Those are two very different things in my mind.
Targeting individuals is very Minority Report and definitely not cool.
Focusing on problematic areas seems like good policing common sense though? A bit like the local nightclub near me has a police car chilling in front of it every Friday night because there are always drunks slugging it out.
Depends on how the algorithm is formulated. If it's based on number of crimes found, by policeman, by hour, then this would eliminate that concern (vs just number of crimes per hour).
I think that in most jurisdictions seriously planing a crime is a crime in itself.
>A bit like the local nightclub near me has a police car chilling in front of it every Friday night because there are always drunks slugging it out.
And what happens when said policemen block the entrance of the club and start patting down everyone leaving for pico or weed?
A police presence can calm down an area, but also can be used to harass the population there.
Rules of engagement matter.
Why on earth would they do that?
Or are you referring to places where formerly charged/convicted persons live/hang out? Here I'd agree, punishment should end at the end of the sentence/fine and people deserve the benefit of the doubt/presumption of non-recidivism.
I'd also posit that many problematic areas are areas of a specific race and caution that a policy of under-policing these areas to avoid appearing racist will be disastrous to public safety and order.
Wherever you drive in America you will find drug abuse. But if you focus on any one area that leads to more arrests there, increasing their crime stats, leading to more policing, leading to more drug arrests, ...
https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and...