{"id":870,"date":"2026-02-27T09:11:03","date_gmt":"2026-02-27T17:11:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/?p=870"},"modified":"2026-02-27T09:11:30","modified_gmt":"2026-02-27T17:11:30","slug":"the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/","title":{"rendered":"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n
\n \n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n<\/div>\n \n \n
\n \n \n
\n\n \n

The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report<\/h1>\n\n\n<\/div>\n \n \n By<\/span>Jerry Wood<\/strong>\n \n February 27, 2026<\/span>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n <\/div><\/div>\n\n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n
\n \n \n Share\n <\/span>\n \n \n <\/svg>\n <\/span>\n Copy Link<\/span>\n <\/a>\n \n \n <\/svg>\n <\/span>\n Facebook<\/span>\n <\/a>\n \n \n \n\n<\/svg>\n\n <\/span>\n X<\/span>\n <\/a>\n \n \n <\/svg>\n <\/span>\n LinkedIn<\/span>\n <\/a>\n \n \n \n \n <\/svg>\n <\/span>\n Bluesky<\/span>\n <\/a>\n \n \n <\/svg>\n <\/span>\n Email<\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div><\/div>\n \n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n
\n\n \n

With the rise of artificial intelligence and the use of personal data to enhance algorithms,
\nlaw enforcement agencies in the United States and around the world have begun to rely on
\nalgorithmic crime-reporting systems that forecast potential criminal activity and drive police
\noperations. These systems are marketed as neutral, as they operate on non-biased data to identify
\nhigh-risk communities and individuals sourced from historical crime reports, policing trends, and
\nmachine learning models. However, through its growing application, critics of its use highlight
\nthat these systems reinforce existing historical racial biases within policing and are used in a
\nmanner that undermines autonomy, democracy, and fundamental Western legal principles. The
\nMinority Report (2002), directed by Steven Spielberg, offers a perspective on the ethical
\nproblems associated with predictive policing. The film takes place in a future Washington, D.C.,
\nwhere the policing system operates under “Precrime,” an arrest system in which citizens are
\narrested based on predictions of their likelihood to commit a crime, sourced from three
\ngenetically modified beings called the “precogs”. The film, along with scholarly research,
\npresents the ethical dilemmas of contemporary algorithmic policing systems. Thus, highlighting
\nthat the very implementation of predictive policing models is ethically unjust. The film Minority
\nReport exposes how the use of predictive policing models, both in the fictional and
\ncontemporary contexts, reduces humans to lines of data, creating a technocratic system that
\ndevalues autonomy, consent, and amplifies structural inequalities through over-policing.
\nEthical Foundation Conflicts Within the Legal System of the Minority Report:<\/p>\n

Central to the ethical problems highlighted in The Minority Report is the failure of the
\npredictive policing model to uphold the values of autonomy, legal due process, and justice that
\nare foundational to Western legal systems. Spielberg’s Minority Report presents the philosophical
\nfoundation of the Western legal system regarding the relationship between free will,
\nself-determination, and the shift from punitive justice to preemptive policing. The PreCrime
\nsystem presents major ethical concerns within the three foundational ethical approaches to the
\nWestern legal system, through the lens of deontological, distributive justice, and utilitarianism
\nethics. The use of the precrime system is primarily based on the ethics of agency and autonomy,
\nas it directly targets the tenets of deontological ethics, the moral theory that focuses on
\nrule-based ethics formulated on principles of right and wrong. Scholars Salvi and Nigri argue
\nthat the use of predictive policing presents a deterministic approach to crime, in which the
\npossibility of future actions is upheld as an undeniable fact rather than a statistical probability
\n(Salvi & Nigri 8). In the film, the use of the Precogs aligns with risk assessments in
\ncontemporary models of predictive policing. When forecasting a violent crime attributed to a
\nsuspect, the suspect automatically loses all rights to agency and self-determination; the right to
\nself-determination inherently becomes eroded. The Chief Inspector John Anderton describes the
\nprecogs as “pattern-recognition filters”[who] are connected to computer-based neurotechnologies
\nthat can stream their thoughts as images containing details of events” (Krahn, Fenton, and
\nMeynell 76), denoting that risk assessments of humans are purely patterns of existing behavior.
\nScholars Salvi and Nigri argue that although potentially efficient, “the potential for
\nalgorithmic discrimination in the equitable application of criminal justice is a strong risk.”(Salvi
\n& Nigri 9). As such, the predictive policing model can erode autonomy in favor of efficiency.
\nSpielberg’s portrayal of the character John Anderton highlights the moral crisis at the heart of this issue. Although Anderton was a respected and prominent police officer within Washington
\nD.C., the PreCrime system predicted that he would eventually murder Leo Crow, instantly after
\nwhich Anderton lost all social status and became branded as a criminal, without legitimately
\ncommitting the crime or showing signs of intent. Thus, the application of predictive policing
\nwithin the films shifts the foundational belief of innocent until proven guilty to guilty until
\nproven innocent, as the framework of due process is abandoned and the use of a trial is deemed
\nunnecessary. As highlighted through scholars such as Krahn, Fenton, and Meynell, the use of
\nthese predictive policing technologies is in direct violation of the deontological principles of
\npunishment, as there was no action, a principle that Western legal systems were built upon
\n(Krahn, Fenton, and Meynell 83).<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the use of predictive policing models raises serious concerns under
\nutilitarian ethics, which focus on maximizing overall societal welfare through action. It raises
\nissues associated with prioritizing utility overall. The use of the PreCrime Systems throughout
\nthe film initially has presented itself to yield stark benefits within Washington D.C., as the
\nsystem has been touted as making the city “Murder-Free for six years,” although on paper, the
\nfilm’s progress highlights the inherent negatives of the predictive policing models (Krahn,
\nFenton, and Meynell 82). As highlighted in the film, the PreCogs exist in a perpetual state of
\nsuffering, exploited for the overall betterment of society, regardless of their condition. Scholars
\nsuch as Cynthia Bond suggest that the PreCrime systems’ utilitarian approach to creating a
\nsurveillance state reflects the modern use of predictive policing models that exploit existing data
\nfrom marginalized communities to promote technological precision. The system itself was later
\nexposed, showing that the utilitarian approach was largely ineffective, built on a false sense of
\nfact, and reflecting the use of precrime systems in the modern day.<\/p>\n

On balance, the film highlights the foundational ethical concerns of distributive justice in
\nthe widespread use of predictive justice. Throughout the film, the PreCrime system created a
\nbinary class structure in which those unaffected by the precogs were inherently seen as better. At
\nthe same time, those persecuted by it were considered less than. This creates an inherently unjust
\nfoundation for the legal system, where one, simply by the potential to commit a crime, is deemed
\nless than and thus denied the same rights as everyone else. Bond highlights that this film presents
\nlaw as a “visual regime” where the justice system is, in fact, unjust (Bond 32). The use of drone
\nsearches, biological identification scans, and the uncertainty of the likelihood of being present
\nwithin a PreCog vision shifts the foundational model of the legal system. It shifts the Western
\npunitive system from reactive to proactive. Batey notes that PreCrime, like the modern-day
\nalgorithmic policing system, reinforces divisions between those with institutional power and
\nthose who do not. As such, the application of this model fundamentally fails to meet the
\nstandards on which the Western legal system’s ethical model was founded.<\/p>\n

The Transformation of Humanity to Data Insights Through Technocentrism:<\/p>\n

A more profound ethical dilemma embedded within the Minority is the use of predictive
\npolicing through a Technocentric lens. In line with PreCrime’s failures to uphold the values of the
\nWestern legal system, there are strong ethical concerns about its foundational nature and how,
\nlike modern-day algorithmic systems, it is built on faulty, unethically sourced insights. Within
\nthe movie, the PreCogs are presented as exploited subjects whose humanity is overlooked in the
\npursuit of prioritizing raw data for the security of the masses. Scholars suggest that the condition
\nof the PreCogs is a profoundly unethical aspect of the surveillance state that is mainly reflective
\nof the modern policing systems. The scholars within Krahn, Fenton, and Meynell highlight that
\nthe conditions of the precogs being in a perpetual state of suffering, where their bodies are viewed as simple input that is necessary to the legal system, reflects the broader implication of
\nthe use of existing data that could suggest the suffering of higher policed communities under
\nhigher policing as mere data (Krahn, Fenton, and Meynell 75). Nevertheless, the suffering of the
\nprecogs is marketed as inherently good, as their output supports the masses.
\nWithin the physical and mental enslavement of the precogs as they are suspended within
\na milk bath, they have virtually no autonomy; they are stripped of all semblance of personality.
\nThe sheer conditions they are presented with reduce them to machines, not people. These
\nconditions alone highlight a moral dilemma: eliminating human agency for the public good
\nthrough the prioritization of technological innovation. Within this model, the PreCogs’
\nforecasting abilities stem from their severe neurological damage as the children of drug addicts.
\nThe use of these former children reflects how the system is predicated on suffering rather than
\nholistic scientific innovation, denoting a prominent sense of Technocentrism and
\ntechno-optimism as a cure-all to crime. Through the traumatic visions that the PreCogs see, they
\nare not volunteering to provide the information but instead are forced through involuntary
\nexperiences of pain. Irrespective of their conditions, the PreCrime policing force uses these
\ninvoluntary visions, converts them into data, and derives actionable insights and further legal
\npredictions of violent crime. This is directly highlighted in the relationship between modern data
\ncultivation practices that ignore the conditions of crime reporters and yet act on that information.
\nUnder which the data cultivation practices of the modern day do not seek out the consent of the
\ncommunities it wishes to surveil, and thus the inherent flaws of the technocentrism highlight the
\nfailure to uphold moral grounding.<\/p>\n

Important to the condition of the PreCogs that largely reflects the dehumanization present
\nwithin the predictive policing model is the stark depersonalization present within the relationship the police force has with the PreCogs and broader the philosophy of technocentrism and policing
\nmodels. Within the film, Anderton refers to Agatha (one of the PreCogs) as “the Senior” rather
\nthan her actual name, in a manner no different from that of a computer program. The Director
\nLamar Burgess considers the PreCogs to be valuable assets rather than people, viewing them as
\ntools rather than separate individuals. Throughout Bond’s analysis of them, filmed the use of the
\nPreCrime’s PreCogs embodies the Legal Use value farming work that demotes the value of
\nhumans, so long as they hold value within the justice system. This framework reflects heavily
\nwithin the context, as minority populations are often dehumanized as points of data to create
\npredictive policing models, as the minority communities’ traumatic experiences under
\ndiscrimination are extracted and weaponized within predictive algorithmic policing models in a
\nsimilar capacity to that of the PreCogs.<\/p>\n

PreCrime and The Erosion Of Free Will:<\/p>\n

The application of PreCrime not only represents technocentrism but also presents a
\nstarkly similar logical reaction to the use of modern big-data policing practices and their erosion
\nof free will. Within the opening arrest scene of the film, there is an arrest sequence that depicts
\nMr. Marks, in an attempt to kill his wife, as she was cheating. The sequence presents the ritual of
\nOfficers swarming the house, Anderton apprehending the man, and reading out his predicted
\ncrime. The man pleaded and was later forced into jail without a trial, nor was an appropriate
\ncrime given, since he never actually murdered his wife. Director Spielberg uses this scene and
\nthe ritualistic nature of the arrests to examine the absurdity of a system centered mainly on the
\ncriminalization of thoughts rather than actions. As such, the fundamental arrest is unjust as no
\naction has been committed. This is largely reflective of Brayne’s emphasis on the modern-day “Big Data”
\ncorporations, such as Palantir’s Gotham platform that supports the use of arrest records and gang
\naffiliation in tandem with geographic data to promote the heavy policing of often minority
\ncommunities, and punishing them for existing previous criminal activity rather than legitimate
\nintent to commit the crimes (Brayne 1006). The fragility of this line of reasoning to substantiate
\nthese arrests is highlighted when John Anderton, a devout rule follower, is predicted to commit a
\nmurder; thus, the film highlights the central philosophical issue with the use of predictive
\npolicing models, as to whether individuals, despite what the data may suggest, have the ability to
\nchoose different actions irrespective of the predictions. Although within the film, the PreCogs
\nwere touted as having a one hundred percent crime avoidance rate similar to that of Palantir’s
\nGotham, with its application being under the guise of “objective” truths, erodes free will and
\nlacks legitimate findings if, through free will, the result of the visions if left unattended by the
\nPreCrime police would make come into fruition. This is reflected in Anderton’s desperate
\nattempts to escape his predicted fate, which highlight the possibility of an individual acting in
\nopposition to their prediction and thus to the very ideology under which the system was put in
\nplace.<\/p>\n

The Consent Paradox:<\/p>\n

In tandem with the erosion of free will, an ethical dilemma arises regarding the use of
\npredictive policing systems on the basis of consent. In both
\ncontemporary society and The Minority Report, individuals are subjected to invasive forms of
\nsurveillance without the chance to provide meaningful, revocable, or informed consent regarding
\nwhether the surveillance system is appropriate for their lives. In the Minority Report, the citizens
\nof Washington, D.C., live under a biometric tracking system that analyzes individuals through retinal scanners, promotes targeted advertisements, and exploits the uncertainty of persistent
\nPreCrime surveillance. Despite this, none of the citizens have any semblance of approval or
\noutward consent to being subjected to this surveillance state. Minority Report’s futuristic
\ndepiction of Washington, D.C., highlights a society in which public consent is irrelevant
\nprimarily to government operations, as the policing system’s invasiveness is presented as a
\nuniversal public good. This ethical issue is reflective mainly within the contemporary policing
\nplatforms such as the United Kingdom’s Xcaliber and the Palantir’s Gotham platform which
\ncollects an unprecedented amount of personal data, through movement patterns, historical arrest,
\ngang databases, personal bills and many other forms of identifiable data without the knowledge
\nor consent of the those of which the data is collected from.<\/p>\n

The unethical nature of the PreCogs within the Minority Report is reflected mainly in
\nAmnesty International’s comprehensive report, Automated Racism, which highlighted the
\nrelationship between the use of predictive policing across the United Kingdom. Through the
\nreport, it was observed that communities under predictive policing, especially those who are
\nhistorically marginalized, “have no meaningful opportunity to know how their personal data is
\nused, to challenge inaccuracies, or to refuse inclusion in algorithmic systems that shape the
\npolice actions” (Amnesty International UK 16). Throughout this system, individuals are forced,
\nwithout their consent, to become data points, which are subjected to predictive policing systems
\nthat rely entirely on historical data and surveillance technology. As such, those who have any
\nsemblance of an interaction with the police, justly or unjustly, inherently become data that is later
\nfed permanently to algorithmic policing systems that the subject did not agree to. This is mainly
\nreflective of the involuntary condition of the PreCogs, whose bodies and minds are used as mere
\npermanent instruments of the state’s predictive policing, without the possibility of opting out. As such, both systems amplify the necessity of the measures for the public good but fail to acknowledge the erosion of individual consent.<\/p>\n

This paradox presents an increasingly harrowing reality when it is the use of predictive
\npolicing against communities that are facing structural inequality. Communities and individuals
\nof marginalized identities have historically fallen victim to being over policed. Subsequently,
\nthey are overrepresented in crime data, surveillance, and interviews used to train predictive
\npolicing models. The communities that have historically been overpoliced never consented to
\nserving as the foundational raw material for algorithmic policing models, yet are the most
\nvulnerable to their outcomes. In the minority report, the PreCogs are a visual representation of
\nthe injustice of predictive policing models, as their autonomy has been datafied. This paradox, in
\ntandem with existing inequalities, highlights the fundamental flaws of the PreCrime system,
\nwhich is predicated on the use of non-consensual data extraction for actionable insights. Despite
\nclaims of legitimacy in invoking public safety, the erosion of autonomy undermines the rights of
\nthose who are being predicted to commit a crime.<\/p>\n

Reinforcing Racial Inequality Through Predictive Policing:<\/p>\n

In line with the inherent unethical nature of the data cultivation, the use of the data, as
\npreviously highlighted, systematically reproduces and reinforces the existing racial inequality
\nwithin policing through optimizing existing biased historical data to make future predictions on
\n“high-risk” individuals, a dynamic strongly present within the film as well as the modern day.
\nWithin Amnesty International’s report, Automated Racism, the policing data from 33 offices that
\nuse the predictive policing model Xcaliber yield strong indications that they reflect existing
\n“structural and institutional racism and discrimination” within British society (Amnesty
\nInternational UK 9). It found that Black British Nationals were 3.3 times as likely as their white counterparts to be stopped by police, with 80 percent of these stops resulting in no further legal
\naction (Amnesty International 34). This is mainly reflective of the deployment of PreCrime
\nwithin the Minority Report that directly impacted the most vulnerable, the political
\ndisenfranchised, in favor of those with power, in line with Lamar Burgess’ exploitation of the
\nsystem to frame Anderton to support his own interests. This political and inherent power
\nimbalance presented within the film, as well as the contemporary application, is highlighted with
\nSafiya Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression, as policing presents “contradictions inherent in its
\nprojects must be contextualized in the historical conditions that both create it and are created by
\nit,” thus preexisting power imbalances will persist (Noble 163). Furthermore, the use of the
\nPreCrime System aligns with Virginia Eubanks’s view, highlighting real-world predictive
\nsystems that shift the transformation of criminal data to support the development of institutional
\nsuspicion. Within this approach, Nobel notes that automated risk directly punishes people for
\ninstitutional forces that affect their lives. Thus, predictive policing and PreCrime within
\nMinority Report highlight the negative feedback loop associated with the unjust nature of
\nhistorical context and its transformation into an authoritative response.<\/p>\n

Conclusion:<\/p>\n

The use of the PreCrime system throughout The Minority Report highlights a legal
\nsystem that holds a reliance on technological predictions rather than a response to actual crimes.
\nAs such, under predictive policing models, humans become data inputs in direct opposition to the
\nlegal foundations of autonomy, consent, and equality that uphold the Western legal system. The
\nPreCrimes system’s reliance on the precogs highlights how data, although presented as neutral,
\ncan be used to justify existing systems of bias. The ethical concerns of predictive policing
\nchallenge the contemporary determination to promote technological efficiency, which undermines the very human values that the legal system is predicated upon. Without tangible
\noversight, predictive policing presents stark philosophical and political risks.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/p>\n

Amnesty International. \u201cAutomated Racism Report.\u201d Automated Racism Report,
\nwww.amnesty.org.uk\/files\/2025-02\/Automated Racism Report – Amnesty
\nInternational UK – 2025.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov. 2025.
\nBond, Cynthia D. \u201cLaw as Cinematic Apparatus: Image, Textuality, and Representational
\nAnxiety in Spielberg\u2019s Minority Report, 37 Cumb. L. Rev. 25 (2006).\u201d UIC Law
\nOpen Access Repository, repository.law.uic.edu\/facpubs\/99\/. Accessed 23 Nov. 2025.
\nBrayne, Sarah. \u201cBig Data Surveillance: The Case of Policing.\u201d American Sociological
\nReview, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Oct. 2017,
\npmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC10846878\/.
\nKrahn, Timothy, et al. \u201cNovel Neurotechnologies in Film \u2013 A Reading of Steven
\nSpielberg\u2019s Minority Report.\u201d Neuroethics,
\nwww.researchgate.net\/publication\/226402281_Novel_Neurotechnologies_in_Film-A
\n_Reading_of_Steven_Spielberg\u2019s_Minority_Report. Accessed 23 Nov. 2025.
\n\u201cMinority Report.\u201d Twentieth Century Fox, 2002.
\nNoble, Safiya. \u201cAlgorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. .\u201d NYU
\nPress, 2 July 2019, nyupress.org\/9781479837243\/algorithms-of-oppression\/.
\nSalvi, Nicol\u00e1s, and Santiago Nigri. \u201cMinority Report: The Road to a Deterministic Theory
\nfor the Philosophy of Criminal Law.\u201d Opini\u00f3n Jur\u00eddica, Universidad de Medell\u00edn,
\nwww.scielo.org.co\/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1692-25302022000300002.
\nAccessed 23 Nov. 2025.
\nSalvi, Nicol\u00e1s, and Santiago Nigri. \u201cMinority Report: The Road to a Deterministic Theory
\nfor the Philosophy of Criminal Law.\u201d Opini\u00f3n Jur\u00eddica, Universidad de Medell\u00edn, www.scielo.org.co\/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1692-25302022000300002.
\nAccessed 23 Nov. 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n <\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1036,"featured_media":871,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[32,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report - Scribe\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Scribe\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-27T17:11:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-27T17:11:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"576\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Henry Mcquillan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Henry Mcquillan\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#\/schema\/person\/85ae5955a9ba6bb5a1212b7144ce53d3\"},\"headline\":\"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-27T17:11:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-27T17:11:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/\"},\"wordCount\":9,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Articles\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/\",\"name\":\"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report - Scribe\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-27T17:11:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-27T17:11:30+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#\/schema\/person\/85ae5955a9ba6bb5a1212b7144ce53d3\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg\",\"width\":1024,\"height\":576},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/\",\"name\":\"Scribe\",\"description\":\"USC Dornsife \",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#\/schema\/person\/85ae5955a9ba6bb5a1212b7144ce53d3\",\"name\":\"Henry Mcquillan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/96845f55fba7683656b8bbcb8a68b3c951a4e7abf7765d2478782dc73d20fd2b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/96845f55fba7683656b8bbcb8a68b3c951a4e7abf7765d2478782dc73d20fd2b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Henry Mcquillan\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/author\/hmcquill\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report - Scribe","og_url":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/","og_site_name":"Scribe","article_published_time":"2026-02-27T17:11:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-27T17:11:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":576,"url":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Henry Mcquillan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/"},"author":{"name":"Henry Mcquillan","@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#\/schema\/person\/85ae5955a9ba6bb5a1212b7144ce53d3"},"headline":"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report","datePublished":"2026-02-27T17:11:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-27T17:11:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/"},"wordCount":9,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg","articleSection":["Articles"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/","url":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/","name":"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report - Scribe","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg","datePublished":"2026-02-27T17:11:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-27T17:11:30+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#\/schema\/person\/85ae5955a9ba6bb5a1212b7144ce53d3"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/491\/2026\/02\/44196378355_d9237409c4_b.jpg","width":1024,"height":576},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/2026\/02\/27\/the-pitfalls-of-predictive-policing-in-the-minority-report\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Pitfalls of Predictive Policing in the Minority Report"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#website","url":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/","name":"Scribe","description":"USC Dornsife ","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#\/schema\/person\/85ae5955a9ba6bb5a1212b7144ce53d3","name":"Henry Mcquillan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/96845f55fba7683656b8bbcb8a68b3c951a4e7abf7765d2478782dc73d20fd2b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/96845f55fba7683656b8bbcb8a68b3c951a4e7abf7765d2478782dc73d20fd2b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Henry Mcquillan"},"url":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/author\/hmcquill\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/870","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1036"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=870"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/870\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":872,"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/870\/revisions\/872"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/871"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dornsife.usc.edu\/scribe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}