If it helps them catch more criminals, I don't see the harm. The police are pretty good at keeping stuff to themselves (anyone remember COFEE?). You don't just need the model to perform an analysis, you also need the stats (which is far from "reading the paper").

Maybe. We will see.

My guess is police use this to identify hotspots that aren't immediately obvious, and emerging trends so they can diverge them. There's no blind adherence, and they're just as capable as the next guy at realising the problems with such a model.

No harm, but just pointing up an inherent bias which I hope they're aware of.... hey, me likes less crime.

Here's a recent related article on quantum computing which relates to this.  It's about the ability of a computer to determine quantum probabilities and provide accurate answers: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110731170028.htm:

And for a fun look...semi-related: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080505072755.htm

Simple lesson here with both of these is , "Just because a computer says it's true doesn't make it so."

Computers, even the best, are still constrained by what is fed into them.  But if you feed the correct data in, at least it will crunch it a lot faster than humans can.  How does that help?  Well, if there is a neighborhood that is high crime, you do not need a computer to tell you that.  However, it can help with the infrequent crimes.

I love seeing anyone point out too-small sample problems, but I just don't get what you are saying about the reporting. Would you have the database exclude arrests made by beat cops who went to an area because of a 'hot spot' report?

That seems counterproductive, unless you're talking about a notoriously corrupt police force such as LAPD and NYPD have been many times in the past. If the cops in Santa Cruz are rotten, those silly Banana Slugs at UC Santa Cruz are not doing their jobs as uppity students.

Exactly. Like rape (under reported), and larceny by telephone/email, etc. (shame preventing reporting).

They don't have to look at 'all crimes'. Just the type they wish to perform and the area they want to perpetrate it in.. The timing will become obvious.

This assumes that policing has no effect on criminal activity, which ain't quite right. Except, again, in cases where cops are corrupt and will somehow keep up arrests even though they've worked neighborhood X or parking garage Y so much that only truly idiotic or drug-addled crooks keep working them.

If that sort of 'eternal high-crime area' happens, it ain't the cops' fault. It's the community's failure to address chronic problems in a specific population--something like a lack of homeless shelters or methadone clinics. Successful professional crooks avoid the cops, or buy them off if they have to.

Nenjin might be overestimating the skill level of the average experienced beat cop, but I agree with the general point about this software basically being yet another form of 'expert in a can.' Now that's a whole different problem for the political economy, especially for those of us who are more or less what Microsoft calls "knowledge workers." 

While criminals are predictable in the fact that they WILL offend, they are unpredictable in that often crimes are spontaneous, spur of the moment things that they themselves have little control over.

And that's just one side of it.  There are the big-time crims who plan things meticulously, and their general thinking, in this day and age of electronic surveillance, etc, would be strike when least expected at a place they're least expected at... one with the least population [to identify them/get in the way] and one where law enforcement would take some time reaching.  These criminals are generally harder to catch, much less predict.

Them there's the criminal, who up until some life altering moment was merely the guy/gal next door... who, for some inexplicable reason, snaps and commits a crime they are otherwise incapable of.  These sorts of crimes can happen in any home/building/locale at any time, day or night, and are less predictable than the covertly planned 'intelligent' crime.

So yes, Doc, you are entirely correct in your hypothesis that this kind of 'policing' is not only inadequate but dangerous.  Yes, it may be able to predict to some degree gang related crimes, armed robberies [of liquor/drug stores], domestic violence and B&E's in certain areas, but these other events are too random to accurately generate computer models on.  That leaves it to guesswork and assumptions.... both highly dangerous practices when dealing with flesh and blood lives.

Furthermore, what about the unspoken crimes?  As you say, these are not factored in and therefore are unlikely to decrease as a result of police following computer generated patterns... something that could lead to fewer police on the ground because officials smugly think they have crime licked. at 20 something percent down.  No, police need to be present in all quarters and vigilant.

Sadly, I think somebody {officials] has been watching too many TV cop shows and movies.  While some may be based on true cases/experiences, etc, real life cops don't have scripts and foregone conclusions to work with.  Sure, utilise technology when it serves your purpose, but don't rely on it as being the be all and end all of police work, too many people depend on the "serve and protect" to leave their fates entirely to electronics.

Like 'Wire in the Blood' 'Waking the Dead' and 'The Shadow Line' {among others] great examples of Brit 'crime' TV at its best.

one of the things that truly pisses me off with 'Criminal Minds'... the fact that one profiler starts to explain shit to the cops/family/friends, etc, then another takes over part way through... then another... then another.  For me, that's just another lousy excuse to get US actors speaking parts and get more money than they're worth... or deserve.   At least with 'Cracker' he laid it on the line himself.

That's another reason I can't stand those US news services and 'morning' 'entertainment' shows.   One starts and another finishes the story/topic at hand.  That shits me to tears.  For frig sake, it they ALL have to open their mouths on air, give them EACH a story/topic.  This switching presenter mid-story for dramatic effect is crap.

*rant off* temporarily.

Oh, and another obstacle to effective and honest police work.... politics.  All too often police commissioners [and other hierarchy cops] are political plants and mouthpieces for influential figures, both political and business alike.  They're there to sweep upper crust stuff under the carpet and make shit "go away".  They're there as minders so you can't get to the people at the top... hence those at the top remain unaccountable and immune from public scrutiny.

So yeah, is this computer generated 20%+ reduction in crime just a smoke screen to distract people from the real issues and corruption of those they're supposed to trust?  Cos at the end of the day they're only statistics and serve also to mask crime that is not so well known/obvious.

That is correct though finding the pattern might prove very difficult.