Prediction in Criminal Justice System Essay Sample

Crime as the topic of research and development has always been focused on the ability to not only stop current crime from happening, but also to prevent future crimes from occurring. In this topic of prevention, we understand that to prevent crimes from occurring, there must be a foundational process of evaluation, that guide criminal justice researcher’s paths in determining future offenders. This path is done so that researchers have a basis for assumption and so the risk of individual wrongful accusation is minimized. This process of research and determination of future crimes of criminal prevention is known as predictive policing. Predictive policing has shown to be increasingly popular in the criminal justice world and has been a hot topic of discussion regarding effectiveness and certainty. To fully understand this policing approach and the research associated with it, we must first understand the major concepts regarding criminal prediction.

Prediction as whole in criminal justice can be broken down into multiple different types. Prediction of crime can usually take place in determining offenders, victims, places, or objects. By using prediction techniques for each of these different variables, crime in general is able to be narrowed down in hopes of prevention. Variables are a pivotal factor when determining which type of predictive approach to use. In the textbook, Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations, author Steven Lab explains, “Some variables or indicators will predict future behavior better than others. The challenge is to identify the best predictors. The choice of predictor variables often reflects the orientation of the researcher making the prediction” (Lab, 2020, pp. 172). This explanation helps us to understand that variables have a drastic impact on not only the type of predictive technique to use, but also how effective the results will be. By understanding the importance of variables, it helps give us insight on the two major types of prediction that are used in criminal justice which are clinical predictions and actuarial predictions. Variables and the type of researcher are pivotal in clinical predictions as the main focus of this style of prediction in based on the researcher’s observation and evaluation. However, actuarial predictions base their assumptions off of data and evidence found. Even though the types of variables are different for each style of prediction, they do share a basic understanding of certain factors that are prevalent when relating to crime and delinquency. These factors are known as risk factors and they help researchers make further assumption on either their interview or the data that they study. Risk factors help gain knowledge into individual’s lives and experiences that may have contributed to their criminal lifestyle. These factors relate to family, peers, community, school, psychological, and biological. All of which have prominent red flags that increase the probability to cause people to act a certain way or make certain decision. All of the factors, variables, and styles discussed do not only deal with humans as victims or offenders. These aspects also help researchers determine specific areas that are more prone to crime or violence. The overall process for determining different aspects of crime and behavior is very diverse and not all styles rely on shared factors. The type of predictive policing used varies largely based on the situations in which it as applied. By gaining a deeper knowledge of predictive policing and the approaches used, it gives us a better understanding of data and the effectiveness of predictive policing. 

Preventative policing was generally viewed to be an effective strategy applied among law enforcement. It was perceived to help reduce crime among individuals who were predisposed to a criminal lifestyle, as well as help minimize future crimes in areas that were marked as “hot spots”. This style of policing was hard to measure for a long period of time due to it being relatively new, and effectiveness was more of an opinion rather than statistically supported. However, recent data has been compiled and it does give support to this style of policing, but the support is not overwhelming. The reason behind this underwhelming support is due to the fact that predictive policing as a whole has been modified multiple times. Original trials had shown data that had only shown underperforming results. The solution to this data was to offer a more concrete way of both attaining data and laying out what needed to be done in order to give an accurate “prediction”. In the article, Randomized Controlled Field Trials of Predictive Policing, authors state, “Beyond the question of broader applicability, we might also ask whether the observed impact on crime is significant as a practical matter. At mean patrol levels (31 min per box per day), the ETAS algorithm corresponds to 4.3 fewer crimes per week per division. While a crime reduction of 7.4% may appear small, the potential savings to society are quite large” (Mohler, 2015, pp. 1409). This article examines data after changes had been made to the predictive policing strategy, and the results are extremely positive. Prior data using the old style had proven to be effective, but the changes have proven to give even more validity to this style of policing. Crime had effectively been reduced by over seven percent in areas that this policing was implement. This is just one study that supports predictive policing in terms of crime reduction. However, even though support is there, criticism among predictive policing is overwhelming. It proves to be effective, but margin for error and implementation difficulty may outweigh the risks involved.

Predictive policing has proven through data that it can be effective in reducing crime, however the ability to reduce crime lies solely on the data that criminal justice researchers are evaluating. This leaves the possibility for faulty predictions if the data being examined is not valid or correct. Along with this, human error is evident among this system. This error can come from the researchers who propose their findings, as well as the law enforcement agencies who implement them. The main problem, however, comes after data is evaluated and sent to law enforcement agencies. Misinterpretation of the findings along with lack of information can often lead to less effective results. In the article, Predictive Policing: Review of Benefits and Drawbacks, authors Albert Meijer and Martijn Wessels state, “If the models are not fathomed by law enforcement agencies, it might become a challenge to determine how risky geospatial areas or individuals are: riskier is not the equivalent of risky. If law enforcers do not understand the factors that lead to an increased chance of crime, the effectiveness of their actions might be reduced” (Meijer, 2019, pp. 1035). This disconnect among law enforcement and criminal justice researchers only proves to make this style of policing more strenuous. The disconnect can be a double-edged sword as some officers will choose to either disregard information obtained or push for arrests solely based on information given. The problems that arise from this have to be addressed and the only way to do so is to inform law enforcement agencies and their members. It requires a greater knowledge of crime and behavior that these agencies do not necessarily have the time or means to obtain. The wide scale of criticisms seem to rest on the process of this style of policing being very lengthy and prone to errors along the way. This distrust with the overall process seems to go hand in hand with the positive data associated and overall warrants mixed emotions regarding predictive policing as a whole. 

Preventative policing has proven to the criminal justice system that the benefit of reducing crime and future crimes from happenings are extremely daunting and time consuming. It has given researchers the ability to make appropriate claims and predictions, but it does not come without uncertainty. Law enforcement agencies have also learned this as they have made a difference regarding crime and criminals but have also dealt with discrepancies. This style of policing can be extremely effective when used correctly and doing so without error proves to be the most difficult part of the process. Overall, the ground that has been covered so far in this style of policing is impressive and it can lay foundation to a better and more effective alternative in the future. Changes and adaptations to preventative policing could be very beneficial to communities that are at high risk of crime, but only time will determine this.