Software Used To Predict Who Might Kill 361
eldavojohn writes "Richard Berk, a University of Pennsylvania criminologist, has worked with authorities to develop a software tool that predicts who will commit homicide. I could not find any papers published on this topic by Berk, nor any site stating what specific Bayesian /
decision tree algorithm /
neural net is being implemented." From the article: "The tool works by plugging 30 to 40 variables into a computerized checklist, which in turn produces a score associated with future lethality. 'You can imagine the indicators that might incline someone toward violence: youth; having committed a serious crime at an early age; being a man rather than a woman, and so on. Each, by itself, probably isn't going to make a person pull the trigger. But put them all together and you've got a perfect storm of forces for violence,' Berk said. Asked which, if any, indicators stood out as reliable predicators of homicide, Berk pointed to one in particular: youthful exposure to violence." The software is to enter clinical trials next spring in the Philadelphia probation department. Its intent is to serve as a kind of triage: to let probation caseworkers concentrate most of their effort on the former offenders most likely to be most dangerous.
Pretty much. (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternately, their probation officer ignores them, and they get dumped out on the street, where they're unable to find a job and contribute positively, and turn to crime instead.
It's a real win/win.
Utter BS (Score:2, Insightful)
This is utter BS, and a plain simple statistics based profiler.
I'm so pissed off after reading about this "supposed", that I wanna kill someone.
And don't forget, all arabs are terrorists! Don't forget to give them obvious, dirty looks full of awareness of their terroristic descent, when you happen to see one.
A bit uneasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Games (Score:4, Insightful)
Does not apply outside the prison system? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Is Berk implying that a checklist of questions can make someone pull the trigger?
Well in this case I suppose we have no choice but TO KILL THOSE PEOPLE IN ADVANCE I think! Oops. Well what do you expect, I have "youth" and I am a "man, rather than a woman".
Iraq (Score:1, Insightful)
Probation: People are missing something here... (Score:5, Insightful)
"This will help stratify our caseload and target our resources to the most dangerous people," probation department director of research Ellen Kurtz said
Emphasis added.
This is being used by people who have already been tried, convicted, and sentenced and are being monitored and required to check in anyways. The model, further, was derived from the probation system (not from those already in jail):
"Using probation department cases entered into the system between 2002 and 2004, Berk and his colleagues performed a two-year follow-up study - enough time, they theorized, for a person to reoffend if he was going to."
This is just being used to help parole officers decide how to allocate their caseload. That's a Good Thing(TM). No one seems to be talking about applying it to society in a minority report fashion, and while such a harebrained scheme may eventually be table, it needs to be evaluated independently of whether it is a good idea for parole officers deciding how to allocate limited resources.
I can site obvious and useless statistics too! (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that getting rid of cars or guns isn't going to solve the problem of people acting irrationally or irresponsibly. Banning is a useless solution because it only treats the symptom and not the problem, and will not cause a decrease in violent activities. People need to be educated so they can find better solutions to resolve their personal problems, or in other cases properly medicated and/or given therapy to resolve their psychological problems.
Re:Moderators on drugs? (Score:3, Insightful)
that disproves your theory.
Re:Utter BS (Score:3, Insightful)
However if the first thing that comes to her/his mind is 'It's clear, she killed her sister in order to be at another funeral so she could meet the guy again' then there is higher possibility that there could be something wrong with the asked person.
Wait, both answers demonstrate "thinking homicidal deviations", so what is the answer that means I'm the greatest person in the world. "F*ck off with your stupid stories!" ?
Could be.
As for the second answer, maybe if you answer that you simply had sense of humor.
This is why I hate popular psychology. It's a one trick pony: make said person say something, or take his reaction out of context and proceed with totally nonsensical conclusions.
I've heard enough of "psychology"-s take on reality to know they have totally lost grip of it.
There was even that guy in yesterday's news explaining that pedophiles actually do what they do since they feel like children and hate the "world of adult people". WTF? Sure they do. Since this is what children do all day: rape their friends.
Or how about "people in poor countries are poor since this is their subliminal desire want to punish themselves, which results in behavioral anomalies". Of course, this explains everything!
Re:Oh, stop it. (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, given the existence of fairly high crime rates here anyway, coupled with a well-justified sense of distrust of government and authority, and the extreme symbolic importance of the firearm, it would make little sense and cause great harm to intentionally disarm law-abiding people and remove the means with which they might defend themselves. This is particularly true since there's no convincing evidence showing that disarming law abiding citizens would reduce crime; rather, logically we'd expect to see it increase.
What people in other countries do may well be fine solutions for their needs (although I would probably disagree on fundamental philosophical grounds), but it's foolish to make sweeping cross-cultural comparisons and then blame the resulting difference on a single factor.
If kids couldn't tell the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not Utter BS (Score:2, Insightful)
There are scientific reasons behind human behavior. Elevated testosterone will tend to elevate violent behavior. Raised in an abusive home raises the likelihood of being an abuser. Raised in a racist home raises the likelihood of violence against other races. Raised with a religion of violence, one is more likely to be violent.
Given enough sample data and enough time, one could construct a system where the likelihood of violent behavior can be predicted. Will the predictions be 100% accurate? Of course not. You certainly couldn't use it to pre-convict someone. However, throwing out the science because you don't like the implications on human nature is as intelligent, as well, intelligent design.
The most important variable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Edit: Bad Idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Missing the Point Folks (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of you criticize the way it will be used but I see precious little about how it can be used. You fear that it will be misused and not without reason, I suppose but look at the potential positives. What if this kind of research ultimately proves that exposure to violence at an early age? What if we show that video games don't cause violence in children or that red food coloring really does have a harmful effect on behavior (loss of control being harmful)?
The knowledge is worthwhile, this is a start, where we build our knowledge base. Even if it fails in the long run we learn from the research and our failures. Sure, it can be misused. So can a gun, a knife, a pen or mod points (I it found particularly amusing seeing people who disagreed with the popular "free-speech mentality getting modded down, a form of censorship, just because their views were unpopular).
When did the quest for knowledge become subject to political correctness on Slashdot?
Re:If kids couldn't tell the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazingly, I've not grown up to be a mass murderer. (In fact, I've never even so much as had a real fight in my life)
Re:Numb3rs : Sacrifice (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reference (Score:3, Insightful)
The behaviour being studied occurs in 3% of the sample population. When predicting which individuals will exhibit this behaviour, a coin flip will have a 97% false positive rate. The model being studied has only a 50% false positive rate. In a population of 100, the model will predict that six individuals will exhibit the behaviour. It will be correct on the three, and incorrect on three more. It will correctly predict the 94 inmates who will not.
This is Silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Incredibly small data set (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd also like to know how they use this data. I mean, if it actually works and is used effectively, you're going to prevent murders, right? But if they prevent the murders, they have no proof that the "tagged" person was ever going to commit a murder, so how do they justify the extra attention given to that person? Plus anyone on probation who does commit a murder will presumably be the one who wasn't tagged, and therefor not watched as closely. So even if it works flawlessly, it will look like it failed unless they purposely let some murders occur to give them the statistics they need to prove the system works. Eesh.
Re:Oh, stop it. (Score:2, Insightful)