Improved method of classification algorithms for crime prediction

The growing availability of information technologies has enabled law enforcement agencies to collect detailed data about various crimes. Classification is the procedure of finding a model (or function) that depicts and distinguishes data classes or notions, with the end goal of having the ability to utilize the model to predict the crime labels. In this research classification is applied to crime dataset to predict the 'crime category' for diverse states of the United States of America (USA). The crime data set utilized within this research is real in nature, it was gathered from socio-economic data from 1990 US census. Law enforcement data from 1990 US LEMAS survey, and from the 1995 FBI UCR. This paper compares two different classification algorithms namely - Naïve Bayesian and Back Propagation (BP) for predicting 'Crime Category' for distinctive states in USA. The result from the analysis demonstrated that Naïve Bayesian calculation out performed BP calculation and attained the accuracy of 90.2207% for group 1 and 94.0822% for group 2. This clearly indicates that Naïve Bayesian calculation is supportive for prediction in diverse states in USA

The limits of human predictions of recidivism.

Dressel and Farid recently found that laypeople were as accurate as statistical algorithms in predicting whether a defendant would reoffend, casting doubt on the value of risk assessment tools in the criminal justice system. We report the results of a replication and extension of Dressel and Farid's experiment. Under conditions similar to the original study, we found nearly identical results, with humans and algorithms performing comparably. However, algorithms beat humans in the three other datasets we examined. The performance gap between humans and algorithms was particularly pronounced when, in a departure from the original study, participants were not provided with immediate feedback on the accuracy of their responses. Algorithms also outperformed humans when the information provided for predictions included an enriched (versus restricted) set of risk factors. These results suggest that algorithms can outperform human predictions of recidivism in ecologically valid settings