Skip to main content


Log in

A review of predictive policing from the perspective of fairness

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 28 August 2021

This article has been updated


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, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history


  • 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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Bennett Moses L, Chan J (2018) Algorithmic prediction in policing: assumptions, evaluation, and accountability. Policing Soc 28(7):806–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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,

  • Bond-Graham D, Winston A (2013) All tomorrow’s crimes: the future of policing looks a lot like good branding. SF Weekly News

  • 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 

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

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

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

  • 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 

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

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

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

  • 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

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

  • 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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

  • 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

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

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

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

  • 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

  • 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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson K, Khoo C, Song Y (2020) To surveil and predict: a human rights analysis of algorithmic policing in Canada.

  • 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

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

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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 

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

Download references


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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


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

Check for updates. 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 30, 1–17 (2022).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: