• Perroboc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s because you’re not engraving the suspects name in wooden balls based on the dreams of 3 people sleeping in some weird hot tubs.

  • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Police are notorious for using bullshit tech to try and justify their “investigations”. Remember Voice Stress Analysis? Total bullshit, but thousands of departments bought into it. There are probably still innocent people in prison because of it.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same with bite analysis, polygraph, and (if I remember correctly) blood splatter analysis

      • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sort of, blood spatter is kinda legit: It’s derived from old tracking techniques so it’s not totally bullshit (but it’s also not a super power or anything). You can tell if someone was running and blood was dripping or if it came from them getting repeatedly hit with something, etc. That’s part of forensics, some of which is legit science (though it’s not perfect and there are people who are full of shit that hire themselves out as “experts” sometimes).

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know how they could make it thousands of times more accurate. Just rewrite it to always point at Wall Street.

  • profdc9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The police need crimes and criminals to justify their existence. If the criminals are selected by a computer program, that is sufficient for their purposes.

  • waterbogan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    How did they manage to do so spectacularly badly? I think part of the problem is that they were trying to predict times and locations, rather than focusing on individual offenders. Past record is highly predicitive of future behaviour, i.e. if an offender has committed assault half a dozen times, it is highly probable that they will commit another assault or similar violent offence again, we just dont know when or where. Poor quality data may also be part of it - garbage in, garbage out