AI-Supported Crime Prediction Systems: Practical Challenges and Legal Aspects

Year 2025, Issue: 120, 81 - 102, 25.12.2025

Niyazi Umut Akıncıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1749671

Abstract

This article offers a multidimensional analysis of the operational mechanisms, practical performance, and legal as well as ethical implications of artificial intelligence-based crime prediction systems. These systems, developed along the axes of location-based and person-based models, promise a proactive transformation in security strategies by forecasting criminal activity. However, risks such as algorithmic bias, the opacity of “black box” systems, and violations of fundamental rights raise critical questions regarding their compatibility with the principles of the rule of law. The article presents a comparative assessment of implementations in the United States, the European Union, and Turkey, revealing distinct normative and institutional approaches. Particular attention is given to the contrast between the EU’s preventative and regulatory model and the US’s reactive, judiciary-driven framework. It is further emphasized that Turkey currently lacks a comprehensive legal framework in this area and urgently needs specific regulatory arrangements.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence , Security , Crime Prediction Systems , Legal Oversight

Yapay Zekâ Destekli Suç Tahmin Sistemleri: Uygulamadaki Sorunlar ve Hukuki Boyut

Abstract

Bu makale, yapay zekâ destekli suç tahmin sistemlerinin işleyişini, uygulamadaki performansını ve doğurduğu hukuki ve etik sorunları çok boyutlu biçimde incelemektedir. Yer ve kişiye dayalı modeller ekseninde geliştirilen bu sistemler, suçu önceden tahmin ederek güvenlik stratejilerinde proaktif bir dönüşüm vadetmektedir. Ancak algoritmik önyargılar, “kara kutu” sistemlerin şeffaflık sorunları ve temel hak ihlalleri gibi riskler, bu teknolojilerin hukuk devleti ilkeleriyle uyumunu tartışmalı kılmaktadır. ABD, AB ve Türkiye’deki uygulamalar karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilerek, her biri için farklı normatif ve kurumsal yaklaşımlar ortaya konulmuştur. Özellikle Avrupa Birliği’nin önleyici ve kuralcı modeli ile ABD’nin reaktif ve yargı temelli yaklaşımı arasındaki farklara dikkat çekilmiştir. Türkiye’nin ise hâlen yasal çerçeve eksikliği içinde bulunduğu ve bu alanda kapsamlı bir düzenleme ihtiyacı olduğu vurgulanmaktadır.

Keywords

Yapay Zekâ , Güvenlik , Suç Tahmin Sistemleri , Hukuki Denetim

References

• Akbulut, B. (2023). Yapay zekâ ve ceza hukuku sorumluluğu. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(4), 267–319. https://doi.org/10.0000/ahbvu.2023.27.4
• Aksoy, H. (2021). Yapay zekâlı varlıklar ve ceza hukuku. Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 10–27.
• Alikhademi, K., Drobina, E., Prioleau, D., Richardson, B., Purves, D., & Gilbert, J. E. (2022). A review of predictive policing from the perspective of fairness. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09296-2
• Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2022). Machine bias. In Ethics of data and analytics (pp. 254–264). Auerbach Publications.
• Aslan, Ö., & Nohutçu, A. (2025). 1982 Anayasası’nda insan hakları: Hürriyet ve otorite dengesine ilişkin bir değerlendirme. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, (118), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1630730
• Bachner, J. (2013). Predictive policing: Preventing crime with data and analytics. IBM Center for the Business of Government.
• Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2023). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT Press.
• Başaran, R. (2021). Türkiye’de suç coğrafyası ve sıcak nokta analizleri. Kriminoloji Dergisi, 4(2), 87–112.
• Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673632
• Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417725865
• Çelik, A. (2025). Gelişmişlik ve ekonomik durumlarına göre kentlerde suç eğilimleri ve muhtemel sebepleri. Güvenlik Çalışmaları Dergisi, 27(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.54627/gcd.1684873
• Çetinkaya, Z. (2024). Türkiye’de öngörücü polislik ve algoritmik ayrımcılık. Hukuk ve Adalet Dergisi, 20(3), 55–78.
• Çetingül, N. (2021). Ceza sorumluluğu bakımından yapay zekânın hukuki statüsünün tartışılması. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(41), 1015–1042.
• Çolakoğlu, M. (2024). Doğal dil işleme ile suç tiplerinin sınıflandırılması: Yeni bir yaklaşım. Adli Bilişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 34–59.
• Egbert, S., & Leese, M. (2021). Criminal futures: Predictive policing and everyday police work. The British Journal of Criminology, 61(4), 1031–1050.
• Ensign, D., Friedler, S. A., Neville, S., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2018). Runaway feedback loops in predictive policing. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (pp. 160–171). PMLR.
• European Parliament. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council on artificial intelligence (AI Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 277, 1–148.
• Ferguson, A. G. (2012). Predictive policing and reasonable suspicion. Emory Law Journal, 62(2), 259–325.
• Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. NYU Press.
• Floridi, L., Holweg, M., Taddeo, M., Amaya, J., Mökander, J., & Wen, Y. (2022). CapAI—A procedure for conducting conformity assessment of AI systems in line with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4064091
• Freeman, K. (2016). Algorithmic injustice: How the Wisconsin Supreme Court failed to protect due process rights in State v. Loomis. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 18(5), 75–112.
• Galis, V., & Karlsson, B. (2024). A world of Palantir: Ontological politics in the Danish police’s POL-INTEL. Information, Communication & Society, 27(13), 2438–2456. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.1234567
• Hirsh, J. (2016). Predictive policing and civilian oversight: What will it take to get it right? IEEE Potentials, 35(5), 19–22.
• Hussain, A., & Hussain, A. (2025). Transparency and accountability: Unpacking the real problems of explainable AI. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-01735-4
• Kan, C. H. (2024). Criminal liability of artificial intelligence from the perspective of criminal law: An evaluation in the context of the general theory of crime and fundamental principles. Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(55), 1–15.
• Kavsıracı, O. (2018). Polis faaliyetlerinde gri alanlar ve etik. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(16), 1851–1882. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.481244
• Kavsıracı, O., & Demirbaş, M. (2020). İstihbarat faaliyetlerinin devlet güvenliği açısından incelenmesi. Anadolu Strateji Dergisi, 2(1), 49–64.
• Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu. (2016). Kanun No: 6698, Kabul Tarihi: 24.03.2016, Resmî Gazete: 07.04.2016 – Sayı: 29677.
• Lum, K., & Isaac, W. (2016). To predict and serve? Significance, 13(5), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00960.x
• Marciniak, D. (2023). Algorithmic policing: An exploratory study of the algorithmically mediated construction of individual risk in a UK police force. Policing and Society, 33(4), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2022.2094337
• Maviş, V. (2025). Predictive Policing: Balancing Crime Prevention and Fundamental Rights. Periodicum Iuris, 3(2), 343-373.
• Meding, J. (2025). Algorithmic fairness in predictive policing. Journal of Law and Technology, 41(2), 210–235.
• Meijer, A., & Wessels, M. (2019). Predictive policing: Review of benefits and drawbacks. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(12), 1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1575666
• Mohler, G. O., Short, M. B., Malinowski, S., Johnson, M., Tita, G. E., Bertozzi, A. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (2015). Randomized controlled field trials of predictive policing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(512), 1399–1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2015.1077710
• Pasquale, F. (2020). New laws of robotics. Harvard University Press.
• Penney, J. (2017). Internet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online: A comparative case study. Internet Policy Review, 6(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14763/2017.2.694
• Perry, W. L. (2013). Predictive policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. RAND Corporation.
• Popp, T. (2017). Black box justice. The Pennsylvania Gazette, 115(3), 38–47.
• Richardson, R., Schultz, J. M., & Crawford, K. (2019). Dirty data, bad predictions: How civil rights violations impact police data, predictive policing systems, and justice. NYU Law Review Online, 94, 15–55.
• Sankin, A., & Mattu, S. (2023). Predictive policing software terrible at predicting crimes. The Markup, 2(1), 1–12.
• Sezgin, S. M. (2022). Türkiye’de elektronik denetleme sistemleri ile tespit edilen hız aşım oranlarının incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Shamoo, Y. (2025). The role of explainable AI (XAI) in forensic investigations. In Digital forensics in the age of AI (pp. 31–62). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
• Tayebi, M. A., & Glässer, U. (2016). Social network analysis in predictive policing: Concepts, models and methods. Springer.
• Ter-Minassian, L. (2025). Democratizing AI governance: Balancing expertise and public participation. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-01755-0
• Tufan, B. N. (2024). Yapay zekâ ve suç: Gelecek açısından hukuksal ve etik tehditler. Medeniyet Kültürel Araştırmalar Belleteni, 4(7), 1–17.
• Utku, A. (2024). Derin öğrenme tabanlı suç tahmin modelleri. Bilişim ve Yapay Zekâ Dergisi, 3(2), 54–76.
• Van Brakel, R. E. (2025). Legal, ethical and social issues of AI and law enforcement in Europe: The case of predictive policing. European Journal of Criminology, 22(1), 115–139.
• Veale, M., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2021). Demystifying the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act—Analysing the good, the bad, and the unclear elements of the proposed approach. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97–112.
• Vepřek, L. H., Sibert, L., Sehn, L., Köpp, L., & Friedrich, D. (2020). Beyond effectiveness: Legitimising predictive policing in Germany. Kriminologie: Das Online-Journal, 2(3), 423–443.
• Vitale, A. S. (2021). The end of policing. Verso Books.
• Warso, Z. (2022). Human rights requirements for person-based predictive policing: Lessons from selected ECtHR case law and its limits. Technology and Regulation, 2022(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.26116/techreg.2022.007
• Weiss, D. A. (2025). Inhuman reason: Predictive policing algorithms and the Fourth Amendment. Criminal Justice, 39(4), 15–20.
• Williams, P., & Kind, E. (2019). Data-driven policing: The hardwiring of discriminatory policing practices across Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 16(5), 573–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819828940
• Yang, C. S., & Dobbie, W. (2020). Equal protection under algorithms: A new statistical and legal framework. Michigan Law Review, 118(2), 291–395.
• Yücel, H. (2024). Türkiye’de öngörücü polislikte delil niteliği tartışmaları. Adalet ve Toplum Dergisi, 9(2), 201–225.