DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of the Shreveport Predictive Policing Experiment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of the Shreveport Predictive Policing Experiment Safety and Justice Program CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Safety and Justice Program View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This report is part of the RAND Corporation research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that ad- dress the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for re- search quality and objectivity. Evaluation of the Shreveport Predictive Policing Experiment Priscillia Hunt, Jessica Saunders, John S. Hollywood C O R P O R A T I O N Safety and Justice Program Evaluation of the Shreveport Predictive Policing Experiment Priscillia Hunt, Jessica Saunders, John S. Hollywood The research described in this report was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and was conducted in the Safety and Justice Program within RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment. This project was supported by Award No. 2009-IJ-CX-K114, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-8691-4 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND—make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute.html R® is a registered trademark. Cover images: courtesy of the International Association of Crime Analysts. © Copyright 2014 RAND Corporation This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see the RAND permissions page (www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html). RAND OFFICES SANTA MONICA, CA • WASHINGTON, DC PITTSBURGH, PA • NEW ORLEANS, LA • JACKSON, MS • BOSTON, MA CAMBRIDGE, UK • BRUSSELS, BE www.rand.org Preface Predictive policing is the application of statistical methods to identify likely targets for police intervention (the predictions) to prevent crimes or solve past crimes, fol- lowed by conducting interventions against those targets. The concept has been of high interest in recent years as evidenced by the growth of academic, policy, and editorial reports; however, there have been few formal evaluations of predictive policing efforts to date. In response, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the Shreveport Police Department (SPD) in Louisiana to conduct a predictive policing experiment in 2012. SPD staff developed and estimated a statistical model of the likelihood of property crimes occurring within block-sized areas. Then, using a blocked random- ized approach to identify treatment and control district pairs, districts assigned to the treatment group were given maps that highlighted blocks predicted to be at higher risk of property crime. These districts were also provided with overtime resources to conduct special operations. Control districts conducted property crime–related special operations using overtime resources as well, just targeting areas that had recently seen property crimes (hot spots). This study presents results of an evaluation of the processes in addition to the impacts and costs of the SPD predictive policing experiment. It should be of interest to those considering predictive policing and directed law enforcement systems and operations, and to analysts conducting experiments and evaluations of public safety strategies. This evaluation is part of a larger project funded by the NIJ, composed of two phases. Phase I focuses on the development and estimation of predictive models, and Phase II involves implementation of a prevention model using the predictive model. For Phase II, RAND is evaluating predictive policing strategies conducted by the SPD and the Chicago Police Department (contract #2009-IJ-CX-K114). This report is one product from Phase II. The RAND Safety and Justice Program The research reported here was conducted in the RAND Safety and Justice Program, which addresses all aspects of public safety and the criminal justice system, including iii iv Evaluation of the Shreveport Predictive Policing Experiment violence, policing, corrections, courts and criminal law, substance abuse, occupational safety, and public integrity. Program research is supported by government agencies, foundations, and the private sector. This program is part of RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment, a divi- sion of the RAND Corporation dedicated to improving policy and decisionmaking in a wide range of policy domains, including civil and criminal justice, infrastructure protection and homeland security, transportation and energy policy, and environmen- tal and natural resource policy. Questions or comments about this report should be sent to the project leader, John Hollywood ([email protected]). For more information about the Safety and Justice Program, see http://www.rand.org/safety-justice or contact the director at sj@ rand.org. Contents Preface ................................................................................................iii Figures and Tables ................................................................................. vii Summary ............................................................................................. ix Acknowledgments .................................................................................xix Abbreviations .......................................................................................xxi CHaptER ONE Introduction ..........................................................................................1 Background on PILOT ...............................................................................1 Prediction Model ...................................................................................2 Prevention Model ..................................................................................2 The PILOT Experiment ..............................................................................4 Evaluation Approach ..................................................................................4 CHaptER TWO PILOT Process Evaluation .........................................................................7 Methods ................................................................................................7 Data .....................................................................................................8 Implementation of the Prediction Model ..........................................................9 Implementation of the Prevention Model ........................................................ 12 Implementation in Command 1 (Districts A and B) ......................................... 12 Implementation in Command 2 (District C) ................................................. 14 Activities in the Control Group (Districts D, E, and F) ..................................... 16 Summary ........................................................................................... 17 Results ................................................................................................ 17 Prediction Model ................................................................................. 17 Prevention Model ................................................................................. 20 Summary ........................................................................................... 23 Key Implementation Challenges .................................................................. 25 Manual Generation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Predictive POLICING the Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations
    Safety and Justice Program CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Safety and Justice Program View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This report is part of the RAND Corporation research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that ad- dress the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for re- search quality and objectivity. Safety and Justice Program PREDICTIVE POLICING The Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations Walter L.
    [Show full text]
  • How Will AI Shape the Future of Law?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto How Will AI Shape the Future of Law? EDITED BY RIIKKA KOULU & LAURA KONTIAINEN 2019 Acknowledgements The editors and the University of Helsinki Legal Tech Lab would like to thank the authors and interviewees for the time and effort they put into their papers. We would also like to thank the Faculty of Law at University of Helsinki and particularly the continuous kind support of Professor Kimmo Nuotio, the former dean of the faculty and the Lab’s unofficial godfather, for facilitating the Lab’s development and for helping us make the second Legal Tech Conference happen. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude to the conference sponsors, Finnish Bar Association, the Association of Finnish Lawyers, Edita Publishing, Attorneys at Law Fondia and Attorneys at Law Roschier as well as the Legal Design Summit community for their support. It takes a village to raise a conference. Therefore, we would like to thank everyone whose time and commitment has turned the conference and this publication from an idea into reality. Thank you to the attendees, speakers, volunteers and Legal Tech Lab crew members. RIIKKA KOULU & LAURA KONTIAINEN Legal Tech Lab, University of Helsinki 2019 University of Helsinki Legal Tech Lab publications © Authors and Legal Tech Lab ISBN 978-951-51-5476-7 (print) ISBN 978-951-51-5477-4 (PDF) Print Veiters Helsinki 2019 Contents Foreword 009 KIMMO NUOTIO I Digital Transformation of
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing Discriminatory Purpose in Algorithmic Risk Assessment
    NOTES BEYOND INTENT: ESTABLISHING DISCRIMINATORY PURPOSE IN ALGORITHMIC RISK ASSESSMENT Equal protection doctrine is bound up in conceptions of intent. Unintended harms from well-meaning persons are, quite simply, nonac- tionable.1 This basic predicate has erected a high bar for plaintiffs ad- vancing equal protection challenges in the criminal justice system. Notably, race-based challenges on equal protection grounds, which sub- ject the state to strict scrutiny review, are nonetheless stymied by the complexities of establishing discriminatory purpose. What’s more, the inability of courts and scholars to coalesce on a specific notion of the term has resulted in gravely inconsistent applications of the doctrine.2 States’ increasing use of algorithmic systems raises longstanding con- cerns regarding prediction in our criminal justice system — how to cat- egorize the dangerousness of an individual, the extent to which past behavior is relevant to future conduct, and the effects of racial dispari- ties.3 Integration of algorithmic systems has been defined by ambiva- lence: while they are touted for their removal of human discretion,4 they also readily promote and amplify inequalities — for example, through their consideration of protected characteristics and their interaction with existing systems tainted by legacies of inequality.5 Furthermore, algo- rithms, especially those incorporating artificial intelligence (AI), may operate in ways that are opaque, unpredictable, or not well understood. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239–40 (1976). 2 See Aziz Z. Huq, What Is Discriminatory Intent?, 103 CORNELL L. REV. 1211, 1240–63 (2018) (presenting five definitions from the literature). 3 See Sonia K.
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Surveillance and Preventive Justice
    EXTREME SURVEILLANCE AND PREVENTIVE JUSTICE: NARRATION AND SPECTACULARITY IN MINORITY REPORT Noemí Novell [email protected] SUMMARY hrough a compared analysis between the narrative of Philip K. Dick and the filmic imagery of Steven Spielberg, the present article explores the forms in which dominant ideas around surveillance and preventive justice are portrayed in Minority Report. The author examines the links between literary fiction and audiovisual representation, focusing on the notions of narrative and spectacularity in order to establish up to what point does the film adaptation interpret de innovative and challenging ideas that identify Dick's visionary science fiction writing. KEY WORDS Science Fiction, Crime, Extreme surveillance, Preventive justice, Civil rights, National security, Privacy, State control, Dystopia, Panopticon, Film adaptation, Philip K. Dick, Steven Spielberg, Minority Report ARTICLE Based on “The Minority Report” (1956), by Philip K. Dick, Minority Report (Steven Spielberg, 2002) is, without a doubt, one of the film scripts that most highlights the ideas of surveillance of citizens and preventive justice.1 Although it is undeniable that both ideas are taken from the original story by Dick, in the film they are highlighted and modified, to some extent thanks to the audiovisual narration that sustains and supports them. This is a relevant point since sometimes opinion has tended towards the idea that cinematographic, unlike literary, science fiction, strips this genre of the innovative and non-conformist ideas that characterise it, and that it lingers too long on the special effects, which, from this perspective, would slow down the narration and would add nothing to it.2 This, this article seeks to explore the ways in which the dominant ideas of surveillance and preventive justice are shown in Minority Report and how their audiovisual representation, far from hindering, contribute to better illustrating the dominant ideas of the film.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to the Minority Report
    Response to the Minority Report July 2020 Prepared by the Institute for Social Research In June 2020, a report by the New Mexico 2nd and 5th District Attorneys – Minority Report: Ad Hoc Committee to Review Pretrial Release and Detention Procedures – outlined concerns regarding preventive detention and pretrial release decision making. In general, the data used in the Minority Report to justify the declarations regarding the criminal justice system in New Mexico typically came from an SJDC report on cases with PTS rather than all cases in SJDC or all cases in Bernalillo County. The rates for cases with PTS are not equivalent to the rates for all cases, resulting in interpretations that overestimate FTAs and NCAs and, as a result, underestimate the effectiveness of the PSA and pre-trial release decision making in Bernalillo County courts. This document provides a preliminary response to the report. The Minority Report is divided into a series of six sections: I. Who is being released? II. New Mexico’s bail reform was a half measure that failed to incorporate two of the three bases for detention recognized in other jurisdictions. III. New Mexico is not yet safer with bail reform and is not as safe as other bail reform jurisdictions. IV. Defendants charged with violent crime pose a greater risk of violence. V. New Mexico releases more dangerous offenders than other jurisdictions. VI. Rebuttable presumptions are used across the country to help identify violent and otherwise risky offenders. Section I: Who is being released? The Minority Report is correct in the assertion that Second Judicial District Court (SJDC) have denied over 1,600 motions seeking preventive detention (PTD) from January 1, 2017 to February 29, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • CHRISTOPHER SLOBOGIN Vanderbilt University Law School, 131 21St Ave., Nashville, Tenn
    CHRISTOPHER SLOBOGIN Vanderbilt University Law School, 131 21st Ave., Nashville, Tenn. 37203-1181 Phone: (615) 343 2059; Fax: 322 6631; E-mail: [email protected] LEGAL AND PRE-LEGAL EDUCATION LL.M., University of Virginia Law School, 1979. J.D., University of Virginia Law School, 1977. A.B., Princeton University, 1973. LEGAL TEACHING EXPERIENCE Appointments: Vanderbilt University: Professor of Law, 7/08-present; Milton Underwood Professor of Law, 10/09 - present; Professor, Department of Psychiatry (secondary appointment), 2/09 - present. University of Florida: Stephen C. O’Connell Chair, 8/98-7/08; Alumni Research Scholar, 6/94-8/98; Prof., 3/87; Associate Prof., 3/85-3/87; Assistant Prof., 9/82-3/85; Affiliate Prof., Dep’t Psychiatry, 3/95-7/08. University of South Florida: Adjunct Professor, Department of Mental Health, 6/86 - present. Visitorships: Oxford University, Centre for Criminology (Fellowship), 5/17-7/17. Stanford Law School, Edwin A. Heafey Visiting Scholar, 9/06-5/07. University of California, Hastings Law School, 1/05-5/05; 1/03-5/03. University of Frankfurt Law School, Frankfurt, Germany, 4/01-7/01. University of Southern California Law School, 1/00-5/00. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 2/91-6/91. University of Virginia Law School, 8/88-6/89. University of Nebraska Law School, 6/88-8/88. Kiev University Law School, Kiev, Ukraine, Fulbright Scholar, 10/87-12/87. Courses Taught Criminal Procedure I & II Mental Health Law Professional Responsibility Comparative Criminal Procedure Health Law Evidence Criminal Law Law & Social Science Civil Procedure White Collar Crime Forensic Practicum Introduction to Law Teaching Awards/Evaluations: Average overall evaluation score, fall, 2003 through fall, 2020 at UF and Vanderbilt: 4.6 (out of 5) Hall-Hartman Outstanding Professor Award, Hartman Division, Vanderbilt University, 2018-2019 Chosen to create Vanderbilt-Coursera Course on “Hot Topics in Criminal Justice” (six 90-minute lectures, 5/19).
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Predictive Policing: a Policy Analysis Approach
    Implementing Predictive Policing: A Policy Analysis Approach Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Guzman, Samantha Grace Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 28/09/2021 07:40:49 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/632758 IMPLEMENTING PREDICTIVE POLICING: A POLICY ANALYSIS APPROACH By Samantha Grace Guzman ____________________ A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College In Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors degree With Honors in Criminal Justice Studies THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA M A Y 2 0 1 9 Approved by: __________________ Anne E. Boustead, JD PhD School of Government and Public Policy 1 Abstract Predictive policing techniques have grown rapidly in both sophistication and use over the past decade; yet, there is a large amount of legal and public pushback against the concept. This thesis aims to address privacy, equity and efficacy concerns by examining the accuracy and fairness of existing predictive policing mechanisms. After providing a background on both conventional and predictive policing methods, I then introduce a framework of best practices for predictive policing implementation for policy-makers and police departments to follow. To provide examples of the framework in action, I describe how various departments have implemented predictive policing and discuss the implications of such. Finally, the paper concludes with overall policy recommendations and key takeaways for future use of predictive policing technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Minority Report: John Marshall and the Defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts
    OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 68, NUMBER 2, 2007 Minority Report: John Marshall and the Defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts KURT T. LASH* ALICIA HARRSON** In 1799, the Federalist minority of the Virginia House of Delegates produced an extended defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts. This Minority Report responded to Madison's famous Virginia Resolutions and efforts by Virginia Republicans to tar the Adams Administration with having exceeded its powers under the federal Constitution. Originally attributed to John Marshall by biographerAlbert Beveridge, recent biographies of Marshall have omitted the episode or rejected Beveridge's claim and the current editors of the Papers of John Marshall omitted the Minority Report from their multi-volume collection of Marshall's work. What was once an assumed (if controversial) episode in Marshall's career has disappeared from otherwise exhaustive accounts of his life and work. As in Philip K. Dick's story, Minority Report, an alternate view of events has been unceremoniously erasedfrom the official record. The authors of this Article challenge the decision to remove Marshall's name from the Minority Report. Marshall was the only person named at the time as the probable author, and Marshallhad both reason and opportunity to draft the Address. The arguments of the Report not only track Marshall's views on the Constitution, they utilize constitutional arguments that were * Professor of Law and W. Joseph Ford Fellow, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. B.A., Whitman College; J.D., Yale Law School. I thank the wonderful staff at the Huntington Research Library for their invaluable assistance locating innumerable primary documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Minority Report and the Law of Attempt
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by KnowledgeBank at OSU Minority Report and the Law of Attempt Robert Batey* Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report,1 released in summer 2002, derives from a Philip K. Dick short story first published in 1956.2 The futuristic premise of both the film and short story, that the government can predict crime before it happens and so prevent it, broaches intriguing questions regarding criminal justice. In dealing with one of those questions, the movie ringingly endorses one of the hoariest and most questionable tenets of Anglo-American criminal law: the notion that a person can come quite close to committing a crime and yet may escape all criminal liability, even for the crime of attempt, if the target offense goes uncommitted. The fact that this idea holds centerstage in what was intended as popular entertainment says much about its persistence, despite decades of academic skepticism and legislative and judicial revision. This Review first compares the short story and film, highlighting the differences effected by the screenwriters Scott Frank and John Cohen, which in turn spotlight issues regarding the act requirement for attempt. The movie implicitly supports the common-law approach to attempt liability, which makes it quite difficult to establish that a defendant has done acts sufficient to constitute an attempt, in contrast to the less stringent rule of the Model Penal Code (“MPC”)—perhaps reflecting a visceral public approval of the common law’s attitude, and in turn explaining why the MPC’s recommendation on this point has not been very widely followed.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Chapter Five This Is Not Minority Report R. Joshua Scannell
    Chapter Five This is Not Minority Report R. Joshua Scannell “I’m tired. I’m tired of the future.” —Agatha, from Minority Report (2002) In November 2015, writer and antiracist activist Shaun King penned a widely circulated op-ed in the New York Daily News titled “Predictive Policing is ‘technological racism.’” In it, King raises a version of what data scientists call the “garbage in, garbage out” problem. In so many words: Any automated system will only ever be as good as the data it is based on. The racist history of American policing means that any predictive system’s data is garbage. Therefore, predictive policing programs will be racist garbage (King 2015). This is true, but the framing raises an inevitable counterpoint. If it were possible to account for that history and code it out – in effect to unskew the data – wouldn’t predictive policing be an improvement over the status quo? Isn’t relying on the insights afforded by an impartial equation interpreting hard math preferable to the possible prejudices of a “bad apple” beat cop? This is the problematic that, in the last decade, has dominated debates around predictive policing technologies. Skeptics point to the fact that a predictive policing system based on past police practice will reproduce the racial, sexual and classed structures that organize state violence (Selbst 2017). This is as obvious to developers as it is to their critics, and they have 1 increasingly cast their surveillance net across an ever-widening spectrum of daily practices and affects in order to code their way out of “bias” (Ferguson 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Lifer- the Report As Amended Was Then Convention Then Adjourned Until 9 Tion Was Made Unanimous
    — n" —v*y • acting is (FMelegate, made a motion When Alabama was called Col. P. t TTCpTTC PlfOTfTR TOO Awarded t Pntevita tanned. for the appointment of a committee to Bowman mounted the platform ana ; lillilli UlulVU, l\J\J List of patents issued last ^tf6ek fo» BftYAN IS CHOSEN placed In nomination Barney Glbbs of j highest Honors—WorRps Fair, Northwestern inventors: confer with the committee from the Francis M. Dean, Huron, S. D., putt*- n silver men. There were many loud Texas. Before he entered upon his , ,, ..„,,. mxvuxvi(\v x<\\\] matle track sander; Otis M. Kirlln, cries of "No," and Mr. Branch of Geor­ •peecb, however, tho convention do, lnh MLVhR lOMhMlUr* MNH- argo, N. D., vehicle brake; Obled D. DEMO RATIO NOMINEE IS NOMINAT­ gia moved to table the motion. The clded to take a recess of an hour *»'V>^ XVTKtf BRYAN AND SKWALL noes seemed to be in a large majority, Relsluger, St. Paul, Minn., sashholderj ED IJY THE POPULISTS. and the morion to mhlo was declared a half. N t John IJ. Itossnian, St. Paul, Minn., lost. Senator Butler's motion WHS car­ When the convention reassembled concentrator and amalgamator; Chnrles ried with a loud chorus of ayes and Chairman Allen Introduced Judge Jef- ! The Men Selected for President nail J. Swiuistroin, Deadwood, S. D.p cur­ He Ilecclvea Over n Thousand Vote» tain holder; Edward A. Thiem, St. great cheering. ferson Pollard of Missouri, who read}'»• Vlcc rpe«iueiit »»- the Democrat- on the First B:illot to USt tor Mr. Paul, Minn., adjustable wheel gauget A Tennessee delegate offered a reso­ tho platform of the silver convention^ V .
    [Show full text]
  • Minority Report
    BIBLIOTECA TECLA SALA February 18, 2016 Minority Report Philip K. Dick (Sources: Wikipedia + The Guardian) Summary "The Minority Report" is a pen to you at any time.” 1956 science fiction short The story reflects many of story by Philip K. Dick, first Philip K. Dick's personal published in Fantastic Universe. Cold War anxieties, particu- In a future society, three mu- larly questioning the relati- tants foresee all crime before onship between authoritari- it occurs. Plugged into a great anism and individual auto- machine, these "precogs" nomy. Like many stories allow the Precrime division to dealing with knowledge of arrest suspects prior to any future events, "The Minority infliction of public harm. Report" questions the exis- tence of free will. When the head of Precrime John A. Anderton is accused In 2002, the story was adap- of murdering Leopold Kaplan, ted into a film directed by a man whom he has never Steven Spielberg and star- met, Anderton is convinced a ring Tom Cruise, Colin great conspiracy is afoot. His Farrell and Max von Sydow. Contents: new assistant, Ed Witwer, Spielberg's film was followed 1 must have corrupted the sys- by a series of the same na- Summary tem in an attempt to oust him me which debuted on the About Philip K. 2 from the position. On the run FOX Network on Septem- and suspicious of even his ber 21, 2015. Dick wife, Anderton searches for the minority report to clear The World in 3 his name, as only two out of “The Minority the three precogs predicted his guilt.
    [Show full text]