Violence remains a long-standing wicked problem because political, institutional, and fiscal choices shape how violence is defined, measured, and addressed. This special issue synthesizes contributions and uses public health framing to reposition violence as a measurable outcome. We draw together work on deaths of despair, structural violence, firearm homicide, restorative justice, recidivism, institutional cycling, and interagency response to identify patterns across settings and outcomes. Violence emerges as a downstream product of political monopoly, fragmented governance, weak accountability, fiscal choices, and unstable institutional support. Violence is also a contested object of definition, measurement, and response, with political actors shaping visible, credible, punishable, or preventable harms. Public health framing does not remove politics; rather, it makes room for partisan reframing, anchoring policy discussion in measurable injury, exposure, and preventable risk. Symbolic policies become the safe political option without reducing underlying harm. Partisan politics rewards symbolic action, creating short policy horizons and selective policy attention, which then makes evolving violence difficult to resolve. Violence reduction requires more than episodic solutions; it requires better measurement of acute and chronic harms, and governance capable of sustaining prevention beyond a single election cycle. Future violence research should bridge public health, criminal justice, political science, jurisprudence, and administrative practices to identify who can act, under what conditions, and with what governing tools so violence problems can be resolved as they emerge.
Gittner et al. (Wed,) studied this question.