Pre-Crime Tool: Soldier Social Experimentation. What Are Your Thoughts?

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:59:37 -0400

A new Minority Report" tool is being created that will be rolled out using the military as a social experiment lab. Good idea or not?

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-predicting-violent-crime-by-army-soldiers-20151006-story.html

New tool can identify soldiers most likely to commit violent crimes, study shows

In the science fiction thriller &ldquo;Minority Report,&rdquo; a police force known as PreCrime uses mutated human psychics to identify criminals before they act.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 7 at 2015 10:03 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:03:51 -0400

There has been way too much social experimentation in the military in the current administration Cpl Private RallyPoint Member

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 10:08 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:08:29 -0400

.... I think this is a purging tools ... but the question is who really do they want to purge?

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 7 at 2015 10:17 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:17:08 -0400

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member - Interesting. While I certainly support trying to identify soldiers who need help with personal/emotional problems, I am not sure that targeting them by use of some experimental algorithm is such a good thing. Smacks of more social experimentation in the military. Looks to me like it can be used/abused in the future to limit an individual's rights, such as right to bear arms, etc.

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Oct 7 at 2015 10:26 AM

CMSgt Mark Schubert — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:26:40 -0400

I think it's a good idea -
To test their model, researchers applied it to a sample of 43,248 soldiers who served between 2011 and 2013. They found that the 5% identified as most at-risk were responsible for 51% of the violent crimes committed by those soldiers.
That's more than half - and - if you can get them some counselling and perhaps thwart the violent activity, good - and for the 49% that didn't do anything, you would think they also would be fine with receiving FREE help! :-) If not, then that might indicate a problem!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 11:05 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:05:07 -0400

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member It's a good idea to identify at risk soldiers and do what we can to help them. However as with any study, it all depends on what the numbers actually are. I need more data. The article states, "They found that the 5% identified as most at-risk were responsible for 51% of the violent crimes committed by those soldiers." This is from a sample of "all 975,057 soldiers who served during a six-year period", the article doesn't tell us how many of these soldiers were identified to be at risk, how many were were identified as being "most at risk", or how many crimes were committed as a whole. Data can be manipulated to support anyone's hypothesis, so I think we need to proceed with caution.

This article starts by talking about "at risk soldiers" Pre then states, "5% identified most at risk"
Let's pay attention to their words. OK so using the numbers listed in the article we can calculate that those identified as having committed specific crimes of (murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, robbery and other violent felonies not to include domestic violence and sex crimes) is a total of 5771. (ARE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL OFFENSES NOT VIOLENT CRIMES?) Right here they are determining who they are keeping in their calculations and who is not so a portion which do not fit their criteria for the study are being excluded. Next let's look at the numbers. What percentage of 975,057 is 5771. Well it is .005 percent or 5% so they have included all of those who committed a crime of their choice (not all crimes) in their study and there is not differential between soldiers who are at risk and soldiers most at risk.

"446 variables for each solider who served between 2004 and 2009. During that period, 5,771 soldiers committed murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, robbery or other violent felonies. (Domestic violence and sex crimes were not included in the study because research suggests that they follow risk patterns that are distinct from other types of offenses.)"

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Oct 7 at 2015 12:02 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 12:02:23 -0400

They just found a way to not promote good leaders and instead fill leadership billets with more PC compliant, LGBT friendly, kinder, gentler "Yes" men who won't question unlawful orders received from incompetents... all under the guise of it being science. The elitists that run our government really do have the sheeple's best interests at heart.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 1:19 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:19:51 -0400

How can this report/study account for leadership? We've all seen units where service members ran amuck because the command wasn't engaged. We've also seen units where the command actually lead or provided leadership and there were little to no problems.

This sounds like a crock to me.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 12 at 2015 8:08 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:08:49 -0400

It's statistical analysis. You can identify groups most likely to have issues, but not individuals.

It's the same reason 18 year old males pay more for car insurance than 25 year old females.

Per the article, there is a "disproportionate" amount of crime being committed by a subset of the community therefore we expend resources in an attempt to reduce it. It's not a "prediction model" however. It's much more of a risk management model, with an end goal of reduction.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2015 8:39 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:39:12 -0400

It's a good idea to identify at risk soldiers and do what we can to help them. However as with any study, it all depends on what the numbers actually are. The article states, "They found that the 5% identified as most at-risk were responsible for 51% of the violent crimes committed by those soldiers." This is from a sample of "all 975,057 soldiers who served during a six-year period", the article doesn't tell us how many of these soldiers were identified to be at risk, how many were were identified as being "most at risk", or how many crimes were committed as a whole. Data can be manipulated to support anyone's hypothesis, so I think we need to proceed with caution.

This article starts by talking about "at risk soldiers" Pre then states, "5% identified most at risk"
Let's pay attention to their words. OK so using the numbers listed in the article we can calculate that those identified as having committed specific crimes of (murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, robbery and other violent felonies not to include domestic violence and sex crimes) is a total of 5771. (ARE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL OFFENSES NOT VIOLENT CRIMES?) The creators of this study are determining who they are keeping in their calculations and who is not, eliminating the portion which do not fit their criteria for the study. Next let's look at the numbers. What percentage of 975,057 is 5771. Well it is .005 percent or 5% so they have included all of those who committed a crime of their choice (not all crimes) in their study and there is not differential between soldiers who are at risk and soldiers most at risk.

"446 variables for each solider who served between 2004 and 2009. During that period, 5,771 soldiers committed murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, robbery or other violent felonies. (Domestic violence and sex crimes were not included in the study because research suggests that they follow risk patterns that are distinct from other types of offenses.)"

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 12 at 2015 10:55 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:25 -0400

It seems to me SSgt Alex Robinson that it would be much more useful if the "scientists" were focusing on identifying characteristics which were highly correlated to violent behavior among junior high and high school students before they became violent.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 12 at 2015 11:14 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:14:52 -0400

"Those most at risk were young, poor, ethnic minorities with low ranks, disciplinary trouble, a suicide attempt and a recent demotion"

Wow. Those with severe attitude problems. Who could have ever predicted THAT?

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 12 at 2015 11:28 AM

SPC David S. — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:28:39 -0400

In May of 2015, a Tribune investigation found that lead hazards are festering in the same parts of Chicago that have given the city a national reputation for violence and academic failure. In impoverished, crime-ridden neighborhoods like Austin, Englewood and Lawndale, more than 80 percent of the children tested in 1995 had dangerous lead levels. Many researchers say that lead exposure leads to crime. Wondering if this was one of the 400 + check boxes.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-lead-poisoning-science-met-20150605-story.html

Studies link childhood lead exposure, violent crime

After growing up poor in a predominantly African-American neighborhood of Cincinnati, the young adults had reached their early 20s. One by one, they passed through an MRI machine that displayed their brains in sharp, cross-sectioned images.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Oct 12 at 2015 6:47 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:47:43 -0400

Our Psychological profiling is about the same stage today as Fire was to us 300,000 years ago.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 12 at 2015 7:34 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:34:19 -0400

"Those most at risk were young, poor, ethnic minorities with low ranks, disciplinary trouble, a suicide attempt and a recent demotion, according to a report published Tuesday in the journal Psychological Medicine."
Whew!!! Glad I proved them wrong... Oh, wait... I'm Air Force...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2015 7:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:43:40 -0400

This sounds more like a TV series than real life.

Response by SGT Aaron Atwood made Sep 29 at 2021 11:55 AM

SGT Aaron Atwood — Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:55:56 -0400

Nope nope nope. I'm not saying we shouldn't invest time and energy into the psychological well-being of us service members, but they're not going about this the right way. It needs to be at an individual basis; even more so with those who were flagged for suicidal acts or attempts. They are way, way more subtle about their internal demons than any current or past training could indicate. It scared the hell out of me seeing just how normal suicidal individuals would act; whether they were in a comfortable environment or not.

Of course though that's just suicide. I digressed from the topic discussion. I think my point is we can't group together a pattern of violence from any particular group of people.