In a very insightful article, Davenport (Reference Davenport2024) noted that, in recent years, scholars in the field of conflict and violence have focused intensely on one side of these conflicts: non-state armed organizations. Yet, any conflict is a dynamic interaction between them and governments. This tendency has undoubtedly been the case with scholarship about criminal violence in Latin America. In the pursuit of explanations for the rise in violence in the region, an increasing number of works explore the origins of criminal organizations, the role of democratization, corruption, economic growth, and even political ambitions, collectively referred to as criminal politics. Yet, besides notable exceptions (Duran-Martinez Reference Duran-Martinez2015; Espinosa and Rubin Reference Espinosa and Rubin2015; Lessing Reference Lessing2017; Phillips Reference Phillips2015), the role of state policing and military operations remains a contextual factor rather than a key driver of the explanation about violence in the region.

Hence, Rosen and Cutrona’s edited book is a valuable effort to bring actual government policy back into the center of the discussion on criminal violence. In a similar vein to Trejo and Ley (Reference Trejo and Ley2020, chap. 1), rather than seeing criminal organizations as a separate entity and governments as passive actors, even if there is some collusion, governments deploy military and police forces both in reaction to criminal organizations, international pressures, and social expectations, feeding into the mano dura (a Spanish equivalent to “tough on crime” or “zero tolerance”) cycle.

Rosen and Cutrona’s edited volume on mano dura policies in Latin America comprises eight chapters, covering the cases of Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, and Argentina, along with insightful introductions and conclusions by the editors. Indeed, to encapsulate all the cases and variations across these countries, Rosen and Cutrona propose focusing on four main policing initiatives: longer or expedited sentences, extra-legal detention, absence, or limits of due process rights, and the militarization of domestic security. These four characteristics indeed allow for cross-comparison and a dialogue with tough-on-crime or zero-tolerance policies in other regions. My only suggestion would have been to include a fifth: the use of lethal violence by the police against criminal organizations, leading to increased deaths and injuries instead of detentions, leading to extrajudicial killings (Cano et al. Reference Cano, Silva Forné and Pérez Correa2024). Yet, I am aware they included this dimension in a recent article (Cutrona et al. Reference Cutrona, Dammert and Rosen2024). Nonetheless, while many collective volumes gather thematically related but conceptually fragmented chapters, Rosen and Cutrona’s book maintains a coherent analytical focus, applying their framework consistently across the mano dura case studies.

Additionally, the book’s commendable framing involved engaging with public opinion through surveys from the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP). Although uneven across the chapters, when reading we can notice that one of the primary sources behind governments’ push for mano dura is the perceptions of crime, fear, and insecurity in all the region, even in countries with lower homicide rates (such as Argentina and Bolivia). As Lessing (Reference Lessing2017) previously documented, when governments attempt alternative policies, such as targeted interventions, a public opinion backlash after an event often prompts governments to revert to mano dura, thereby reinforcing cycles of violence.

A significant issue that flies under the radar of Rosen and Cutrona, but is noticeable in the Colombia, Brazil, and Bolivia chapters, is the pressure from the United States government to implement mano dura against transnational drug trafficking organizations. This topic is a central blind spot of the book. Although mano dura has domestic roots, the influence of the United States is undeniable, according to several sources. As mentioned by Malone in Chapter 1 of the book, most police and military forces in the regions inherited the authoritarian practices of the military dictatorships. Journalists and scholars have documented that US military academies trained military officers from Latin America. Recently, Schrader (Reference Schrader2019) found that policing in the United States is heavily influenced by military counterinsurgency tactics. Furthermore, we cannot understand the war on drugs in Central America and Mexico without recognizing the US government’s pressure to tackle drug trafficking.

Each chapter of the book, which focuses on a case study, provides a fine summary of mano dura policies in Latin America. For any student or scholar looking for an introductory account of these policies in the region, this book is a valuable source of information. Particularly commendable are the chapters by Isacson on Colombia and Wade on El Salvador, which, instead of delving into the criminal politics paradigm, they clearly outline the influence of guerrillas’ demobilization on the formation of criminal organizations in those countries, as well as the legacies of counterinsurgency into mano dura policies.

However, the chapters on Bolivia by Brienen and Brazil by Ferreira and Ramalho Gonçalves are somewhat unpolished. In the case of the Bolivia chapter, although it is interesting the portrayal of mano dura with Bolivian characteristics (focused more on brutality and punishment against anti-social behavior), the backlash by the cocalero movement against United States inspired mano dura laws to tackle cocaine trafficking deserved more space because this is the key to understand why Bolivia is not experiencing high rates of homicidal violence. In the Brazil chapter, the authors offer lengthy theoretical discussions regarding security, violence, and democracy in Latin America, which, while clarifying, also become distracting. A shorter theoretical section would have freed space for the authors to explain this complex case further, such as the case of Brazil. In particular, the organization of this chapter is confusing. The chapter would have benefited from being reorganized chronologically, with no interjections of theory in the middle.

Overall, Rosen and Cutrona’s edited book deserves wider attention among scholars and students of Latin America, particularly those interested in crime and violence, as they rightly underscore the agency of elites and societies in the current state of affairs in the region. The book opens up further necessary research discussions, particularly on how the mano dura idea was transmitted and legitimized by international actors, the domestic legacies of authoritarianism, and the strategic conundrum that presidents and local administrations face when the perception of crime is high, regardless of whether it is indeed high.

Furthermore, hopefully, the lesson learned from this book is that if there is corruption and criminal politics, how can scholars explain why governments use mano dura with increased lethality against criminal organizations? Recalling Davenport, this book effectively reintroduces the conflict dynamics between criminal organizations and the state into the discussion.