In a first-of-its-kind independent analysis of the effectiveness of ShotSpotter, the science says the technology does not lead to more arrests and convictions for gun crimes and does not reduce these crimes in the areas where it is deployed. The study examined the impact of ShotSpotter in Chicago and Kansas City.
To understand the science more deeply, we sat down with the study’s first author, Dr. Eric Piza, who is a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Director of Crime Analysis Initiatives, and Co-Director of the Crime Prevention Lab at Northeastern University.
The study does uncover that ShotSpotter positively impacted response times, the location of victims, and the recovery of evidence from crime scenes. While this all sounds great, it is not even remotely reflective of the criminological gains promised by SoundThinking, the company that owns the technology. The original sales pitch promised more arrests for gun crimes and convictions and, thus, a reduction in gun violence. None of these promises have come to fruition.
This scholarly peer-reviewed analysis mostly mirrors previous analyses conducted by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the MacArthur Justice Center, and the Chicago Office of Inspector General. Pro-police politicians & journalists in Chicago have dismissed all three of these previous analyses as biased, including the one from the City’s Inspector General. The alt-right refuses to hear any criticism of the police department, no matter how fact-based those criticisms might be. This shuts down any possibility of a public discussion on the merits of anything the police are in favor of.
This most recent study is just being ignored by the media and politicians in Chicago. This is probably because they cannot label it biased. Instead, many alderpersons in Chicago are calling on the mayor to keep the ShotSpotter contract in place despite the technology failing to deliver on any of its promises.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download () | Embed
