The notorious gang strategy ”Stop Shooting” continues to face harsh criticism. Professor Emeritus Johannes Knutsson argues that the method lacks scientific support, while internal police analyses cast doubt on whether it works at all in Sweden.
When ”Stop Shooting” was launched in Malmö in 2018, the program was described as a breakthrough in the fight against gang violence and was later expanded to several municipalities. Now, the initiative is being openly questioned.
Professor Emeritus Johannes Knutsson believes that the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) has exaggerated the results and says:
– This is a government failure, he tells The Express.
According to Knutsson, three evaluations conducted by Malmö University have failed to demonstrate any statistically significant effect. He argues that the decline in shootings began even before the method was introduced and that other factors, such as Operation Rimfrost and the pandemic, may explain this trend. He therefore believes that it cannot be conclusively determined that ”Stop Shooting” was the cause of this trend.
The Swedish model lacks the essence of the American approach
The criticism is not only about the results but also about how the method works in a Swedish context. The American model is based on the idea that criminals face swift and severe sanctions if the violence continues. According to Knutsson, those conditions do not exist in Sweden.
– The conditions for targeted deterrence do not exist in Sweden. Period.
According to Expressen’s review, police officers have also described uncertainty regarding what concrete measures can actually be taken against criminal groups. In several cases, the sanctions have consisted of more frequent checks, searches, traffic stops, and stricter requirements from the Prison and Probation Service—measures that critics argue do not provide the deterrent effect on which the original American model is based.
Police analyses point to further shortcomings
Expressen also reports that the police’s own analyses cast doubt on whether the method has sufficient evidence to support its use in the Swedish context. The criticism also extends to how the project has been carried out. According to previous evaluations, the work has been characterized by high staff turnover, a lack of resources, and difficulties in getting the police, social services, the Prison and Probation Service, and civil society to work in a coordinated manner over time. Critics argue that this has made it difficult to implement the model the way it is intended to function.
At the same time, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) and the City of Malmö have themselves highlighted the need for a fresh start—described as ”GVI 2.0”—to refocus efforts and strengthen the approach. Critics also argue that the method focuses primarily on reducing violence itself, but to a lesser extent addresses the underlying causes of organized crime.
At the same time, several participants in the program have reoffended by committing serious crimes. Police leadership in Malmö has previously stated that several people who attended the meetings nevertheless chose to use firearms, and according to earlier reports, about half of the 30 people summoned to the meetings were later arrested on suspicion of serious crimes.
Brå stands by its assessment
Brå rejects the criticism and asserts that ”Stop Shooting” is still a ”promising” method that should be further developed and evaluated. The agency believes that the experiences from Malmö, together with international studies and dialogue with relevant authorities, support the conclusion that the method has been effective, even though the statistical effect has been difficult to determine.
