人工智能、预测性警务和执法风险评估

IF 6.3 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Annual Review of Criminology Pub Date : 2021-01-13 DOI:10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342
R. Berk
{"title":"人工智能、预测性警务和执法风险评估","authors":"R. Berk","doi":"10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are widespread concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in law enforcement. Predictive policing and risk assessment are salient examples. Worries include the accuracy of forecasts that guide both activities, the prospect of bias, and an apparent lack of operational transparency. Nearly breathless media coverage of artificial intelligence helps shape the narrative. In this review, we address these issues by first unpacking depictions of artificial intelligence. Its use in predictive policing to forecast crimes in time and space is largely an exercise in spatial statistics that in principle can make policing more effective and more surgical. Its use in criminal justice risk assessment to forecast who will commit crimes is largely an exercise in adaptive, nonparametric regression. It can in principle allow law enforcement agencies to better provide for public safety with the least restrictive means necessary, which can mean far less use of incarceration. None of this is mysterious. Nevertheless, concerns about accuracy, fairness, and transparency are real, and there are tradeoffs between them for which there can be no technical fix. You can't have it all. Solutions will be found through political and legislative processes achieving an acceptable balance between competing priorities.","PeriodicalId":51759,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Criminology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342","citationCount":"28","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Intelligence, Predictive Policing, and Risk Assessment for Law Enforcement\",\"authors\":\"R. Berk\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There are widespread concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in law enforcement. Predictive policing and risk assessment are salient examples. Worries include the accuracy of forecasts that guide both activities, the prospect of bias, and an apparent lack of operational transparency. Nearly breathless media coverage of artificial intelligence helps shape the narrative. In this review, we address these issues by first unpacking depictions of artificial intelligence. Its use in predictive policing to forecast crimes in time and space is largely an exercise in spatial statistics that in principle can make policing more effective and more surgical. Its use in criminal justice risk assessment to forecast who will commit crimes is largely an exercise in adaptive, nonparametric regression. It can in principle allow law enforcement agencies to better provide for public safety with the least restrictive means necessary, which can mean far less use of incarceration. None of this is mysterious. Nevertheless, concerns about accuracy, fairness, and transparency are real, and there are tradeoffs between them for which there can be no technical fix. You can't have it all. Solutions will be found through political and legislative processes achieving an acceptable balance between competing priorities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Criminology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342\",\"citationCount\":\"28\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

摘要

人们普遍担心在执法中使用人工智能。预测性警务和风险评估就是突出的例子。令人担忧的问题包括指导这两项活动的预测的准确性、偏见的可能性以及明显缺乏运营透明度。媒体对人工智能近乎令人窒息的报道有助于塑造叙事。在这篇综述中,我们通过首先打开人工智能的描述来解决这些问题。它在预测性警务中用于预测时间和空间上的犯罪,在很大程度上是空间统计的一种练习,原则上可以使警务更有效,更具手术性。它在刑事司法风险评估中用于预测谁将犯罪,在很大程度上是一种自适应非参数回归。原则上,它可以让执法机构以最少的必要限制手段更好地提供公共安全,这意味着监禁的使用要少得多。这些都不神秘。尽管如此,对准确性、公平性和透明度的担忧是真实存在的,它们之间存在着无法通过技术解决的权衡。你不可能拥有所有。将通过政治和立法进程找到解决办法,在相互竞争的优先事项之间实现可接受的平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Artificial Intelligence, Predictive Policing, and Risk Assessment for Law Enforcement
There are widespread concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in law enforcement. Predictive policing and risk assessment are salient examples. Worries include the accuracy of forecasts that guide both activities, the prospect of bias, and an apparent lack of operational transparency. Nearly breathless media coverage of artificial intelligence helps shape the narrative. In this review, we address these issues by first unpacking depictions of artificial intelligence. Its use in predictive policing to forecast crimes in time and space is largely an exercise in spatial statistics that in principle can make policing more effective and more surgical. Its use in criminal justice risk assessment to forecast who will commit crimes is largely an exercise in adaptive, nonparametric regression. It can in principle allow law enforcement agencies to better provide for public safety with the least restrictive means necessary, which can mean far less use of incarceration. None of this is mysterious. Nevertheless, concerns about accuracy, fairness, and transparency are real, and there are tradeoffs between them for which there can be no technical fix. You can't have it all. Solutions will be found through political and legislative processes achieving an acceptable balance between competing priorities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annual Review of Criminology
Annual Review of Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Criminology provides comprehensive reviews of significant developments in the multidisciplinary field of criminology, defined as the study of both the nature of criminal behavior and societal reactions to crime.
期刊最新文献
Parental Legal Culpability in Youth Offending Joan Petersilia: A Life and Legacy of Academic and Practical Impact Group Threat and Social Control: Who, What, Where, and When Desistance as an Intergenerational Process Code of the Street 25 Years Later: Lasting Legacies, Empirical Status, and Future Directions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1