Non-mathematicians often believe that numbers and mathematics are purely objective, not subjective. However, this widely held belief is false. The choices of what numbers and statistics to use is itself not necessarily objective. The choice of inputs for a statistic is subjective. The interpretation of the meaning of a statistic is itself not necessarily objective. Conclusions drawn from statistics are not necessarily objective. Moreover, in proving theorems, there are certain propositions that must be taken by faith and faith alone and regarded as axiomatic if one is to prove anything. The computer science saying, “Garbage in, garbage out “ is true for mathematics as well. Unfortunately, mathematics can be used by bigots to wrongly support bigotry. That is what is happening with predictive policing.
Hundreds of mathematicians are coming out against the use of predictive policing because of the bigotry involved in it. Here is the subtitle :
.
Some academics are calling the controversial practice a "scientific veneer for racism."
,
The article explains this.
,
,
Several prominent academic mathematicians want to sever ties with police departments across the U.S., according to a letter submitted to Notices of the American Mathematical Society on June 15. The letter arrived weeks after widespread protests against police brutality, and has inspired over 1,500 other researchers to join the boycott.
These mathematicians are urging fellow researchers to stop all work related to predictive policing software, which broadly includes any data analytics tools that use historical data to help forecast future crime, potential offenders, and victims. The technology is supposed to use probability to help police departments tailor their neighborhood coverage so it puts officers in the right place at the right time.
"Given the structural racism and brutality in U.S. policing, we do not believe that mathematicians should be collaborating with police departments in this manner," the authors write in the letter. "It is simply too easy to create a 'scientific' veneer for racism. Please join us in committing to not collaborating with police. It is, at this moment, the very least we can do as a community."
.
.Predictive policing is just what one would think from the name: an attempt to use probability and statistics and other mathematical tools to predict where crime will occur and then place officers there. Now, we find what we look for. Predictive policing does not allow for change and will harm communities of color. It will put more officers in communities of color and the officers put there will be expecting crime. It is inherently bigoted.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As you can see from the diagram, police operations will naturally affect criminal response and will alter the environment. If data analysis leads to the prediction that more crime will occur in a community of color and they put police there who are expecting to find crime, they likely will find something that they can use to arrest people there. It will affect the environment, but the new arrests will mean that in future data analysis, it will be deemed that it is likely that another crime will occur at the same time and place. There are legitimate applications of mathematics to solve crimes that have already occurred. However, this is different than predictive policing. It is inherently flawed and it must be rejected.