The Deterrent Effect of Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices

• Date: 01 February 2016
• Author: Daniel S. Nagin
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12183
• Published date: 01 February 2016

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

STOP, QUESTION, AND FRISK

PRACTICES

The Deterrent Effect of Stop, Question, and

Frisk Practices

Daniel S. Nagin

Carnegie Mellon University

Stop, question, and frisk (SQF) is alternatively praised as vital to police effectiveness

in preventing crime or vilified as racially discriminatory, unconstitutional, and alien-

ating of minority communities. The basis for both the praise and the criticism are

grounded in propositions that are in part subject to empirical tests. David Weisburd, Alese

Wooditch,Sarit Weisburd, and Sue-Ming Yang(2016, this issue) take on the question of the

crime-prevention effectiveness of SQF by using data from the epicenter of SQF controversy,

NewYorkCity.

The point of departure for their analysis is an earlier study by Weisburd, Telep, and

Lawton (2014) that showed SQFs were concentrated at crime hotspots. Because a great deal

of research has demonstrated that proactive police presence at crime hot spots is effective at

preventing crime at the hot spot with no demonstrable evidence of displacement, Weisburd

et al. (2016) reason that it would not be surprising that concentrating SQFs at hot spots will

prevent crime at those locations. This indeed is their conclusion. They estimate that during

the peak years of SQF use in New York City, crime was reduced by 2%. They calculate that

the annual social value of the reduction is $400 million.

Estimating the crime-prevention effects of policing tactics such as SQF is extraordinarily

difficult. As I will discuss here, many questions can be raised about the Weisburd et al.

(2016) analysis. However, in my judgment, it is the best evidence available on the question

of whether SQF as practiced in New York City was effective in reducing the city’s crime

rate. That is why in my role as co-editor of Criminology & Public Policy Imadethe

determination to publish the analysis. I thought it necessary that credible evidence on such

an important and controversial question be aired in the American Society of Criminology’s

Direct correspondence to Daniel S. Nagin, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue,

Hamburg Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (e-mail: dn03@andrew.cmu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12183 C2015 American Society of Criminology 27

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 1