The Source for Crime and Justice Data

Search Results

Use the search box below to revise your search .

Your query returned 404 variables.

Name
Label/Question
26.

CRIME CLASS G

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

27.

CRIME CLASS H

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

28.

STRADDLE CELL

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

29.

PRISON CELL

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

30.

HABITUAL 2ND

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

31.

HABITUAL 3RD

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

32.

HABITUAL 4TH

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

33.

PROPERTY

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

34.

PERSON

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

35.

CON SUB

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

36.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

37.

PUBLIC ORDER

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

38.

PUBLIC TRUST

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

39.

DEPARTURE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

40.

NON WHITE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

41.

FEMALE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

42.

EDUCATION

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

43.

EMPLOYED

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

44.

ASSETS

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

45.

INCOME

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

46.

SINGLE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

47.

DEPENDENTS

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

48.

DRUG USE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

49.

ALCOHOL USE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

50.

NON US CITIZEN

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

51.

HONORABLE DISCHARGE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

52.

MENTAL HEALTH

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

53.

YOUNG BLACK MALE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

54.

YOUNG DRUG USER

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

55.

PRIVATE ATTORNEY

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

56.

CONVICTED AT TRIAL

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

57.

HIGH VOLUME JUDGE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

58.

AGE < 19

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

59.

AGE 20-29

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

60.

AGE 30-39

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

61.

AGE 40-49

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

62.

HILLSDALE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

63.

BERRIEN

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

64.

WAYNE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

65.

JACKSON

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

66.

BARRY

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

67.

OAKLAND

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

68.

GENESEE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

69.

IONMONT

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

70.

KALAMAZOO

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

71.

SAGINAW

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

72.

ALGLUSC

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

73.

BARHOKE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

74.

ANGTLEE

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

75.

MUSKEGON

Taken from: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 - 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data.

Results 26 - 75 of 404
2 3 4