UK officials insist 'murder prediction tool' algorithms purely abstract The UK's justice department has confirmed it is working on developing algorithms to predict which criminals will later become murderers. It was internally referred to as the Homicide Prediction Project, and was first discovered via Freedom of Information (FOI) requests filed by civil liberties group Statewatch, which uncovered …
The pre-crime department has been rolling for some time now. Soon we will incarcerate all who are predicted to commit a crime. The country will be converted to a jail with strict gender separation. Few free-zones will be established to encompass the innocent. The entire problem is estimated to solve itself within 50..75 years or sooner with strict rationing and appropriate labour assignments.
Wouldn't go so far as the jail those we might think commit crimes but I could easily see subjecting them to greater surveillance, especially if you had a state that was collecting everything they said and did online. That's way too much data to go through, but perhaps if you prioritize it to just the ones you think are future criminals...
You're gonna have AI doing a lot of this regardless, but the threshold for where it gets handed off to a human for a closer look and potential action could be lower for someone on the naughty list compared to someone who isn't. And of course any government doing that would also have a favored list of "good guys" who do things like storm a capitol and attack police in a patriotic way, who are therefore deserving of having a much higher threshold than the rest of us.
Where does it end though? The 4 week scan?
Doctor: I'm afraid the scan has some unsettling results.
Mother: Oh my, what's wrong? Genetic?
Doctor: No madam, I'm afraid it's criminal, according to our scans it seems your child is going to be a homicidal maniac with a propensity towards murdering hookers.
Mother: Oh god, he must get that from his fathers side...his family do tend to order their steaks rare. Is there anything we can do?
Doctor: Of course, we're going to have to put you in the new maternity wing at Strangeways until he/she is born at which case we will keep the child incarcerated under a whole life sentence with no prospect of parole. We will do this immediately.
Mother: Oh thank god.
*later that day*
Mother: It's a big grim in here, what are you in for?
Cellmate: My child was predetermined to commit financial fraud at a major bank, specifically pension fraud, they've pre-booked him for 6 years in here. You?
Mother: My child is a homicidal maniac, they will never be released.
Cellmate: Oh my you poor thing.
It's easy enough to look up, no? The hits I got are mainly from Canada, for a specific minority group, for example: "For certain groups, such as Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and LGBTQ2 Canadians, experiences of discrimination, racism and historical trauma are also important social determinants of health".
It derives from the concept of "Racialized person", explained as follows: "refers to individuals negatively impacted by racial meanings attributed to them. This term, now preferred over "visible minority," acknowledges race as socially constructed through racism."
Use of 'acknowledges' like this is established science rather than an activist position.
I also note 'this term, now preferred', which is an example of creating an in group that has its own terminology. IT has a version of that: expiring certifications in tools that haven't meaningfully changed since you last took the exam.
The data from the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police is from people who have come to the attention of the Police due to crimes, as suspects, witnesses or victims. Now, of course, if you are going to assess whether a murder is likely t be committed it is as well to identify a likely victim as a murderer. But, with recent history I wonder whether the data includes details of the Police Officers in each area and their social media postings? Wayne Cousins had the nickname 'the rapist' before he committed murder. Other Police officers have been in the news lately suspect or convicted of serious crimes.
What do you think?
I want to know, for certain, that they haven't excluded the members of parliament from their databases, nor the royal family.
I'd also want to see what it says about members of the royal marines. I guess if it doesn't trigger on them, they should be relegated to desk duty.
A simpler solution would be to put boots back on the ground, engage with people and to listen to them. Everyone knows who the local bad apples are and what they're capable of, you just have to ask.
This could also be a good first step for Plod to regain some of the trust it has lost over the last twenty years.
Unfortunately some of the 'apples' are so bad that nobody is prepared to risk life and limb 'grassing them up' to the Police. There have been several murders committed in the UK where it is strongly believed that the local communities know who the murderer is, but are just too scared of retribution to say out loud. then agin there was a radio documentary 'Please Protect Abraham' series about a lad who stopped a gang raping a girl and testified in court, getting the assailants sent to prison. When they were let out of prison he was murdered* by his front door as he had not been re-housed away from the area.
I do not know how frequent such attacks are outside the UK, but they are very sparse here, if the absence of any reports in the media is to go by. And anyone could have predicted that Abraham would have been a target too attack, you don't need a computer or AI for that.
*Shot twice at close range with a double-barrelled shotgun - no chance at all. Killer not been traced, and no-one has been charged in connection.
According to Statewatch, types of data the homicide prediction project looks at include those related to: Suspects, victims, witnesses, missing people, people for whom there are safeguarding concerns, and other vulnerable individuals.
The MoJ documents stated that health marker data was expected to give "significant predictive power" to the models, with factors like mental health, addiction, self-harm, suicide, vulnerability, and disability all informing homicide predictions.
The above is what police officers and health care officials where trained to look for, Government should stop trying to computerise everything and bring back the human element.
Put humans back in the loop and they can make judgements of these things rather than leaving it to computer algorithms that then become hard to challenge, because the staff acting on the computer output do not & will not have the authority to challenge what the computer determines and management will push back on challenges to make the system look good despite innocent citizens being negatively impacted because the computer said so.
"Time and again, research shows that algorithmic systems for 'predicting' crime are inherently flawed," she said. "Yet the government is pushing ahead with AI systems that will profile people as criminals before they've done anything.
UK Judiciary is already jailing people for hurt words while letting child harmers out on bail or suspended sentences.
"This latest model, which uses data from our institutionally racist police and Home Office, will reinforce and magnify the structural discrimination underpinning the criminal legal system. Like other systems of its kind, it will code in bias towards racialized and low-income communities. Building automated tools to profile people as violent criminals is deeply wrong, and using such sensitive data on mental health, addiction, and disability is highly intrusive and alarming.
This will ensure all cops have to enforce what the computer says, baking in that racism that has steadfastly been being removed over decades.
We all see the problem yet we know government won't address the issues.
Won't they think of the citizens?
@tip pc said "UK Judiciary is already jailing people for hurt words while letting child harmers out on bail or suspended sentences."
If you are predicting crime then need to factor in things like the above
As @tip pc implied. In the UK possession of huge numbers of really nasty kiddie images just gets a slap on the wrist in many cases.
I'm sure at some point some of these non imprisoned people will receive some community vigilante "justice" that results in some physical injury - crimes that will only occur as a result of sentencing approach leaving that person out of jail (a lot of the sentencing guidelines seem more about lack of prison space than perceived* crime severity)
I'm sure quite a lot of the British public would prefer resources devoted to catching criminals, in area I am, "low level" crimes such as mobile phone theft**, shed thefts get a crime number in case you need it for insurance but no actual investigation
* a big mismatch between general public view of severity of accessing dodgy kiddie images and sentencing guidelines.
** and that can be a scary crime, especially if you are female and phone ripped from your hand / bag taken, arguably has an element of low level physical assault - women I know who had phones nabbed in this way certainly very shaken up by it (perpetrators invariably male so big size / strength mismatch)
Here is another recent example.
Believe it or not, police arrested a mum after she confiscated her kids iPads.
Police locked the mum up, then searched the address and found the iPads. Police also went to the school and removed one of the kids from class to discuss the issue.
On March 26 she was taken to Staines police station, where she had her fingerprints and custody shots taken, and was searched before being put in a cell. Almost 12 hours after officers knocked on her mother's door she was allowed home on bail, which meant she wasn't allowed to speak to her children who were part of the investigation.
Surrey Police said that following its initial enquiries no further action was need and later acknowledged that she was "entitled to confiscate items from her own children”.
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-mum-arrested-held-cell-31401679.amp
Chief Superintendent Aimee Ramm, Surrey Police’s Northern Divisional Commander said: “A tracking device on the iPads showed that they were at the address.
“Officers encouraged the woman to return the items and resolve the matter, however the woman did not cooperate and therefore she was arrested on suspicion of theft.
“A search was then carried out using post-arrest powers and the iPads were located.
“The woman was subsequently released on conditional bail while further enquiries were carried out to establish the ownership of the iPads.
“The police bail conditions included not speaking to anyone connected to the investigation, including her daughters, while officers carried out their enquiries.
“Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the iPads belonged to the woman’s children, and that she was entitled to confiscate these items from her own children.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/11/vanessa-brown-surrey-police-locked-up-cell-daughters-ipads/
How can multiple police officers go through with that nonsense.
The woman was hardly going to skip the country over confiscating her children’s iPads. Police knew she was the mother & even pulled one of her kids from class over the issue.
It makes no sense.
This post has been deleted by its author
Any hunter will tell you that the best way to hunt predators is to monitor the prey.
Use AI to predict who will be the victims of crime.
Then get the police to keep them under surveillance and catch the potential predators.
There is a lot more information available concerning the victims of crimes as there are a lot of crimes reported that do not result in successful prosecution or conviction.
There is a lots less information on successfully prosecuted criminals.
And if you pull it in from all reported crimes, then it is not as likely to be biased.
There will be some bias as some victims have historically been ignored and so have not bothered to report crimes.
The more successful using the victims of crimes to predict and prevent crimes, to more people will be willing to report crimes.
This will improve the information available about victims to predict crimes.
Of course, prevention of crimes and reducing the likelihood of crimes being committed, will reduce the opportunity for the police to get convictions of serious crimes.
Some might find this a disappointing result and would prefer to wait until there is a serious crime to convict someone of to make it more worth their while.
Governments who observe less crimes being successfully attempted and committed might think that they can provide fewer resources to law enforcement.
Fewer resources to law enforcement will correct that and the amount of serious crime will return to normal levels, no matter what improvements are made to the technologies that enhance the performance of law enforcement.
Nothing will change no matter how hard you try because there is always some idiot that will take advantage of any opportunity to screw things up for their own benefit.
Abandon hope.
One predator may have many victims - rapists often are serial offenders. Check out 'Minstead Man'* who preyed on elderly women, breaking into their homes and raping them. People who steal designer goods from upmarket shops** are now so blatant that they only wear face masks, and don't worry about the Police turning up because they are too few and too busy.
People who are or are expected to be victims are so numerous that the amount of surveillance required would be unacceptable both to civil liberties organisations and for financial costs - it would also be an excellent excuse for an authoritarian or totalitarian state to monitor their critics.
And as for victims, I have lot count of the number of times I have been abused, verbally and physically for being gay. Constant monitoring by the police would be more of an intrusion, until, that is, they are willing to actually arrest the person who threatened to stab me (he did have the problem that he was not carrying a knife, so I was physically ok).
The standard way to hunt predators is to tie their favoured prey animal to a stake, climb into a tree with a good view, and wait of teh predator to come along. Of course the prey animal usually gets killed, and I, for one, am not volunteering (however many downvotes this post gets).
(I've not downvoted either of you, BTW, I just think that you are wrong.)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delroy_Grant
** https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/handbag-hell-as-thieves-steal-luxury-accessories-1500115#:~:text=Handbag%20Heaven%2C%20on%20Howe%20Street,from%20a%20shop%20in%20Edinburgh.
This post has been deleted by its author
There are three certainties in life; death, taxes and last minute changes to one or more PowerPoint presentations that you've already included in a bundle intended to prevent that embarrassing "showing your underwear" moment between speakers*.
* instead of wasting time renaming software, Microsoft should create a PowerPoint mode that allows changes to a presentation in progress without flicking out of "Presentation Dual Screen" mode, perhaps a sort of "dock" for chaining presentations rather like a jukebox concept.
We have seen several high profile cases where there has been criticism of the failure to predict violent and possibly homicidal behavior. These assessments have been around mental health and extremism/terrorism and have shown the limits of purely human based assessment.
Automated tools may be helpful here to improve the system, although taking humans out of the loop entirely is probably not a great idea. However either we try to predict risk, or we don't, and can't be squeamish about predictions before the event, and vindictive after it.
How about we leave the potentially dodgy data alone for now and focus on an AI that is trained on the activities of politicians, their backers and ultimately those who would benefit from their actions. Maybe if it was good enough it might track down the £21B that Sunak pissed out the door.
However, this won't happen as it would likely benefit the common good, when all the common good is there for these days is to be shat on.
Don't you think the scheme is biased enough without distorting it by adding those lying cheating scumbags to the mix
Much simpler to just bung the whole lot in clink, then use the AI to predict those who have the makings of an MP and use that to bar them from ever being on a ballot
Case in point, none of the 'fancy new tools' picked up that unlucky person in Australia. What got him was asking on Reddit where to 'Buy plutonium'
Same with quite a few high profile cases, the forums were full of like minded individuals yet no-one had the good sense to report their concerns to the proper authorities.
I mean if you can go on (_forum_) and get detailed instructions on how to make 'Arnie Play-Doh' (tm) then what is the point in having AI algorithms that don't even look at such a treasure trove of data.
Note here that my interest in such things extends to 'Could the Germans have built a Physics Package if someone gave them detailed schematics in 1940' as it happens they had less than 3% of a critical mass even if it wasn't enriched past 20% anyway. Spread too thin, ironically so that the Allies wouldn't accidentally wipe out the project in one go.
Now if you *really* wanted to go nuclear, I can tell you where to get weapons grade material. Only 39K km away, buyer collects. May need refinement. Also good luck with the whole 'compressing it to the size of a softball' part, that takes real skill and a fair amount of classified knowledge in metallurgy not to mention having the Feds send round scary people in dark suits if you have this sort of material without the appropriate background checks, and at least a TS clearance.
...pre-crime ultrasound scans are done on mothers.
Radiologist: ...and here is his little heart, see it beating?
Mum: Oh wow!
Radiologist: ...and here's his stripy jumper and balaclava...
Mum: Oh dear is that a problem?
Radiologist: It's not for me to say but it could be an indication that you're carrying a cat burglar, I don't see his crowbar and swag bag anywhere though, so it might just be a mild case...we'll need to refer you to the Metropolitan Police for a full interview under caution...it's just a formality madam, no need to be alarmed. Although I am legally obliged to remind you that you have the right to remain silent, anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law and as training data for the upcoming Plod9000 AI model.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
