Gun violence can be reduced with a strategy focused on deterrence

Canada has seen one increase in gun violence in recent years. Numerous shootings have taken place in Montreal and its suburbs in recent months, with some fatalities, including bystanders. There have also been several shootings in the area Vancouver and Toronto.

In 2020 there were 277 firearms homicides in Canada, the highest number since 1991. It goes without saying that some form of intervention is needed to solve a problem that has become costly and harmful to society, not to mention not to mention the victims and their loved ones.

At the moment, however, the only strategies that politicians and law enforcement agencies are proposing are increasing the number of police officers or cracking down. This leaves me confused. Both my research on the issue of criminal networks and the scientific literature suggest that there are other, more effective ways to tackle this problem.

Problem-oriented policing

Does more police mean less violence? Not according to a systematic review of studies that have examined the problem.

Although an increase in police resources has been shown to have a small effect on crime in general at best, it has not been established that this has a specific effect on violent crime. Moreover, these police strategies create social tensions and discriminatory processes and increase the risk of victimization, all of which work against a comprehensive solution.

Except it’s pretty ineffectivethese strategies are inefficient and represent a significant cost to the taxpayer.

But we can learn from other innovative strategies implemented elsewhere in the world. While these solutions, based on problem-oriented policing, have not been widely implemented in Canada to date, promise better results in the fight against gun violence.

Tackle the problem at the source

Rather than simply reacting to every event, as is currently the case with gun violence, problem-oriented policing, as the name suggests, promotes a proactive approach to crime, tackling the problem at the source.

In particular the strategy focuses on deterrence. This strategy is specifically aimed at individuals or groups at risk of committing violent acts, and is intended to discourage violent behavior by exploiting the threat of punishment and the potential benefits of abstaining from violent acts.

Specifically, targeted deterrence interventions involve both police forces and community representatives working together to initiate a conversation with individuals at high risk of involvement in violent crime. The purpose of this discussion is to communicate clear incentives to avoid violence and disincentives to participate in it.

Incentives and Deterrents

Once targeted, offenders get information about the availability of various services in their community. Incentives include job assistance, psychosocial intervention, training, and community support programs.

Elements of deterrence are also invoked: the individuals we meet are informed of the increased legal sanctions they and their associates will face if they continue to commit violent acts. This increased penalty can be specific to violent acts, but can also be extended to other less serious offences. For example, if a gang raises the level of violence, greater attention can be paid to the group’s drug-trafficking activities worldwide.

Beyond a simple carrot-and-stick strategy, targeted deterrence initiatives aim to reduce the opportunities for individuals to commit violent acts, make the local community a partner in the process, and improve the relationship between law enforcement and the community.

The group instead of the individual

These programs can take many forms, but the most effective is based on the Operation Ceasefire model introduced in Boston in the 1990s.

This violence reduction strategy focuses on gangs as groups, rather than as individuals. These programs encourage justice, social services and community organizers to engage directly with violent groups, voice moral and legal concerns about the violence they have experienced, provide genuine assistance to those who want it, and conduct strategic law enforcement campaigns. against those who continue their violent behaviour.

These strategies have produced very encouraging results. A systematic review of 24 studies evaluation programs of this nature concluded that they had significant effects on reducing gun violence.

For example, in one of our studies, we found that implementing such a program in New Haven, Conn., reduced gun violence committed by gangs by 73%. In addition, through the process of disseminating information among members of criminal groupsemployees of the individuals found in these programs also received benefits from these interventions.

This perceived decrease is much more effective and efficient than simply increasing the number of police officers working without an overall strategy focused on the cause of the problem, or one that does not involve community members.

To our knowledge, no such intervention strategy exists in Québec. The Québec’s government has announced $2M in prevention projects in seven boroughs of Montreal, such as improving sports and cultural facilities. But repressive strategies received more than double the investment of those focused on prevention.

There is no good reason not to implement these kinds of programs that have proved successful elsewhere in the world. It is time to think about the issue of gun violence in a comprehensive way, in terms of prevention, rather than just through reactive and strictly repressive measures.

This article was republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.