to allocate resources more efficiently and attempt to prevent crime before it happens.
How Predictive Policing Works
Data Input: Historical crime data, social media, demographics, economic data, weather, etc.
Algorithmic Processing: Machine learning algorithms analyze patterns to predict hotspots or individuals likely involved in crime.
Deployment: Police increase patrols or surveillance in predicted areas.
Ethical Concerns with Predictive Policing
Bias and Discrimination
Algorithms are only as unbiased as their training data. Historical policing data may reflect systemic racism or socioeconomic biases, resulting in perpetuating discrimination against minority communities.
Privacy and Surveillance
Predictive policing often involves extensive data collection and surveillance, raising concerns about violations of privacy and civil liberties.
Due Process and Presumption of Innocence
Predicting who might commit crimes can lead to preemptive policing that undermines the presumption of innocence and may result in unjust treatment.
Transparency and Accountability
Algorithms can be proprietary and opaque, making it difficult to scrutinize decisions or challenge errors.
Over-policing and Community Trust
Targeting specific neighborhoods can increase tensions and reduce trust between law enforcement and communities.
Case Law and Legal Decisions Related to Predictive Policing and Ethics
1. State v. Loomis (2016) – Wisconsin Supreme Court
Facts: Eric Loomis challenged his sentencing after a judge used a proprietary risk assessment algorithm (COMPAS) to determine his likelihood of reoffending. Loomis argued that the algorithm was a “black box” that violated his due process rights.
Issue: Does using a proprietary risk assessment tool that the defendant cannot fully examine violate due process?
Holding: The court upheld the use of the algorithm but emphasized that judges must understand the tool’s limitations and not rely solely on it.
Significance: This case highlights the tension between algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice and defendants' rights to transparency and due process. It raises ethical concerns about opacity in predictive tools.
2. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Adolph Lyons was subjected to a chokehold by LAPD officers during a traffic stop. Lyons sought an injunction to stop the LAPD from using chokeholds.
Issue: Although not directly about predictive policing, this case is foundational in police practice and civil rights, especially regarding police accountability.
Holding: The Court ruled Lyons did not have standing for injunctive relief because he could not prove he would be subjected to the chokehold again.
Relevance to Predictive Policing: This case informs debates on police practices, including predictive policing, highlighting challenges victims face in seeking relief from systemic practices.
3. United States v. Jones (2012) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Police attached a GPS tracking device to Antoine Jones’ vehicle without a warrant, monitoring his movements for 28 days.
Issue: Whether warrantless GPS tracking constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Holding: The Court ruled that prolonged GPS surveillance without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.
Significance for Predictive Policing: This case underscores limits on surveillance technologies and protects privacy rights, directly relevant given that predictive policing often depends on surveillance data.
4. In re: Loomis (2016) – Wisconsin Court of Appeals
This is closely related to the State v. Loomis case but at the appellate level, where issues of algorithmic transparency and fairness were initially raised.
The court acknowledged the risk of unfair bias but maintained that risk scores could be used as one factor among many.
This highlights the ongoing judicial balancing act between leveraging data tools and protecting individual rights.
5. Ferguson Report (U.S. Department of Justice Investigation, 2015)
While not a court decision, this DOJ report on Ferguson, Missouri’s police department revealed widespread racial bias and discriminatory policing practices.
The findings have influenced debates about predictive policing tools reinforcing biased policing.
It serves as a cautionary example of how reliance on flawed data can institutionalize discriminatory law enforcement.
Summary
Predictive policing aims to prevent crime by using data-driven predictions but faces major ethical challenges around bias, privacy, transparency, and justice.
Court cases like Loomis emphasize due process issues when algorithms influence legal decisions.
Jones protects privacy rights against invasive surveillance common in predictive policing.
Cases like Lyons and Ferguson frame broader concerns about police accountability and systemic bias.
Together, these cases illustrate the complex legal and ethical landscape predictive policing operates in, highlighting the need for careful regulation and oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments