From situational crime prevention to predictive policing
This article considers a body of scientific articles relating to an important point in the process of legitimizing situational crime prevention: research on repeat victimization and the construction of predictive algorithms. This body of work allows us to explore a controversy that is often ignored,...
Bewaard in:
| Gepubliceerd in: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/champpenal, |
|---|---|
| Hoofdauteur: | |
| Formaat: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Taal: | Anglais |
| Gepubliceerd in: |
Champ pénal/Penal field
2015
|
| Onderwerpen: | |
| Online toegang: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Samenvatting: | This article considers a body of scientific articles relating to an important point in the process of legitimizing situational crime prevention: research on repeat victimization and the construction of predictive algorithms. This body of work allows us to explore a controversy that is often ignored, between Ken Pease and Tim Hope, on the interpretation of the results of statistical modelling of the distribution of victimization in the population. Put into perspective with the research results of Ken Pease and his colleagues, Tim Hope’s critique can account for the ignorance that evolves as knowledge develops on victimization prevention and its associated innovations. In conclusion, this paper calls for a definition of prevention and security public policies, based not on knowledge produced by experts, but on a public agreement on which researchers disagree. |
|---|