zlacker

>>pseudo+(OP)
This doesn't seem to make sense. By more accurately predicting where crimes will occur, the police departments can reduce the amount of patrols needed.

>>koheri+9e
Except this is not how it works. We are not accurately predicting where crimes will occur, but maximizing the amounts of arrests.

Indeed, sending a police patrol will only catch the kind of crime that happens in socio-economically disadvantaged communities, which in turn contributes to skewing the data to suggest that more crimes there, which leads to more policing, which leads to more crime, and so on.

Meanwhile, wage theft, over twice the size of all other kinds of theft put together, keeps growing year after year.

Police patrols should be entirely reactive, and not proactive. Proactive policing does not work.

>>sudosy+Zh
Police patrols should be entirely proactive otherwise they are responses instead of patrols. The only point of police patrols is to have a moving and visible presence in the community.

>>austin+xl
There are many cases of reactive police patrols. For example, at a protest, as a response to a people feeling that it could help their community, and so on.

I assure you mathematicians aren't optimizing the "visbile presence in the community". That's not something you need a mathematician for. Mathematicians are optimizing the ability of police to maximize the number of arrests by deciding which areas they should patrol in order to maximize crime.

>>sudosy+Jm
> I assure you mathematicians aren't optimizing the "visbile presence in the community".

How, is this your line of work?

>>austin+6o
This is addressed at the very start of the article. It's about predictive policing.