Harm-focused offender triage and prioritization: a Philadelphia case study
Harm-focused offender triage and prioritization: a Philadelphia case study
复制标题
以伤害为重点的罪犯分类和优先顺序：费城案例研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
George Kikuchi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Ratcliffe;George Kikuchi
目的本文的目的是描述和测试一种以伤害为中心的定量方法，用于选择犯罪者进行调查和监视。该方法结合了犯罪伤害衡量标准以及时间衰减函数，可以向下调整停止犯罪的罪犯的得分。设计/方法/途径作者在费城市 21 个高犯罪警区中的 10 个警区中，比较了地区分析师选出的 60 名多发犯罪者、分配给减少枪支暴力工作组的侦探在全市范围内选出的 60 名多发犯罪者以及最高犯罪率的平均伤害分数。从 10 个高犯罪率地区的已知罪犯危害评分生成列表中选出 60 名多产罪犯。调查结果以危害为重点的名单上的罪犯的平均危害评分明显高于犯罪分析师或工作组人员确定的罪犯。他们的犯罪历史中枪支犯罪事件的平均数量也显着增加。研究局限性/影响以伤害为中心的方法使用的逮捕数据可能无法准确反映定罪情况，并且会错过未发现的犯罪活动。策划犯罪活动但不直接参与的犯罪组织领导人的伤害分数可能较低。逮捕数据也可能存在一些固有的偏见。该方法还需要创建犯罪危害指数。通过关注伤害分数较高的罪犯来确定对总体犯罪减少的操作影响将需要进一步的研究。实际意义基于警官直觉、意见和经验的目标选择的临床方法可能在有效性和准确性方面存在局限性。它们还缺乏透明度，并可能包含偏见，考虑到当前警察社区信任和合法性的危机，这是一个关键的考虑因素。用犯罪危害评分来衡量过去犯罪危害的精算方法可能更容易被社区接受和维护。它还确定了参与枪支犯罪频率较高的犯罪者。在更好地理解方法局限性之前，折衷方案可能是从伤害评分方法（数据驱动）开始，并通过情报和调查信息补充此初始列表。原创性/价值本文扩展了犯罪伤害指数以量化罪犯分类列表。作者还通过案例研究实证证明，该方法在识别有害犯罪者方面比仅依赖犯罪分析师或侦探的经验或直觉的方法更有效。
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe and test a quantitative harm-focused approach to offender selection for investigation and surveillance. The approach incorporates a measure of crime harm as well as a time-decay function that adjusts the score downward for offenders who desist from crime.Design/methodology/approachAcross 10 of 21 high-crime police districts in the city of Philadelphia, the authors compare the mean harm scores of 60 prolific offenders selected by district analysts, 60 prolific offenders selected citywide by detectives assigned to the Gun Violence Reduction Task Force and the top 60 prolific offenders chosen from a harm-score generated list of known offenders in the ten high-crime districts.FindingsThe offenders on the harm-focused list have significantly greater mean harm scores than the offenders identified by the crime analysts or task force personnel. They have a significantly greater mean number of gun crime episodes in their offending history as well.Research limitations/implicationsThe harm-focused approach uses arrest data that may not accurately reflect convictions and which miss undetected criminal activity. A leader of a criminal organization who orchestrates criminal activities but does not engage directly may have a low harm score. Arrest data may also suffer from some inherent bias. The approach also requires the creation of a crime harm index. Determining the operational impact on overall crime reduction by focusing on offenders with higher harm scores will require further research.Practical implicationsClinical methods of target selection based on officer intuition, opinion and experience may have limitations in terms of effectiveness and accuracy. They also lack transparency and may incorporate bias, a critical consideration given the current crisis in police-community trust and legitimacy. The actuarial method of weighing the harm of past offending with a crime harm score may be more acceptable and defendable to the community. It also identifies offenders with a higher frequency of involvement in gun crimes. Until methodological limitations are better understood, a compromise may be to start with the harm-score method (data-driven) and supplement this initial list through intelligence and investigative information.Originality/valueThe paper expands crime harm indices to quantify offender triage lists. The authors also empirically demonstrate through a case study that the approach is more effective at identifying harmful offenders than methods that solely rely on the experience or intuition of either crime analysts or detectives.
影响因子：
7.9
作者：
Mohler, George;Carter, Jeremy;Raje, Rajeev
通讯作者：
Raje, Rajeev