Skip to main content

A review of predictive policing from the perspective of fairness

A Correction to this article was published on 28 August 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Machine Learning has become a popular tool in a variety of applications in criminal justice, including sentencing and policing. Media has brought attention to the possibility of predictive policing systems causing disparate impacts and exacerbating social injustices. However, there is little academic research on the importance of fairness in machine learning applications in policing. Although prior research has shown that machine learning models can handle some tasks efficiently, they are susceptible to replicating systemic bias of previous human decision-makers. While there is much research on fair machine learning in general, there is a need to investigate fair machine learning techniques as they pertain to the predictive policing. Therefore, we evaluate the existing publications in the field of fairness in machine learning and predictive policing to arrive at a set of standards for fair predictive policing. We also review the evaluations of ML applications in the area of criminal justice and potential techniques to improve these technologies going forward. We urge that the growing literature on fairness in ML be brought into conversation with the legal and social science concerns being raised about predictive policing. Lastly, in any area, including predictive policing, the pros and cons of the technology need to be evaluated holistically to determine whether and how the technology should be used in policing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

References

  1. Abdollahi B, Nasraoui O (2018) Transparency in fair machine learning: the case of explainable recommender systems. In: Human and Machine Learning. Springer, pp 21–35

  2. Altman M, Wood A, Vayena E (2018) A harm-reduction framework for algorithmic fairness. IEEE Secur Privacy 16(3):34–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Asaro PM (2019) Ai ethics in predictive policing: from models of threat to an ethics of care. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 38(2):40–53

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bakke E (2018) Predictive policing: the argument for public transparency. NYU Ann Surv Am L 74:131

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bellamy RK, Dey K, Hind M, Hoffman SC, Houde S, Kannan K, Lohia P, Martino J, Mehta S, Mojsilovic A, et al. (2018) Ai fairness 360: an extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias. arXiv:181001943

  6. Bennett Moses L, Chan J (2018) Algorithmic prediction in policing: assumptions, evaluation, and accountability. Policing Soc 28(7):806–822. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1253695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Benthall S, Haynes BD (2019) Racial categories in machine learning. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp 289–298

  8. Berk R, Heidari H, Jabbari S, Kearns M, Roth A (2018) Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: the state of the art. Sociol Methods Res 0049124118782533

  9. Binns R (2018) What can political philosophy teach us about algorithmic fairness? IEEE Secur Privacy 16(3):73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bird S, Dudík M, Edgar R, Horn B, Lutz R, Milan V, Sameki M, Wallach H, Walker K (2020) Fairlearn: a toolkit for assessing and improving fairness in ai. Tech. Rep. MSR-TR-2020-32, Microsoft, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/fairlearn-a-toolkit-for-assessing-and-improving-fairness-in-ai/

  11. Bond-Graham D, Winston A (2013) All tomorrow’s crimes: the future of policing looks a lot like good branding. SF Weekly News https://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/all-tomorrows-crimes-the-future-of-policing-looks-a-lot-like-good-branding/Content?oid=2827968&showFullText=true

  12. Brantingham PJ, Valasik M, Mohler GO (2018) Does predictive policing lead to biased arrests? Results from a randomized controlled trial. Stat Public Policy 5(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Calmon FP, Wei D, Ramamurthy KN, Varshney KR (2017) Optimized data pre-processing for discrimination prevention. arXiv:170403354

  14. Campedelli GM (2019) Where are we? Using scopus to map the literature at the intersection between artificial intelligence and crime. arXiv:1912.11084

  15. Chouldechova A (2016) Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. arXiv:1610.07524

  16. Chouldechova A (2017) Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data 5(2):153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Corbett-Davies S, Goel S (2018) The measure and mismeasure of fairness: a critical review of fair machine learning. arXiv:180800023

  18. Corbett-Davies S, Pierson E, Feller A, Goel S, Huq A (2017) Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 797–806

  19. Degeling M, Berendt B (2018) What is wrong about robocops as consultants? A technology-centric critique of predictive policing. AI & Soc 33(3):347–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dwork C, Hardt M, Pitassi T, Reingold O, Zemel R (2012) Fairness through awareness. In: Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference, pp 214–226

  21. Ensign D, Friedler SA, Neville S, Scheidegger C, Venkatasubramanian S (2017) Runaway feedback loops in predictive policing. arXiv:1706.09847

  22. Ferguson AG (2016) Policing predictive policing. Wash UL Rev 94:1109

    Google Scholar 

  23. Friedler SA, Scheidegger C, Venkatasubramanian S, Choudhary S, Hamilton EP, Roth D (2019) A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning. In: Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp 329–338

  24. Garvie C (2016) The perpetual line-up: unregulated police face recognition in America. Georgetown Law, Center on Privacy & Technology

  25. Grgic-Hlaca N, Zafar MB, Gummadi KP, Weller A (2016) The case for process fairness in learning: feature selection for fair decision making. In: NIPS symposium on machine learning and the law, vol 1, p 2

  26. Hardt M, Price E, Srebro N (2016) Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 3315–3323

  27. Heidari H, Loi M, Gummadi KP, Krause A (2019) A moral framework for understanding fair ml through economic models of equality of opportunity. In: Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp 181–190

  28. Joh EE (2017) Artificial intelligence and policing: first questions. Seattle UL Rev 41:1139

    Google Scholar 

  29. Khademi A, Honavar V (2019) Algorithmic bias in recidivism prediction: a causal perspective. arXiv:1911.10640

  30. Kusner MJ, Loftus J, Russell C, Silva R (2017) Counterfactual fairness. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 4066–4076

  31. Lohia PK, Ramamurthy KN, Bhide M, Saha D, Varshney KR, Puri R (2019) Bias mitigation post-processing for individual and group fairness. In: Icassp 2019–2019 ieee international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (icassp), IEEE, pp 2847–2851

  32. Lum K, Isaac W (2016a) Predictive policing reinforces police bias. Human Rights Data Anal Group

  33. Lum K, Isaac W (2016b) To predict and serve? Significance 13(5):14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marda V, Narayan S (2020) Data in new delhi’s predictive policing system. In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp 317–324

  35. Martinez N, Bertran M, Sapiro G (2019) Fairness with minimal harm: a pareto-optimal approach for healthcare. arXiv:191106935

  36. Mehrabi N, Morstatter F, Saxena N, Lerman K, Galstyan A (2019) A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. arXiv:190809635

  37. Mohler GO, Short MB, Malinowski S, Johnson M, Tita GE, Bertozzi AL, Brantingham PJ (2015) Randomized controlled field trials of predictive policing. J Am Stat Assoc 110(512):1399–1411

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nissan E (2017) Digital technologies and artificial intelligence’s present and foreseeable impact on lawyering, judging, policing and law enforcement. Ai & Soc 32(3):441–464

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Perrot P (2017) What about ai in criminal intelligence? From predictive policing to ai perspectives. Eur Law Enforc Res Bull 16:65–75

    Google Scholar 

  40. Perry W, McInnis B, Price C, Smith S, Hollywood J (2018) Predictive Policing: the role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. RAND Corporation, Tech. rep

  41. Perry WL (2013) Predictive policing: the role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Persson A, Kavathatzopoulos I (2018a) How to make decisions with algorithms. ACM SIGCAS Comput Soc 47(4):122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Persson A, Kavathatzopoulos I (2018b) How to make decisions with algorithms: ethical decision-making using algorithms within predictive analytics. ACM SIGCAS Comput Soc 47(4):122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Reisman D, Schultz J, Crawford K, Whittaker M (2018) Algorithmic impact assessments: a practical framework for public agency accountability. Tech. rep., AI Now Institute

  45. Richardson R, Schultz J, Crawford K (2019) Dirty data, bad predictions: how civil rights violations impact police data, predictive policing systems, and justice. New York University Law Review Online, Forthcoming

  46. Ridgeway G (2013) The pitfalls of preduction. NIJ J 271:34–40

    Google Scholar 

  47. Robertson K, Khoo C, Song Y (2020) To surveil and predict: a human rights analysis of algorithmic policing in Canada. https://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/

  48. Saleiro P, Kuester B, Hinkson L, London J, Stevens A, Anisfeld A, Rodolfa KT, Ghani R (2018) Aequitas: a bias and fairness audit toolkit. arXiv:181105577

  49. Santos RB (2019) Predictive policing: where’s the evidence? In: Police innovation: contrasting perspectives. Cambridge University Press, p 366

  50. Scantamburlo T, Charlesworth A, Cristianini N (2018) Machine decisions and human consequences. arXiv:181106747

  51. Selbst AD (2017) Disparate impact in big data policing. Ga L Rev 52:109

    Google Scholar 

  52. Shrestha YR, Yang Y (2019) Fairness in algorithmic decision-making: applications in multi-winner voting, machine learning, and recommender systems. Algorithms 12(9):199

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Speicher T, Heidari H, Grgic-Hlaca N, Gummadi KP, Singla A, Weller A, Zafar MB (2018) A unified approach to quantifying algorithmic unfairness: measuring individual&group unfairness via inequality indices. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pp 2239–2248

  54. Verma S, Rubin J (2018) Fairness definitions explained. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM international workshop on software fairness (FairWare), IEEE, pp 1–7

  55. Vestby A, Vestby J (2019) Machine learning and the police: asking the right questions. Policing J Policy Pract

  56. Wang H, Grgic-Hlaca N, Lahoti P, Gummadi KP, Weller A (2019) An empirical study on learning fairness metrics for compas data with human supervision. arXiv:1910.10255

  57. Wexler J, Pushkarna M, Bolukbasi T, Wattenberg M, Viégas F, Wilson J (2019) The what-if tool: interactive probing of machine learning models. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 26(1):56–65

    Google Scholar 

  58. Xiang A, Raji ID (2019) On the legal compatibility of fairness definitions. arXiv:191200761

Download references

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1917712.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kiana Alikhademi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alikhademi, K., Drobina, E., Prioleau, D. et al. A review of predictive policing from the perspective of fairness. Artif Intell Law (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09286-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fairness
  • Algorithmic fairness
  • Predictive policing
  • AI in criminal justice