The 'arrest filter' is only as good as the inputs. As it currently stands, I'm sure that things like "uses drugs recreationally," "is black," "is Muslim," and "is not Christian," would end up counting towards your 'arrest score.' And also because your arrest score is computed by a machine rather than a human, that will be used as an excuse to call it unimpeachable. E.g. "Machines can't be racist, so the arrest score going after lots of poor, Black men must mean that there's something to it."
Only as good as the inputs, yes. But if it's a halfway decent filter, it will include machine learning, e.g. a Bayesian filter, and if "is Muslim" turns out to have low correspondence with actual criminal activity that input will quickly be deweighted. Or perhaps paired with other aspects- e.g., perhaps "is Muslim" is of no consequence and "Googles Jihad" is also of no consequence, but "is Muslim" && "Googles Jihad" gives you a point. Just as one example of the patterns a good filter could recognize.
Machines can't be racist, so the arrest score going after lots of poor, Black men must mean that there's something to it.
If a learning Bayesian filter targets a certain demographic, there probably IS something to it.
That really would be amusing/pleasing, if all this work we've spent developing spam filters became the lead-up to an accurate, learning crime filter. Perhaps the fork to spamassassin will be known as crimeassassin?
> If a learning Bayesian filter targets a certain demographic, there probably IS something to it.
I'm pretty sure both Bayes and Laplace would not agree with the categorization of Bayesian probability as some sort of panacea for determining truth in criminal matters.
Yes, it is just probability and not truth. But an arrest is often a "guess" with some degree of confidence, not absolute certainty. Thus is a "weight" or "probability" not perfectly applicable?
Trials & convictions is a different matter, more suited to truth-seeking.
Don't disregard the effects that 'just an arrest' have on people. For example, being arrested for child porn-related charges, but not charged / convicted isn't exactly a no-op.
Not for determining truth, but the degree of confidence in it, yes. Probability is the tool to get to the truth, if you allow for your information to be incomplete and uncertain.
