Focused Deterrence Strategies Save Lives

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12358
• Date: 01 February 2018
• Published date: 01 February 2018

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

FOCUSED DETERRENCE STRATEGIES

AND CRIME CONTROL

Focused Deterrence Strategies Save Lives

Introduction and Discussion of an Updated Systematic

Review and Meta-Analysis

Robin S. Engel

University of Cincinnati

After a brief reprieve, violence reduction is again in vogue. In the past year, media

headlines regarding increases in violent crime and gang violence (often MS-13

specifically) have dominated the national news and the political landscape. Just

a brief glance at the leading headlines from 2017 tells the familiar and overly simplistic

story: Violence is increasing, driven by gangs, and the solution is more law enforcement and

increased sanctions for violent offenders. This renewed attention on violent crime, and the

accompanying rudimentary narrative of its causes and solutions, has easily infiltrated into

political and policy discussions at the federal, state, and local levels. Yet scholars Anthony

Braga, David Weisburd, and Brandon Turchan (2018, this issue) seize an opportunity to

remind researchers, practitioners, and policy makers about the importance of identifying and

implementing violence reduction strategies that have scientifically demonstrated impact. It

is a basic call back to the importance of implementing evidence-based policing initiatives

(Sherman, 1998) and for the continuing need to bring science to the streets.

Braga and his colleagues (2018) present a compelling case for the effectiveness of

focused deterrence strategies to reduce violence. Through their research, they provide an

update to a previously published Campbell Collaboration systematic review of the impact

of focused deterrence strategies on violence reduction (Braga and Weisburd, 2012). Using

similar methodology, Braga et al. (2018) update that review and meta-analysis, as well

as provide additional insight regarding the impact of focused deterrence strategies. Some

researchers may be surprised (as I was initially) that in the 6 years after their initial review,the

number of qualified evaluations more than doubled (10 studies identified in 2010 compared

Direct correspondence to Robin S. Engel, University of Cincinnati, 640 University Pavilion, 2618 McMicken

Circle, P.O. Box 210632, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0632. (e-mail: robin.engel@uc.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12358 C2018 American Society of Criminology 199

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 1