I have to doubt the premise, it’s just who I am! (I’m sure I’m inviting some criticism as to whatever logical fallacy I’m committing here.) You define violent crime in such a way that is clear and unambiguous. I don’t think it can be seen that way unless you take a kind of moral absolutist position and then build the system around that. Here’s a direct case: would a doctor be able to perform an abortion? Someone who is against legal abortion would consider it murder. Someone against restricting abortion would say it isn’t. What does the computer decide? Then you have indirect cases. The Ford Pinto had a design flaw that resulted in increased fatal crashes and this was known about. In short, Ford did some statistical analysis and decided that it was more economical to not fix the problem. The cost was $11 per vehicle, which most people would individually argue is a trivial amount in the purchase of a car. Would the computer intervene in the Ford Pinto’s design flaw? What if instead of $11, it was $110? Or $1,100? Or $11,000? (That would triple the price of a car in the 1970’s.) It kind of goes into the question brought before the Supreme Court: what is pornography? The famous response being “I know it when I see it.” I kind of take that view.