Predictive Policing and the Politics of Patterns

Mareile Kaufmann,Simon Egbert,Matthias Leese

doi:10.1093/bjc/azy060

Mareile Kaufmann, Simon Egbert + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy060

Copy DOI

Abstract

AbstractPatterns are the epistemological core of predictive policing. With the move towards digital prediction tools, the authority of the pattern is rearticulated and reinforced in police work. Based on empirical research about predictive policing software and practices, this article puts the authority of patterns into perspective. Introducing four ideal-typical styles of pattern identification, we illustrate that patterns are not based on a singular logic, but on varying rationalities that give form to and formalize different understandings about crime. Yet, patterns render such different modes of reasoning about crime, and the way in which they feed back into policing cultures, opaque. Ultimately, this invites a stronger reflection about the political nature of patterns.

Highlights

Software packages for predictive analytics have become increasingly implemented in police work across many countries (Bennett Moses and Chan 2016; Fyfe et al 2018)
These coincide with a larger trend towards a ‘pre-crime society’ (Zedner 2007) including ‘prepressive’ (Schinkel 2011) and other pre-emptive modes of governing crime (Harcourt 2007; Mantello 2016; Andrejevic 2017) that intervene in a ‘world based on patterns available only to those with access to the data and the processing power’ (Andrejevic and Gates 2014: 190)
The interviews were complemented with multiple ethnographic field studies, mainly in the form of observations that provided us with an opportunity to analyse how predictive policing methods become a part of everyday police work

Summary

Introduction

Software packages for predictive analytics have become increasingly implemented in police work across many countries (Bennett Moses and Chan 2016; Fyfe et al 2018). Against the backdrop of data analyses for security purposes, some have put forward warnings about the perpetuation of existing social imbalances and injustices—especially vis-à-vis the authority of algorithmic technologies (Gill 2000; Harcourt 2007) These coincide with a larger trend towards a ‘pre-crime society’ (Zedner 2007) including ‘prepressive’ (Schinkel 2011) and other pre-emptive modes of governing crime (Harcourt 2007; Mantello 2016; Andrejevic 2017) that intervene in a ‘world based on patterns available only to those with access to the data and the processing power’ (Andrejevic and Gates 2014: 190). Analysis and discussion are informed by academic literature, and by critical voices from inside the empirical field

Methodology

Conclusions