This seems like a knee jerk reaction to the current political climate. "Predictive policing" has a scary sounding name but it is really just "efficient resource allocation". If there is a crime hotspot, shouldn't there be more police on hand to enforce the law there? Why have them idly patrol other areas? If someone has a history of crime and is being released, shouldn't they be monitored to ensure the public's safety, especially if there is a risk of recidivism?
The line of thinking I find dangerous in the article is that differences in outcomes are seen as racist. That doesn't make sense to me. If more people of race X commit crimes, and more members of that race are therefore subjected to legal consequences, then that is not necessarily a racist situation. If race isn't an input factor into these algorithms, the algorithms are not racist.
The line of thinking I find dangerous in the article is that differences in outcomes are seen as racist. That doesn't make sense to me. If more people of race X commit crimes, and more members of that race are therefore subjected to legal consequences, then that is not necessarily a racist situation. If race isn't an input factor into these algorithms, the algorithms are not racist.