Point. But the reduction in actual crime will be counterbalanced by the fact that more of those criminals are being caught. Especially in terms of small property crimes and drug use, much of it goes unreported, so the police can dig down quite a ways before they hit the bottom of the supply. Add to that the fact that some criminals are desperate enough or dumb enough to continue to act in an area with a high police presence simply because it's nearby, and you get a situation where the ability of increased policing to amply crime reporting can easily slow or even counteract the actual reduction in crime.

 

Bingo! Wire was excellent. Stats games, that's all it's about.

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 'profiling'.

Some 'academic' determines the serial killer has a mum complex, is male, and comes from a disfunctional family.

Like....BRILLIANT, EINSTEIN....

Gonna get a grant from a University to do research on...."if I stick my toe in the ocean.....will it get wet?"

 

That show 'Criminal Minds' with a WHOLE bunch of disfunctional mum-complex profilers all chasing ONE CASE [while all the others clearly fester] is truly pathetic drivel aimed at the semi-conscious.

At least Cracker was half decent - yet another example of the English being 'better at it'...

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.

Depends... there *could* be one of them shark fellas about... and then you'd have to call your toe [long distance] to ask.   

I agree, though - there seems to be little or no common sense, does there?

I do agree with you about the profiling stuff. Sometimes it seems to work, though.

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.

I did not mean with crimes that are infrequent, but with areas that are not constantly having crime.  As I indicated, if you have a housing project with rampant crime, you do not need a computer.  But if you have some guy robbing houses, the computer will help predict where he will strike next.  No matter how random we try to be, there is usually a pattern.

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

Depends... there *could* be one of them shark fellas about... and then you'd have to call your toe [long distance] to ask. 

 

Well, with all the 'land-sharks' claiming to deliver 'candy-grams,' or  'flowers,' or 'pizza,' you might get your toe taken off and relocated to a 'far away place with a strange sounding name,' without even getting to the water.  Predict that?

With or without pepperoni?

What am I asking? You order, HG will intercept it before it comes close to your place. 

Exactly!  I worked briefly for the QLD Police Service in the Criminal Information Bureau, and I saw just how great a length criminals will go to to avoid detection.  There was this particular gang of house breakers who would use urban street directories, randomly open a page, and blindly stick a pin in it. They would survey the corresponding street and rob one house only, obviously the one they felt would reap the biggest/best gain.  Their robberies were so random and widespread it would have been near impossible to predict where they might strike next.  Why?  Because they not only robbed affluent areas but all areas of all types of people... working class to pensioners, they didn't care.

So how were they caught?  Chose the wrong house to burgle, that's how.  Unbeknown to them, the house belonged to a cop... and worse still, for them, he was at home when they wrongfully ascertained the house would be empty.  Let's just say that they weren't going to argue with his service revolver... and a call-in did the rest.

Anyhow, after many months of detective work, the cops managed to pin dozens of unsolved burglaries on them and hundreds of charges against then resulted in convictions against them all.  So how did the street directory thing come up?  A couple of 'em rolled over and confessed/did deals in the hope of getting reduced sentences/better treatment.

And why did I not stay in the job?  I couldn't stand the politics and buck passing.  No, I wasn't a cop... just a civilian attached to the police service.