They are complaining about "racial bias" in predictive policing products. This "racial bias" is composed of data collected from crime statistics. If reality doesn't support the ideology, reality must be ignored. This is the sorry state of academia nowadays.
I don't think that's accurate at all. These algorithms are only as accurate as the data being input into them. The current system of policing is deeply flawed and as a result the "data collected from crime statistics" will be skewed by these inherent, systemic biases. Mathematical optimization against a flawed dataset of this kind is highly likely to create a feedback loop of increasing bias with terrible human consequences.
This seems like a plausible criticism, but it also seems like a plausible criticism of all data and derivates about human beings (and probably other things).
Are you suggesting that data cannot be biased? If so, might I suggest you try reading an elementary guide to statistics? Heck, even a blog post would do.
I think many of the mathematicians would agree with:
>This "racial bias" is composed of data collected from crime statistics.
They disagree that crime statistics are reflective of where crime occurs. They are more reflective of where police officers are and where crimes are most easily spotted. For example, the racial disparities in policing crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.
Predictive systems that read in biased data will produce biased data.
> They are more reflective of where police officers are and where crimes are most easily spotted.
The article says:
MacDonald argues that PredPol uses only crimes reported by victims, such as burglaries and robberies, to inform its software. “We never do predictions for crime types that have the possibility of officer-initiated bias, such as drug crimes or prostitution,” he says.
That doesn't mean reports are completely independent. Isn't it obvious that the perception of whether the police will do anything is going to affect the reporting?
Wouldn't that affect it in an inhibitory way, though? Black areas would be reporting less crime than actually occurs- so if reported crime rates there are still higher, that tells us something?
Just as a thought experiment, it could be that lesser crimes are not reported because the police don't take them seriously, which leads to more criminals committing major crimes, which are mostly reported.
By lesser crimes I don't mean trivial things that provide an excuse to harass non-criminals and give "broken window" policing a bad name, but actual crimes which aren't major violent crimes.
African Americans are killed by police at the same or lesser rates than other races. However, they are killed at much higher absolute rates because they commit a significantly greater amount of crime. It doesn't take a PHD in mathematics to figure this out.
If you want to tackle Black crime, start with decriminalising drugs, and then getting Black fathers back into marriage and raising their children.
Destroy the idea that being law-abiding, studying hard, and being regularly employed is 'acting white'. Scale back welfare to make all these things more attractive, and restrict immigration to direct more job opportunities to African Americans instead of Latin American and Indian migrants.
In support of your argument: Obama has said in his 'fatherhood speech': "We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves."
Almost 65% of black children are raised without a father (white: 24%). Together these numbers imho give a much better explanation towards black crime and disadvantages than inherent bias.
