Police and Crime

• Date: 01 August 2016
• Author: Thomas G. Blomberg
• Published date: 01 August 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12237

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

DIRECTIONS IN DETERRENCE THEORY

AND POLICY

Police and Crime

Question of Deterrence?

Thomas G. Blomberg

Florida State University

In recent years, several studies have concluded that policing affects crime (Apel, 2013;

Apel and Nagin, 2011; Durlauf and Nagin, 2011; Nagin,2013). Nevertheless, as with

many areas of criminological research, contrary evidence regarding the police–crime

effect also exists (Kleck and Barnes, 2014; Kleck, Sever,Li, and Gertz, 2005; Lochner, 2007).

Thus, during the past decade or so, debate has ensued over the police–crime relationship. In

“Arrested Development: Misguided Directions in Deterrence Theory and Policy,” Pickett

and Roche (2016b: 727–751; hereafter “PR”) provide the latest example of the police–

crime effect debate with their commentary on “Deterrence, Criminal Opportunities, and

the Police,” by Nagin, Solow, and Lum (2015; hereafter “NSL”). In their article, NSL

proposed a model of offender decision making in which police could reduce crime by being

deployed in ways that make crime less attractive or by increasing the probability of arrest.

Their policy recommendations emphasize the role of the police in both deterring crime and

making arrests. PR’s critique focuses on NSL’s use of arrests, whereas some of the policy

essays include the police deployment and deterrent role as well.

The fundamental issue that PR (2016b) raise is that NSL (2015) failed to address

several relevant null findings in their proposed argument that police can reduce crime

rates by increasing the objective probability of arrest. PR argue that these reported null

findings demonstrate that the relationship between the objective probability of arrest and

an individual’s perception of being arrested are not related, as argued by NSL. What

readers will see from the PR article and the several policy essays that follow in this issue,

including rejoinders by Nagin (2016) and by Pickett and Roche (2016a), is the complexity

of this debate. Much of that complexity deals with conflicting evidence that has resulted

in uncertainty over the police–crime relationship. The question is, given this conflicting

Direct correspondence to Thomas G. Blomberg, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State

University, 112 S. Copeland St., Eppes Hall 204, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127 (e-mail: tblomberg@fsu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12237 C2016 American Society of Criminology 721

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 3