Educational companion dossier · Fact, interpretation, lived experience, clinical education, fiction, and mechanics are labeled separately. Scope & safety
PsychologicalWar.orgHistory before hype.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

PREDICTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BEHAVIORAL THREAT ASSESSMENT

United States “Hot People” Programs

Chicago’s Strategic Subject List and CVRM, LAPD LASER chronic-offender bulletins, and Pasco County intelligence-led policing—compared by target, method, intervention, feedback, and evidence.

Read the working brief Choose a learning path
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

ANALYTICAL & SAFETY BOUNDARIES

Keep related capabilities, evidence, and authority states separate.

  • Retrieval, matching, identification, association, forecasting, prioritization, threat assessment, and coercive intervention are different functions.
  • Place-based and person-based systems have different targets, evidence requirements, and rights consequences.
  • A source describes a system or claim; it does not automatically establish current deployment, accuracy, effectiveness, legality, or fairness.
  • A human review step is meaningful only when the reviewer has enough time, evidence, authority, independence, and an effective way to reject or correct the output.

Analytical boundary: “Pre-crime” is an analytical label for anticipatory decision architectures, not a single technology or proof that future conduct can be known. Record retrieval is not prediction; identity matching is not prediction of conduct; association is not guilt; a map is not necessarily a forecast; a concern category is not a statistical probability; a score, tier, list, or alert is not lawful grounds for coercive action; formal human presence is not meaningful review without time, evidence, authority, and an effective intervention path. Exact source bytes are preserved, but external claims remain source claims until independently verified.

Simulation safety boundary: Educational and non-operational. No real-person scoring, surveillance deployment, list construction, targeting, coercive workflow, evasion, or system-defeat guidance.

Source basis: 1 exact owner-supplied source instance(s) preserved in the WIP.75 predictive-law-enforcement collection.

LEVEL 1

ORIENTATION

Why this matters

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

One-sentence brief

These programs demonstrate that operational consequences can matter more than algorithmic sophistication: a simple list can produce repeated government contact, surveillance, family pressure, or enforcement.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Three key points

  1. Chicago mixed victimization and offending risk and increased police contact without demonstrated violence reduction in its early pilot.
  2. LASER used a manually administered point system and operational bulletins.
  3. Pasco converted selection into recurring home visits and enhanced enforcement.
LEVEL 2

WORKING BRIEF

Evidence, context, and limits

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

The designation changes behavior

A score or bulletin becomes consequential when it tells officers whom to notice, visit, check, stop, monitor, or document. Evaluation must measure these actions and their lawful basis, not merely whether selected people later appear in police records.

  • Trace operational instructions.
  • Separate designation from legal authority.
  • Measure burden on families and minors.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Three forms of circularity

Police contacts can become features or corroboration for continued priority. Increased attention can generate more recorded activity and make the designation look self-validating. Victim or witness appearances can also be misread as evidence of offending.

  • Tag attention-generated records.
  • Use matched or randomized comparisons where possible.
  • Separate role in each event.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

What valid evaluation requires

A selected person’s later arrest is insufficient. Evaluation needs a denominator, equivalent comparison, predeclared outcome, and separation of actual offending, victimization, police contact, and arrest.

  • Publish selection and removal data.
  • Measure outcomes beyond enforcement.
  • Report uncertainty and missing records.
LEVEL 3

COMPLETE DOSSIER

Limitations, game links, and review context

DISPUTED / MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS

Known limitations and gaps

  • The owner-supplied reports preserve their own evidence classifications, research cutoffs, and uncertainties; the site does not silently upgrade them.
  • Public information about thresholds, training data, model coefficients, operational modes, interventions, retention, and outcomes is frequently incomplete.
  • Program labels change. Functional continuity must be evaluated rather than inferred from a name alone.
  • Observed arrests, contacts, alerts, or declining crime after deployment do not by themselves establish predictive validity or causal effectiveness.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Related PsychologicalWar.org analysis

No related public page is required to understand this analysis.

LEVEL 4

RESEARCH EDITION

Sources, methods, and stable links

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Linked reports

  • Hot People: Chicago’s Strategic Subject List, LAPD LASER, and Pasco County’s Intelligence-Led Policing ProgramProtected research reference; no public report route in this release.
REAL-WORLD VERIFIED

Method and corrections

This page follows the public method for provenance, confidence, source independence, alternative accounts, limitations, review state, and visible correction.

Read the methodView corrections
NEXT

CONTINUE

Related learning

Predictive Law Enforcement and Behavioral Threat AssessmentBehavioral Threat Assessment or “Pre-Crime”?A source-bounded examination of BTAC, NTAC, structured professional judgment, targeted-violence prevention, low base rates, services, intervention, and civil-liberties boundaries.Predictive Law Enforcement and Behavioral Threat AssessmentBehavioral-Science Investigative UnitsHow specialized behavioral-science units support investigations, threat assessment, interviewing, research, training, consultation, and case management without becoming mind-reading engines.Predictive Law Enforcement and Behavioral Threat AssessmentDefinitions and Analytical BoundariesDistinguish retrieval, identity resolution, association, mapping, forecasting, person scoring, threat assessment, watchlisting, and coercive action.Predictive Law Enforcement and Behavioral Threat AssessmentEurope and the EU AI Act: Prohibited and High-Risk BoundariesPRECOBS, SKALA, KrimPro, the Netherlands Crime Anticipation System, and the distinction between prohibited individual crime prediction and regulated law-enforcement uses under the EU AI Act. Learning pathPredictive Law Enforcement: Evidence, Psychology, Governance, and RedressA sixteen-step path through terminology, behavioral threat assessment, behavioral-science units, person and place prediction, traveler risk, watchlisting, regional cases, technology lifecycle, evaluation, rights, and redress.
Page complete United States “Hot People” Programs Page label: REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE