It is difficult to resist being swept up in the enthusiasm for public health approaches to preventing violence. Current levels of violence certainly demand a response. The ones we have made in the past, rooted primarily in the philosophy and practices of criminal justice, seem old, tired, and stale—even bankrupt. In contrast, public health approaches seem fresh, optimistic, and full of potential. Most importantly, public health approaches have been extremely successful in engaging new actors—community groups, private enterprise, medical establishments, and social service agencies—in the effort to reduce violence. So, I feel both churlish and counterproductive in raising questions about something that is generally so helpful. Nonetheless, in the interest of ensuring that society makes the best possible response to violence over the long run, I want to do precisely that: to raise some questions about the public health approach to violence. 1 First, I try to be exact about the question of whether the public health approach to violence represents a truly new and comprehensive approach, or whether it would be more accurate to say that it offers an important complement to traditional criminal justice methods. Second, I raise questions about the internal coherence of the public health approach itself. Third, I comment on the value issues that lurk in the background of the debate about public health and criminal justice approaches to violence and that sometimes make it difficult for the two communities to work together.