Robots on Patrol: The Future of Crime Prevention

The reduction of coppers on the beat has undoubtedly reduced the ability of the police to reduce crime, and while some argue that more police are needed, others are looking towards robots. What challenges does modern policing face, could robots be the solution, and what challenges would this bring?

What challenges does modern policing face?

For all the flaws that police forces around the world have, when criminals are about, it is the police that we call. The introduction of modern technologies has enabled the police to rapidly identify criminals, search for evidence, and quickly close in on criminals on the run. But while technology has certainly aided the police, both this technology and changes in policing have undoubtedly introduced numerous challenges that continue to this day.

By far, the biggest challenge that everyday citizens face is the lack of police on the beat (i.e., police patrols). In the past, as personal radios didn’t exist, police units had to be distributed across urban areas so that should a crime take place, officers would be able to respond immediately. With the blow of a whistle, other nearby offices can pile in on the action, apprehending those who would otherwise be depriving citizens of their rights. 

At the same time, these patrols would also project intimidation into wannabe criminals who, after sizing up a few officers, may think twice before committing a crime. Just the very presence of police officers can see a reduction in crime rates. 

The introduction of radios, along with a whole host of other technologies, however, has seen a dramatic change in police forces (especially in the UK), whereby police respond to incidences instead of preventing incidences in the first place. The invention of radio communication allows police units to be kept at stations and in vehicles scattered across a large area, and as incidences occur, rapid responses can be formed.

While this type of policing is great for terror attacks and extreme cases of violence, it does little to prevent numerous other crimes, including shoplifting, theft, and robbery. To make matters worse, the situation with police forces has become so dire that many who experience crime no longer report them, as little can be done.

The rising costs faced by taxpayers, in combination with poor government spending, have also restricted the budgets of numerous police forces. As such, it is difficult for police forces to deploy enough officers to patrol streets.

A Cost-Effective Solution to Enhanced Policing

However, a study conducted by the University of Cambridge, in collaboration with Cambridgeshire Constabulary, sheds light on a cost-effective solution. By increasing foot patrols in crime ‘hot spots’ by just 21 minutes daily, significant reductions in crime rates were observed. This approach not only enhances public safety but also offers a five-to-one return on investment, saving the justice system hundreds of thousands of pounds annually.

This revelation underscores the pivotal role of proactive policing, a concept often overshadowed by the modern “reactive, fire-brigade” approach. The study’s findings could potentially rekindle the adoption of the traditional policing model, where the emphasis is placed on prevention rather than reaction. The visible presence of officers, even PCSOs who have no power of arrest, instils a sense of security among the public and deters potential criminals.

Measuring Crime by Damage to Victims

A new approach to measuring crime, termed the “menu of harm,” has been proposed by criminologists at the University of Cambridge. This method evaluates crime based on the damage inflicted on victims rather than treating all crimes as if they hold equal severity. The current system, which the researchers criticize as a “paper-and-pencil legacy of the 19th century,” often misrepresents the true impact of crime on society by giving equal weight to minor and major offences.

The Cambridge Crime Harm Index (CHI) is introduced as a more meaningful measure of crime, grounded in the actual societal cost – the harm done to citizens. This index is akin to a cost-of-living index but is tailored to crime, classifying offences based on their likely impact on victims. The researchers argue that this approach will enhance the identification and policing of ‘harm spots’ and dangerous repeat offenders, leading to a more efficient allocation of police resources.

The CHI is based on sentencing guidelines and the number of ‘imprisonable’ days, offering a more nuanced view of crime trends and public safety. It is already being tested by several UK police units, aiding in the identification of crime ‘harm spots’ and enabling the reallocation of resources for optimal impact. Read more about this approach here.

Could police robots be the solution to preventative policing?

As the cost of hiring officers increases while budgets for new hires decrease, alternative measures will soon need to be taken. One such option that could transform the future of policing is robots, and they are already being deployed in various environments.

While images of a dystopian future may crop up when thinking about police robots, such a system would not need to have the ability to make arrests or fight criminals. Instead, a police robot merely needs to give an area a police presence, one that can spot potential criminals and, if crimes are taking place, act as ears and eyes of police until human responders arrive.

By utilising cameras and microphones, it is possible for a police robot to patrol areas and give police units far better situational awareness than what a camera can bring. In fact, many crimes often occur in front of security cameras, and this is likely due to the lack of care of the camera’s presence or lack of knowledge that it is there. 

Instead, the use of towering autonomous robotic platforms that can patrol and follow individuals of interest not only reintroduces the fear that police on the beat provides but effectively provides total coverage for surveillance. This means that areas where fixed cameras cannot observe can be covered by frequent patrols. 

Furthermore, the reduced cost of operating robotic systems helps free up resources while simultaneously reducing the risk of injury faced by police officers. Making the case for robot police even stronger, dangers faced by suspects are also reduced, as interactions with the police can be better controlled. For example, those who often react harshly to police questioning can find themselves in extremely dangerous situations, but a robotic system is not only entirely impersonal but presents no risk of life to suspects (as such platforms would not carry weapons). 

Real-World Application of Police Robots

In a practical application of police robots, New York City has leased a robot to patrol the Times Square subway station, one of the busiest in the transit system. This initiative aims to enhance the safety of riders and exemplifies the integration of robotic assistance in public safety measures. Watch the report by Andrew Siff on NBC New York for an in-depth look at this development:

This real-world example underscores the potential benefits and challenges associated with deploying robots for public safety and security. As cities around the world grapple with similar challenges, the role of robotic assistants is becoming increasingly pivotal.

AI in Traffic Law Enforcement

In Devon and Cornwall, a new AI technology is being employed by the police to identify drivers committing offences like using mobile phones or not wearing seatbelts. Developed using Acusensus technology, this AI is integrated into a mobile unit equipped with cameras to capture footage of motorists. The AI analyses the footage, identifies potential offences, and passes the information to police officers for verification and possible prosecution.

However, this technology raises significant concerns. The admissibility of AI-generated evidence in court is questionable, and the constant surveillance facilitated by AI could lead to a Big Brother state, where every individual’s actions are scrutinized. This could potentially lead to unfair police practices and raises ethical and privacy concerns that need to be addressed as AI becomes more integrated into law enforcement.

What challenges would robotic police present?

While robotic police would certainly help reduce the costs of policing and make policing more effective, their use could introduce a multitude of ethical concerns. 

The first major concern of having robotic offers patrolling streets comes from privacy. While cameras in public spaces are not illegal, the idea of having mobile platforms that constantly watch society will likely see a backlash. As it is highly likely that these systems will be recording 24/7, anything caught by cameras will be stored and, thus, potentially accessible to criminals. To understand how this could be problematic, one only needs to think about the age-old trope of skirts on a windy day.

The second concern of robotic police platforms comes from technological and societal changes over time. Simply put, the first platforms may be designed with privacy and safety in mind, but as society becomes more comfortable with such robots, the extent of their power and capabilities will increase.

For example, future platforms may eventually be equipped with weapon systems with the capacity to do serious harm (going as far as being lethal). If such capabilities are combined with AI and autonomous systems, it is possible for a police robot to make its own decisions on what actions should be taken.

However, it is likely that such a platform will never understand the ethical and moral considerations that come with such actions, thereby absolving police forces from responsibility. In fact, this could lead to a situation where police units specifically program robotic platforms to take more harsh action, knowing that no human will face the consequences. 

Robotic police units could very well introduce a new era of policing and, if done right, could help prevent crime before it even takes place. However, if done incorrectly, it could lead to numerous societal challenges, and if proof is required, just look at the reaction of the public against the newly deployed ULEZ cameras (not the heroes we deserve, but the heroes we need).