From Crime Prevention to Anticipation: Why Does Justice Need an Operations Room Mindset?

Abdullah Saeed Al Habsi (A.S. Alhebsi)

Writer and researcher specializing in security, heritage, risk management, and operations rooms

When the 15th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice opened in Abu Dhabi, the event was not just another international meeting on the conference calendar. Running from September 26 to October 1 and bringing together around 5,000 participants from more than 97 countries, the congress discusses issues that will help shape the priorities of crime prevention and criminal justice for the next five years, chief among them international cooperation, innovation, and the responsible use of technology.

Yet the question that deserves to move from the conference halls into institutions is: Are we still building justice and security systems on the logic of reacting after a crime occurs, while available tools are now capable of catching signals before they turn into a full-scale incident?

Anticipation Does Not Mean Predicting Human Behavior

Anticipation does not mean predicting human behavior or assuming guilt before an act takes place. This point must be clear from the outset.

The intention is for an institution to learn how to catch weak indicators, connect scattered information, verify it, and then pass it on to the authorized decision-maker at the right time. This is precisely where the operations room mindset becomes useful for justice.

The Operations Room Mindset in the Justice System

A good operations room does not treat every signal as a crisis, nor does it allow the screen to make the decision.

Its job is to assemble the picture, separate confirmed information from probability, determine the level of escalation, know who holds the decision-making authority, and then document what happened.

This logic can be transferred to the crime prevention system without turning justice into a total surveillance system.

Artificial Intelligence and the Speed of Pattern Discovery

The problem in the age of artificial intelligence is that the speed of discovering patterns has outpaced the speed at which some institutions make decisions.

A system may detect a connection between financial transactions, reports, or repeated movements in seconds, but what happens next? Who verifies it? Who decides that the indicator deserves escalation? Who holds the authority to intervene? And what happens if a human assessment conflicts with an algorithm’s recommendation?

“Decision Security”: The Link That Protects the Path of Information

This is why I believe justice needs what I call “decision security”.

Cybersecurity protects data and systems, whereas decision security protects the path through which information travels from discovery to verification, interpretation, authorization, and finally action.

Every link in this path can be a point of strength or a point of failure.

The Problem Is Not Always a Lack of Information

The matter is not solely about technology. Organized crime, fraud, and cybercrimes extend beyond the boundaries of an institution and a country.

Information may reside in one entity, authority in a second, and technical capability in a third. In that case, the problem is not a lack of information but a coordination gap.

Every minute lost figuring out “who is responsible now?” may give the other side extra time.

From Principles to Testable Procedures

The Abu Dhabi conference can push the international debate a step forward if the principles of cooperation and innovation are turned into testable operational procedures.

What is needed are joint exercises, clear escalation pathways, rules for reviewing automated decisions, and the ability to halt any technical path when conditions change or new information emerges.

Technology Does Not Replace Human and Legal Responsibility

Conversely, legal and human boundaries must remain present.

A system that predicts risks does not have the right to turn a probability into a conviction. And a machine that helps prioritize should not inherit the authority of a judge, investigator, or decision-maker.

Technology can broaden vision, but it cannot shoulder moral and legal responsibility in place of a human being.

From Crime Prevention to Anticipating Crime

The real shift from crime prevention to anticipating crime is not a race to buy smarter systems.

It is a redesign of how information and authority flow within and between institutions.

Justice that spots danger early, verifies it swiftly, acts within the law, and can explain its decision afterward will be much stronger than justice that relies on speed alone.

An operations room does not prevent an incident because it has many screens, but because it knows what to do when the right signal appears.

And this, in my view, is the idea that justice needs in the age of artificial intelligence.

Abdullah Saeed Al Habsi
Writer and researcher specializing in security, heritage, risk management, and operations rooms.

Published by Hany Sallam

Hany Sallam, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Scientific Magazine Ahram
An independent Arabic science magazine operating since 2008, dedicated to simplifying science, technology, space, natural phenomena and scientific stories for Arabic readers. The magazine includes sections such as “Zodiac Group” and “Stories and Tales”, alongside science topics that combine knowledge with a spirit of discovery. It operates independently and is not affiliated with Al-Ahram Press Foundation or any governmental body.