Search results

Showing 1 – 38 of 38 results.

Curated

The Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis of Prosecutorial Decision-making for Cases Processed by Offices in One Northern County and One Southern County, 2007-2010 (ICPSR 32542)

Released/updated on: 2016-04-21

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2009-01-01--2011-06-01, 2007-01-01--2009-07-01, 2010-10-01--2011-03-01

Prosecuting attorneys enjoy broad discretion in making decisions that influence criminal case outcomes. This study examines the impact of legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal factors on case outcomes throughout the prosecutorial process. It then examines how prosecutors weigh these factors in their decision making and explores the formal and informal mechanisms that constrain or regulate prosecutors' decision-making.

The study examines case screening decisions, charging decisions, plea offers, sentence recommendations, and dismissals in two moderately large county prosecutors' offices. It includes statistical analyses of actual case outcomes, responses to a standardized set of hypothetical cases, and responses to a survey of prosecutors' opinions and priorities, as well as qualitative analyses of two waves of individual interviews and focus groups. It addresses the following questions:

How did prosecutors define and apply the concepts of justice and fairness?
What factors were associated with prosecutorial outcomes at each stage?
How did prosecutors interpret and weigh different case-specific factors in making decisions at each stage?
How did contextual factors constrain or regulate prosecutorial decision making?
How consistent were prosecutors' decisions across similar cases? What case-level and contextual factors influenced the degree of consistency?

Curated

Assessment of Defense and Prosecutorial Strategies in Terrorism Trials in the United States, 1980-2004 (ICPSR 26241)

Released/updated on: 2014-11-11

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1980-01-01--2004-01-01

This study created a flat-file database of information regarding defendants who were referred to United States Attorneys by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) following official terrorism investigations between 1980 and 2004. Its ultimate goal was to provide state and federal prosecutors with empirical information that could assist federal and state prosecutors with more effective strategies for prosecution of terrorism cases. The results of this study enhanced the existing 78 variables in the AMERICAN TERRORISM STUDY, 1980-2002 (ICPSR 4639) database by adding the 162 variables from the Prosecution and Defense Strategies (PADS) database. The variables in the PADS database track information regarding important pleadings, motions, and other key events that occur in federal terrorism trials; the PADS variables measure the strategies used by legal counsel as well as other legal nuances.

Curated

Comparing Court Case Processing in Nine Courts, 1979-1980 (ICPSR 8621)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1979-01-01--1980-01-01

This study looks at the characteristics of officials who are involved in court case processing. Data were collected on the cases and defendants, the officials involved in the cases, personality characteristics of the officials and the perceptions that these officials have of each other.

Curated

Evaluation of a Repeat Offender Unit in Phoenix, Arizona, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9793)

Released/updated on: 1992-10-31

Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona

Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a Repeat Offender Unit in Phoenix. Repeat Offender Programs are police-initiated procedures for patrolling and apprehending likely offenders in communities. These units typically rely on the cooperation of police and prosecutors who work together to identify, convict, and incarcerate individuals who are judged likely to commit crimes, especially serious crimes, at high rates. For this study, previous offenders were assigned either to a control or an experimental group. If an individual assigned to the experimental group was later arrested, the case received special attention by the Repeat Offender Program. Staff of the Repeat Offender Program worked closely with the county attorney's office to thoroughly document the case and to obtain victim and witness cooperation. If the individual was in the control group and was later arrested, no additional action was taken by the Program staff. Variables include assignment to the experimental or control group, jail status, probation and parole status, custody status, number of felony arrests, type of case, bond amount, number of counts against the individual, type of counts against the individual, number of prior convictions, arresting agency, case outcome, type of incarceration imposed, and length of incarceration imposed.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 27921)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-06

Geographic coverage: United States, Honolulu, Hawaii

Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-01-01

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.

Curated

Examining the Effectiveness of Indigent Defense Team Services: A Multisite Evaluation of Holistic Defense in Practice, Kentucky, Minnesota, Rhode Island, 2015-2018 (ICPSR 37361)

Released/updated on: 2021-05-25

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States, Kentucky, Minnesota

Time period: 2016-06-01--2017-06-12

The goals of this project were to: describe the implementation of holistic defense principles in three indigent defense programs; measure each program's impact on pretrial court practices, manner of disposition, sentencing, and other case outcomes; and explore an appropriate methodology to assess the cost-efficiency of these programs in comparison with traditional criminal defense practice. Researchers collected data on both holistic and traditional defense delivery via interviews, surveys, focus groups, observation during site visits, and administrative data from public defender and court information systems. This evaluation was conducted in three research sites: Rhode Island Public Defender (Providence office); Minnesota Public Defender (Minneapolis office); and the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy (Bowling Green office). The evaluation focused on adult criminal cases. A process evaluation examined how holistic defense has been implemented in each site. The impact evaluation used a quasi-experimental design that includes matched comparison groups and alternative statistical models to examine the relative impact of holistic defense on a range of outcomes, controlling for defendant characteristics. The project investigated the parameters necessary to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis within the context of holistic defense and, to the extent possible, began to estimate the costs/benefits of holistic defense services. In addition to data sets for archiving and a summary report to NIJ, anticipated work products include professional conference presentations, manuscripts for submission to professional journals, and research briefs.

Curated

Restricted

Exploring the Reach of Evidence Outside the Jury Box [United States], 2005-2011 (ICPSR 34679)

Released/updated on: 2016-05-20

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-01-01, 2005-01-01--2006-01-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The purpose of the study was to compare how the quantity versus the quality of evidence influences the likelihood of trial convictions and plea decisions and examine whether evidence has differential impacts on the perceived likelihood of trial convictions and plea values. In Phase I (Phase I Data, n=2,593) defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges, representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia, completed an online survey of a hypothetical legal case in which the presence of three types of evidence (confession, eyewitness, and DNA) and length of defendant criminal history were manipulated. In Phase II (Phase II Data, n=502), researchers worked with two District Attorneys' offices in New York state to code the contents of case files. Researchers coded 502 closed cases from 2005 and 2006, all of which originated as felony arrests. Researchers also obtained criminal history record information on the defendants involved in the cases.

Curated

Governmental Responses to Crime in the United States, 1948-1978 (ICPSR 8076)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1948-01-01--1978-01-01

The Governmental Responses to Crime Project was initiated in October 1978 as a result of the rising crime rate in urban areas of the United States and the wide variety of programs seeking to contain it. The project investigated the way in which urban governments, citizens, newspapers and state governments responded to the growth and increasing complexity of crime during the period from 1948 to 1978. Pertinent variables in this data collection include the number of police officers in cities and police expenditures, changes in laws as crime changes, populations, employment rates, family incomes, percent of non-white population, media tracking of crime, city land area, kinds of crimes, crime rates, actual numbers of offenses, penalties given out for crimes committed (time in jail or prison and fines), focus on crimes within certain geographical areas (from within cities or outside the United States), editorial page content, level of prominence of newspaper articles on individual crimes, and the number of editorials relating to specific crimes.

Curated

Homicide, Bereavement, and the Criminal Justice System in Texas, 2000 (ICPSR 3263)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas

This study assessed the influence of the criminal justice system on the bereavement process of individuals who have lost loved ones to homicide. The primary question motivating this research was: Can the criminal justice system help to heal the harm of the bereaved's loss? The three main goals of this study were to examine: (1) bereaveds' perceptions of and experiences with the criminal justice system and its professionals, (2) the ways criminal justice professionals perceive and manage the bereaved, and (3) the nature of the association between the criminal justice system and bereaveds' psychological well-being. Data were obtained from in-depth interviews conducted in June through December 2000 with two different groups of people. The first group represented individuals who had lost loved ones to murder between 1994 and 1998 in one county in Texas (Parts 1-33). The second group (Parts 34-55) was comprised county criminal justice professionals (murder detectives, prosecutors, criminal court judges, victim's service counselors, and victim's rights advocates). For Parts 1-33, interviewees were asked a series of open-ended questions about the criminal justice system, including how they learned about the death and the current disposition of the murder case. They also were asked what they would change about the criminal justice system's treatment of them. The bereaved were further asked about their sex, age, race, education, marital status, employment status, income, and number of children. Additional questions were asked regarding the deceased's age at the time of the murder, race, relationship to interviewee, and the deceased's relationship to the murderer, if known. For Parts 34-55, respondents were asked about their job titles, years in those positions, number of murder cases handled in the past year, number of murder cases handled over the course of their career, and whether they thought the criminal justice system could help to heal the harm of people who had lost loved ones to murder. All interviews (Parts 1-55) were tape-recorded and later transcribed by the interviewer, who replaced actual names of individuals, neighborhoods, cities, counties, or any other identifiable names with pseudonyms.

Curated

Impact Evaluation of Stop Violence Against Women Grants in Dane County, Wisconsin, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, Jackson County, Missouri, and Stark County, Ohio, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3252)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin

In 1996 the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) began an evaluation of the law enforcement and prosecution components of the "STOP Violence Against Women" grant program authorized by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. This data collection constitutes one component of the evaluation. The researchers chose to evaluate two specialized units and two multi-agency team projects in order to study the local impact of STOP on victim safety and offender accountability. The two specialized units reflected typical STOP funding, with money being used for the addition of one or two dedicated professionals in each community. The Dane County, Wisconsin, Sheriff's Office used STOP funds to support the salaries of two domestic violence detectives. This project was evaluated through surveys of domestic violence victims served by the Dane County Sheriff's Office (Part 1). In Stark County, Ohio, the Office of the Prosecutor used STOP funds to support the salary of a designated felony domestic violence prosecutor. The Stark County project was evaluated by tracking domestic violence cases filed with the prosecutor's office. The case tracking system included only cases involving intimate partner violence, with a male offender and female victim. All domestic violence felons from 1996 were tracked from arrest to disposition and sentence (Part 2). This pre-grant group of felons was compared with a sample of cases from 1999 (Part 3). In Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, a comprehensive evaluation strategy was used to assess the impact of the use of STOP funds on domestic violence cases. First, a sample of 1996 pre-grant and 1999 post-grant domestic violence cases was tracked from arrest to disposition for both regular domestic violence cases (Part 4) and also for dual arrest cases (Part 5). Second, a content analysis of police incident reports from pre- and post-grant periods was carried out to gauge any changes in report writing (Part 6). Finally, interviews were conducted with victims to document their experiences with the criminal justice system, and to better understand the factors that contribute to victim safety and well-being (Part 7). In Jackson County, Missouri, evaluation methods included reviews of prosecutor case files and tracking all sex crimes referred to the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office over both pre-grant and post-grant periods (Part 8). The evaluation also included personal interviews with female victims (Part 9). Variables in Part 1 (Dane County Victim Survey Data) describe the relationship of the victim and offender, injuries sustained, who called the police and when, how the police responded to the victim and the situation, how the detective contacted the victim, and services provided by the detective. Part 2 (1996 Stark County Case Tracking Data), Part 3 (1999 Stark County Case Tracking Data), Part 4 (Hillsborough County Regular Case Tracking Data), Part 5 (Hillsborough County Dual Arrest Case Tracking Data), and Part 8 (Jackson County Case Tracking Data) include variables on substance abuse by victim and offender, use of weapons, law enforcement response, primary arrest offense, whether children were present, injuries sustained, indictment charge, pre-sentence investigation, victim impact statement, arrest and trial dates, disposition, sentence, and court costs. Demographic variables include the age, sex, and ethnicity of the victim and the offender. Variables in Part 6 (Hillsborough County Police Report Data) provide information on whether there was an existing protective order, whether the victim was interviewed separately, severity of injuries, seizure of weapons, witnesses present, involvement of children, and demeanor of suspect and victim. In Part 7 (Hillsborough County Victim Interview Data) variables focus on whether victims had prior experience with the court, type of physical abuse experienced, injuries from abuse, support from relatives, friends, neighbors, doctor, religious community, or police, assistance from police, satisfaction with police response, expectations about case outcome, why the victim dropped the charges, contact with the prosecutor, criminal justice advocate, and judge, and the outcome of the case. Demographic variables include age, race, number of children, and occupation. Variables in Part 9 (Jackson County Victim Interview Data) relate to when victims were sexually assaulted, if they knew the perpetrator, who was contacted to help, victims' opinions about police and detectives who responded to the case, contact with the prosecutor and victim's advocate, and aspects of the medical examination. Demographic variables include age, race, and marital status.

Curated

Impact of the No Early Release Act (NERA) on Prosecution and Sentencing in New Jersey, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 4178)

Released/updated on: 2005-02-25

Geographic coverage: United States, New Jersey

Time period: 1996-01-01--2000-01-01

This study examined New Jersey's No Early Release Act (NERA), which became effective in 1997. NERA required that offenders convicted of violent crimes serve at least 85 percent of their sentences before becoming eligible for parole. This study's primary goal was to determine whether prosecutors changed their charging and plea bargaining practices in order to obtain sentences under NERA that were roughly equivalent to those imposed before NERA. Data were obtained from the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts for 1996 to May 2000. These data included every case in which a crime covered by the No Early Release Act was charged and, for comparison, every case involving a burglary charge, a charge not covered by NERA. These data cover defendants' progress through the New Jersey court system, including the initial charge, indictment, and sentencing.

Curated

Partially restricted

Influence of Eyewitness Memory Factors on Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys in California, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 32181)

Released/updated on: 2012-07-31

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-01-01

The purpose of the study was to assess how the strength of eyewitness evidence affects plea bargaining decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. Surveys were administered to 93 defense attorneys and 46 prosecutors from matched counties in California. On the questionnaire, each participant was asked four background questions and read four versions of a crime scenario in which two specific eyewitness factors -- (a) same- versus cross-race identification and (b) prior contact or not -- were experimentally manipulated in a factorial design. The scenarios described a store robbery in which identification by one eyewitness was the only evidence against the defendant. After reading each scenario, attorneys were asked to respond to five questions in light of the facts presented. The study contains 28 variables including background data on the study participants and responses to questions relating to four crime scenarios that differ in terms of the details of the eyewitness evidence.

Curated

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for Crown Prosecutors' Offices (ICPSR 22240)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-15

Geographic coverage: Netherlands, Finland, Wales, England, Italy, Global

Information and communication technology (ICT) are playing an important role in the criminal justice chain, but very little is known about public prosecutor's offices, while there is a strong need to exchange information among practitioners, decision makers, and scholars in order to share experiences, knowledge, and facilitate the adoption of common ICT solutions and practices in a cost-effective way.

This Research Project stresses the need to pursue judicial cooperation in the area of criminal law, and it contributes to fostering mutual knowledge of European legal and judicial systems as well as best practices and technological solutions. The Project is not limited to legal literature, but it has an inter-disciplinary approach, and it focuses on practical experiences and policies implemented. The project will lead to a conference to disseminate the information collected, to pass on knowledge of immediate use in carrying on professional activities, as well as to increase the number of practitioners, academics, and policy makers who will take advantage of and profit from the research. The research entails six in-depth case studies. Four of them will be carried on by the organizations' partners in this research: England and Wales, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, two others are in the process to be identified.

After a description of the governance system of public prosecution in the countries considered in this study, since ICT application are not developed in a vacuum, the research will describe, study, and compare through an in-depth analysis: (1) the use of ICT in case investigations, (2) the use of ICT for case management, (3) the ICT interoperability between public prosecutor's offices, courts, police and prisons, and (4) the use of ICT for sharing prosecutorial information between countries.

The research will allow to: (a) detect the valuable and successful implementations of ICT in criminal investigations (e.g. decision support systems, access to data bases, multimedia applications), (b) disseminate technical information about these applications, (c) explore the feasibility for cross-border exchange of data such as criminal history records and illegal immigration records, (d) develop a network of scholars and practitioners about ICT for public prosecutor's offices.

This report structure, should serve as a guide to the researchers working on the various countries. It is divided into three main sections. Section 1 will deal with the institutional setting of public prosecutor. Section 2 will deal with ICT history, governance and infrastructures. Section 3 will deal with technologies for investigation and prosecution of crimes.

Curated

National Justice Agency List, 1980 (ICPSR 7858)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1970-01-01--1980-01-01

The National Justice Agency List is a master name and address file created and maintained by the United States Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The file was first created in 1970, and the Census Bureau has continued to maintain and expand the file. The master file contains information for ten separate sectors: prosecution and civil attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement, courts, probation and parole, juvenile corrections, local adult corrections, state adult corrections, other justice agencies, and federal and Indian tribal agencies. ICPSR has separated the master file into ten subfiles, corresponding to the ten sectors in the master file. Each file has variables containing the names and addresses of agencies in that sector and information relevant only to the agencies within the sector. Court (Part 1) variables include court structure, type of jurisdiction, and the location of court records. State Adult Correctional Facilities (Part 2) variables include type of institution, agency employment size, sex of inmates, and funding code. Public Defender Agencies (Part 3) variables include type of agency, type of cases handled, agency employment size, and funding code. Probation and Parole Agencies (Part 4) variables include type of system, agency client caseload, agency employment size, and funding code. "Other" Agencies (Part 5) variables include type of services and agency employment size. Local Jails (Part 6) variables include sex of inmates, number of female inmates, inmate population, and funding code. Prosecution and Civil Attorney Agencies (Part 7) variables include type of agency, types of cases prosecuted, agency employment size, number of attorneys, and funding code. Federal and Indian Tribal Agencies (Part 8) variables include type of justice sector, employment size, and funding code. Law Enforcement Agencies (Part 9) variables include type of agency, employment size, and number of sworn police. Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities (Part 10) variables include type of facility, sex of residents, resident population, and employment size.

Curated

National Manpower Survey, 1973-1976 (ICPSR 7675)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1973-01-01--1976-01-01

This data collection contains information from a series of national surveys, conducted simultaneously across the criminal justice system, to ascertain national manpower strengths and goals, agency information and characteristics, and attitudes of the agency heads during the period 1973-1976. The National Manpower Survey was undertaken to assess the adequacy of existing federal, state, and local training and education programs meeting current personnel needs in various law enforcement and criminal justice functions and operations. The study intended to project future personnel and training needs, by occupation, in relation to anticipated availability of qualified personnel in order to assess the future adequacy of training and educational resources. It also sought to establish "needs priorities" as a basis for future training and academic assistance programs to be funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The study design systematically covered the personnel needs in all state and local governmental agencies that were part of the law enforcement and criminal justice system. Sectors within the system included: (1) law enforcement, consisting of police departments and sheriff's agencies, ranging in size from one-person constabularies to large city departments employing 20,000 or more individuals, (2) corrections, including both adult and juvenile correctional institutions and agencies, and (3) the judicial process, including a wide range of courts with varying jurisdictions and scope, district attorneys or prosecutors' offices, and public defenders' offices. For this study, the Bureau of Social Science Research was responsible for the acquisition and assessment of existing statistical data as well as the design and execution of systematic mail surveys of agencies, officials, and employees within the law enforcement/criminal justice system. Nine nationwide surveys were directed to executives in criminal justice agencies, including chiefs of police (in both large and small departments), sheriffs (in both large and small departments), chief prosecutors, chief defenders, court administrators, wardens of adult correctional facilities, directors of juvenile correctional facilities, and chief probation and parole officers. Two additional surveys were sent to general and appellate jurisdiction courts. In the nine surveys directed to criminal justice executives, the instruments asked respondents for (1) an overall assessment of manpower problems, including personnel categories in which critical shortages might exist, and total personnel required to fulfill all agency duties and responsibilities, (2) desired and actual entry level standards, as well as entry level and in-service training content and requirements, (3) demographic, educational, training, and occupational background information about the executive respondent, (4) opinions about major obstacles to effectiveness and attitudes toward various issues such as team policing, plea bargaining, and computer-assisted case management, and (5) a fact sheet section dealing with agency employment by occupational category, salaries, and workloads. Each of the remaining two surveys was a census of general and appellate jurisdiction courts designed to yield basic statistical information regarding the courts and court systems' current staffing, training activities, and caseloads, and did not seek any attitudinal or subjective responses. Thus the agency itself was the reporting unit, with the respondent required only to be in a position to provide accurate, reliable information.

Curated

National Portrait of Domestic Violence Courts (ICPSR 27282)

Released/updated on: 2014-04-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1985-01-01--2008-01-01

The study was designed to create a portrait of domestic violence courts across America, specifically courtroom policies, procedures and goals were examined as described by court employees and prosecutors that work with the domestic violence courts. Geographic information on 338 courts was collected and organized in a national compendium of domestic violence courts. From this compendium a sample of 129 domestic violence courts was surveyed along with 74 prosecutors offices.

Curated

Partially restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1990 (ICPSR 9579)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1988-01-01--1990-01-01

This survey queried chief prosecuting attorneys of state prosecutorial districts (district attorneys, commonwealth attorneys, etc.) about the prosecution of felony cases within their jurisdictions during 1989-1990. Questions regarding the prefiling, filing, and pretrial stages of felony prosecution asked about policies limiting the time for plea negotiations, the role of the grand jury, how felony cases were screened, and the amount of time that usually elapsed before the prosecutor was notified of persons arrested for a felony. Prosecutors were also asked to report the percentage of court case filings by grand jury indictment, by information following a preliminary hearing, or by other means, and the percentage of felony cases processed by a court of general jurisdiction, a felony court, or other court(s). The trial stage of felony prosecution was covered by questions about the conduct of voir dire examination of prospective jurors, limits on time allowed to commence trial, the number of permitted peremptory challenges, who was responsible for notifying government witnesses to appear in court, whether the prosecution had the right to request a jury trial, whether the jurisdiction's felony court discouraged motions on trial date that would delay trial, and whether the felony court normally granted a continuance on trial date to permit additional time for plea negotiations. Questions on felony sentencing and appeals asked whether the prosecutor was usually present at felony sentence proceedings, whether the judge usually ordered a presentence report, whether victim information was requested or provided by the court, whether the prosecutor normally recommended a type or duration of sentence to be imposed, whether police, victims, or witnesses were notified of the disposition of felony cases, whether the prosecutor was involved in various types of appellate work, and whether the prosecutor had any right of appeal from rulings on motions, from sentences, and from determination of guilt or innocence. General information gathered by the survey includes the number of jurisdictions contained in the prosecutorial district, the number of attorneys and investigators employed in the sampled jurisdiction and in the prosecutorial district as a whole, the length of the prosecutor's term of office, the number of law enforcement agencies that brought arrests into the jurisdiction's court, how much of the prosecutor's felony caseload was assigned on a vertical basis, the kinds of nonfelony matters the prosecutor had responsibility for or jurisdiction over (e.g., family and domestic relations, mental commitments, environmental protection, traffic, etc.), whether the office of prosecutor was an elective position, and whether it was a full- or part-time position. Other general items include whether any felony defendants were provided an attorney on the grounds of indigency, whether, in criminal cases involving both state and federal jurisdiction, the prosecutor would ordinarily be cross-designated to represent the prosecutor in both courts, whether the prosecutor's office contained a "career criminal" unit, whether the state's attorney general was entitled to try cases in the jurisdiction's felony court, which types of criminal history data normally were of practical value in felony prosecution, and who supervised the probationer in most cases of adult felons sentenced to probation.

Curated

Partially restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1992 (ICPSR 6273)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1991-07-01--1992-06-30

This survey queried chief prosecuting attorneys of state prosecutorial districts (district attorneys, commonwealth attorneys, etc.) about the prosecution of felony cases within their jurisdictions during 1991 and 1992. Some items included in an earlier survey, NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1990 (ICPSR 9579), were repeated, covering topics such as new methods of prosecution, new kinds of evidence, use of criminal history data, general workload statistics, funding, plea negotiations, sentencing of intermediate sanctions, relationships with victims and other persons aiding prosecution, criminal defense of indigents, and the use of lower courts and grand juries. New areas of concern in 1992 included staffing, turnover, recruitment, new kinds of felonies, problem cases, scientific evidence, computerization, staff training, drug testing, and the personal risks associated with the role of prosecutor. Demographic data include sex, race, and ethnic composition of current staff members.

Curated

Partially restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1994 (ICPSR 6785)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1994-01-01--1994-12-31

The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1992 (ICPSR 6273), and also added queries on topics of current concern, including: cross-designation of state prosecutors to try cases in federal court, juvenile transfers to criminal court, personal liability insurance for prosecutors, and involvement with community-based drug abuse programs. Variables include whether certain categories of felony prosecution, such as gangs, hate crimes, domestic violence, stalking, fraud, or child abuse or abduction were handled, whether DNA evidence, videotape, expert or child witnesses, polygraph tests, or wiretap evidence were used in trials, types of intermediate sanctions used, including house arrest, electronic monitoring, work release, substance abuse rehabilitation or therapy, community service, and fines or restitution, information on problem cases, personal risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, civil actions against prosecutors, criminal defense of indigent offenders, staffing, workload, funding, whether the defendant's criminal history was used in trials, juvenile matters, relationships with victims and other persons aiding prosecution, computerization, and community leadership. The unit of analysis is the district office.

Curated

Partially restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1996 (ICPSR 2433)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1996-01-01--1996-12-31

Curated

National Prosecutors Survey, 2005 (ICPSR 4600)

Released/updated on: 2007-02-23

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2005-01-01--2005-12-31

Curated

National Prosecutors Survey [Census], 2001 (ICPSR 3418)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Survey of Prosecutors is a survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. It was previously conducted in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996 (ICPSR 9579, 6273, 6785, 2433 respectively). For 2001, instead of a survey of chief prosecutors, a census of all 2,341 chief prosecutors who handled felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction was conducted. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The census' purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. Variables cover staffing, funding, special categories of felony prosecutions, caseload, juvenile matters, work-related threats or assaults, the use of DNA evidence, and community-related activities, such as involvement in neighborhood associations. The unit of analysis is the district office.

Curated

National Prosecutors Survey [Census], 2007 (ICPSR 33202)

Released/updated on: 2012-05-14

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2007-01-01--2007-12-31

The 2007 Census of State Court Prosecutors marked the second BJS survey of all prosecutors' offices in the United States. The first census, conducted in 2001, included the 2,341 offices in operation at that time. The second census included the 2,330 state court prosecutors' offices operating in 2007. Neither census included offices of municipal attorneys or county attorneys, who primarily operate in courts of limited jurisdiction. State court prosecutors serve in the executive branch of state governments and handle felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. By law, these prosecutors are afforded broad discretion in determining who is charged with an offense and whether a case goes to trial. The chief prosecutor, also referred to as the district attorney, county attorney, commonwealth attorney, or state's attorney, represents the state in criminal cases and is answerable to the public as an elected or appointed public official. The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is the only federal prosecutor included in the census. This unique office is responsible for prosecution of serious local crimes committed in the District and also for prosecution of federal cases, whether criminal or civil.

Curated

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1982: Portland, Oregon and Washington, D.C. (ICPSR 8717)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: Oregon, District of Columbia, United States, Portland (Oregon)

Time period: 1982-01-01--1982-12-01

This study provides statistical information on how prosecutors and the courts disposed of criminal cases involving adults arrested for felony crimes in two individual urban jurisdictions, Portland, Oregon and Washington, D.C. Cases in the data files were initiated or filed in 1982. Both the Washington, D.C. file and the Portland file contain information on all felony arrests (which include arrests declined as well as those filed), cases filed, and cases indicted. Sentencing information is provided in the Portland file but is not available for Washington D.C.

Curated

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1982: St. Louis (ICPSR 8705)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, St. Louis

Time period: 1982-01-01--1982-12-01

This data collection provides statistical information on how prosecutors and the courts disposed of criminal cases involving adults arrested for felony crimes in an individual urban jurisdiction, St. Louis. The cases in the data file represent cases initiated in 1982, defined as screened, or filed in 1982. The collection includes disposition data on felonies for which an initial court charge was filed (cases filed) and for those felony arrests that were ultimately indicted or bound over to the felony court for disposition (cases indicted). It does not include information on all felony arrests declined for prosecution. It is, with a few exceptions, extracted from the defendant, case, charge and sentence records.

Curated

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1986: Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Portland, St. Louis, and Washington, DC (ICPSR 9094)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Oregon, District of Columbia, Indiana, United States, Missouri, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, New Orleans, Los Angeles, California, St. Louis, Indianapolis

This data collection represents the sixth in a series of statistical reports sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The purpose of the series is to provide statistical information on how prosecutors and the courts dispose of criminal cases involving adults arrested for felony crimes. With this purpose in mind, information was collected on items such as an individual's arrest date, sentencing date, court charge, and case disposition.

Curated

Prosecutor's Management and Information System (PROMIS), New Orleans, 1979 (ICPSR 8219)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans

The Prosecutor's Management and Information System (PROMIS) is a computer-based management information system for public prosecution agencies. PROMIS was initially developed with funds from the United States Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to cope with the problems of a large, urban prosecution agency where mass production operations had superseded the traditional practice of a single attorney preparing and prosecuting a given case from inception to final disposition. The combination of massive volumes of cases and the assembly-line fragmentation of responsibility and control had created a situation in which one case was indistinguishable from another and the effects of problems at various stages in the assembly line on ultimate case disposition went undetected and uncorrected. One unique feature of PROMIS that addresses these problems is the automated evaluation of cases. Through the application of a uniform set of criteria, PROMIS assigns two numerical ratings to each case: one signifying the gravity of the crime through a measurement of the amount of harm done to society, and the other signifying the gravity of the prior criminal record of the accused. These ratings make it possible to select the more important cases for intensive, pre-trial preparation and to assure even-handed treatment of cases of like gravity. A complementary feature of PROMIS is the automation of reasons for decisions made or actions taken along the assembly line. Reasons for dismissing cases prior to trial on their merits can be related to earlier cycles of postponements for various reasons and to the reasoning behind intake and screening decisions. The PROMIS data include information about the defendant, case characteristics and processes, charge, sentencing and continuance processes, and the witnesses/victims involved with a case. PROMIS was first used in 1971 in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. To enhance the ability to transfer the PROMIS concepts and software to other communities, LEAA awarded a grant to the Institute for Law and Social Research (INSLAW) in Washington, DC. The New Orleans PROMIS data collection is a product of this grant.

Curated

Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS), Rhode Island, 1979 (ICPSR 8288)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States

The Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS) is a computer-based information system for public prosecution agencies. PROMIS was initially developed with funds from the United States Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to cope with problems of a large, urban prosecution agency where mass production operations had superseded the traditional practice of a single attorney preparing and prosecuting a given case from inception to final disposition. The combination of massive volumes of cases and assembly-line fragmentation of responsibility and control had created a situation in which one case was indistinguishable from another and the effects of problems at various stages in the assembly line on ultimate case disposition went undetected and uncorrected. One unique feature of PROMIS that addresses these problems is the automated evaluation of cases. Through the application of a uniform set of criteria, PROMIS assigns two numerical ratings to each case: one signifying the gravity of the crimes through the measurement of the amount of harm done to society, and the other signifying the gravity of the prior record of the accused. These ratings make it possible to select the more important cases for intensive, pre-trial preparation and to assure even-handed treatment of cases with similar degrees of gravity. A complementary feature of PROMIS is the automation of reasons for decisions made or actions taken along the assembly line. Reasons for dismissing cases prior to trial on their merits can be related to earlier cycles of postponement for various reasons and the reasoning behind intake and screening decisions. The PROMIS data include information about the defendant, case characteristics and processes, charge, sentencing and continuance processes, and the witnesses/victims involved in the case. PROMIS was first used in 1971 in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. To enhance the ability to transfer the concepts and software to other communities, LEAA awarded a grant to the Institute for Law xand Social Research (INSLAW) in Washington, DC. The Rhode Island PROMIS data collection is a product of this grant.

Curated

Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS), St. Louis, 1979 (ICPSR 8225)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, St. Louis

The Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS) is a computer-based information system for public prosecution agencies. PROMIS was initially developed with funds from the United States Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to cope with problems of a large, urban prosecution agency where mass production operations had superceded the traditional practice of a single attorney preparing and prosecuting a given case from inception to final disposition. The combination of massive volumes of cases and assembly-line fragmentation of responsibility and control had created a situation in which one case was indistinguishable from another and the effects of problems at various stages in the assembly line on ultimate case disposition went undetected and uncorrected. One unique feature of PROMIS that addresses these problems is the automated evaluation of cases. Through the application of a uniform set of criteria, PROMIS assigns two numerical ratings to each case: one signifying the gravity of the crimes through the measurement of the amount of harm done to society, and the other signifying the gravity of the prior record of the accused. These ratings make it possible to select the more important cases for intensive, pre-trial preparation and to assure even-handed treatment of cases with similar degrees of gravity. A complementary feature of PROMIS is the automation of reasons for decisions made or actions taken along the assembly line. Reasons for dismissing cases prior to trial on their merits can be related to earlier cycles of postponement for various reasons and the reasoning behind intake and screening decisions. The PROMIS data include information about the defendant, case characteristics and processes, charge, sentencing and continuance processes, and the witness/victims involved in the case. PROMIS was first used in 1971 in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. To enhance the ability to transfer the concepts and software to other communities, LEAA awarded a grant to the Institute for Law and Social Research (INSLAW) in Washington, DC. The St. Louis PROMIS data collection is a product of this grant.

Curated

Repeat Offender Laws in the United States: Forms, Uses, and Perceived Value, 1983 (ICPSR 9328)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges in jurisdictions with sentence enhancement statutes for repeat offenders collected information about the characteristics of the laws and criminal justice professionals regarding the fairness, effectiveness, and practice of the laws. The jurisdiction file includes variables such as jurisdiction size, number of provisions in the law, number of felony cases handled under the law per year, number of defendants sentenced as repeat offenders, frequency of charging and sentencing under the law, and minimum and maximum sentences specified in the statutes. The variables in the three surveys of practitioners contain data related to their familiarity with the laws, descriptions of recent cases, and satisfaction with the new statutes.

Curated

Partially restricted

Response to Terrorism by Local Prosecutors in 70 Large Jurisdictions in the United States, 2004 (ICPSR 20262)

Released/updated on: 2007-10-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2001-09-01--2003-10-01

The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) conducted an exploratory study to examine how prosecutors can best respond to terrorism in a post-September 11 legislative environment. Because the passage of anti-terrorism legislation at the state level has the potential to have an impact on local prosecutors, who are responsible for enforcing state laws, the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) designed a survey to examine local prosecutors' involvement in homeland security and the ways in which their offices' organizational structure have changed to facilitate their involvement. Surveys were mailed or faxed to the 112 largest jurisdictions in the country. The survey instrument was divided into the following seven sections: (1) Background Information on the Jurisdiction, (2) Experience With State Legislation, (3) Organizational Changes, (4) Challenges Facing Local Prosecutors, (5) Methods Used to Overcome Challenges, (6) Coordination With Other Agencies, and (7) Training Needs. The survey questions focused on the legal framework and organizational structure in which local prosecutors operate.

Curated

State and Local Prosecution and Civil Attorney Systems, 1976 (ICPSR 7674)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of this data collection was to establish a current name and address listing of state and local government prosecution and civil attorney agencies and to obtain information about agency function, jurisdiction, employment, funding, and attorney compensation arrangements. The data for each agency include information for any identifiable local police prosecutors. Excluded from the study were private law firms that perform legal services periodically for a government and are compensated by retainers and fees. Variables cover agency functions and jurisdiction, agency funding, number and types of employees, compensation and employment restrictions for attorneys, agency's geographical jurisdiction, number of branch offices, and number of branch office employees.

Curated

Survey of Prosecutorial Response to Bias-Motivated Crime in the United States, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 3009)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01

This national survey of prosecutors was undertaken to systematically gather information about the handling of bias or hate crime prosecutions in the United States. The goal was to use this information to identify needs and to enhance the ability of prosecutors to respond effectively to hate crimes by promoting effective practices. The survey aimed to address the following research questions: (1) What was the present level of bias crime prosecution in the United States? (2) What training had been provided to prosecutors to assist them in prosecuting hate- and bias-motivated crimes and what additional training would be beneficial? (3) What types of bias offenses were prosecuted in 1994-1995? (4) How were bias crime cases assigned and to what extent were bias crime cases given priority? and (5) What factors or issues inhibited a prosecutor's ability to prosecute bias crimes? In 1995, a national mail survey was sent to a stratified sample of prosecutor offices in three phases to solicit information about prosecutors' experiences with hate crimes. Questions were asked about size of jurisdiction, number of full-time staff, number of prosecutors and investigators assigned to bias crimes, and number of bias cases prosecuted. Additional questions measured training for bias-motivated crimes, such as whether staff received specialized training, whether there existed a written policy on bias crimes, how well prosecutors knew the bias statute, and whether there was a handbook on bias crime. Information elicited on case processing included the frequency with which certain criminal acts were charged and sentenced as bias crimes, the existence of a special bias unit, case tracking systems, preparation of witnesses, jury selection, and case disposition. Other topics specifically covered bias related to racial or ethnic differences, religious differences, sexual orientation, and violence against women.

Curated

Survey of Prosecutors' Views on Children and Domestic Violence in the United States, 1999 (ICPSR 3103)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey of prosecutors was undertaken to describe current practice and identify "promising practices" with respect to cases involving domestic violence and child victims or witnesses. It sought to answer the following questions: (1) What are the challenges facing prosecutors when children are exposed to domestic violence? (2) How are new laws regarding domestic violence committed in the presence of children, now operating in a small number of states, affecting practice? (3) What can prosecutors do to help battered women and their children? To gather data on these topics, the researchers conducted a national telephone survey of prosecutors. Questions asked include case assignment, jurisdiction of the prosecutor's office, caseload, protocol for coordinating cases, asking about domestic violence when investigating child abuse cases, asking about children when investigating domestic violence cases, and how the respondent found out when a child abuse case involved domestic violence or when a domestic violence case involved children. Other variables cover whether police routinely checked for prior Child Protective Services (CPS) reports, if these cases were heard by the same judge, in the same court, and were handled by the same prosecutor, if there were laws identifying exposure to domestic violence as child abuse, if there were laws applying or enhancing criminal penalties when children were exposed to domestic violence, if the state legislature was considering any such action, if prosecutors were using other avenues to enhance penalties, if there was pertinent caselaw, and if the respondent's office had a no-drop policy for domestic violence cases. Additional items focus on whether the presence of children influenced decisions to prosecute, if the office would report or prosecute a battered woman who abused her children, or failed to protect her children from abuse or from exposure to domestic violence, how often the office prosecuted such women, if there was a batterers' treatment program in the community, how often batterers were sentenced to attend the treatment program, if there were programs to which the respondent could refer battered mothers and children, what types of programs were operating, and if prosecutors had received training on domestic violence issues.

Curated

Systems and Training Requirements for Criminal Justice Participants (PROJECT STAR), 1971-1974: California, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas (ICPSR 8392)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, California, New Jersey, Michigan

Time period: 1971-01-01--1974-01-01

Project STAR was designed to collect information about the various roles of operational criminal justice personnel in order to assist in the design of educational and training programs for these personnel. Data were collected from a two-part questionnaire administered to criminal justice personnel in four states: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas. The first part of the questionnaire contained personal, attitudinal, and opinion items as well as questions concerning the goals of the criminal justice system. The second part presented 97 situations that the respondent was asked to rank using a five-part scale. The situations dealt with the roles of police officers, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, probation officers, correctional officers, and parole officers. Demographic information about the respondents includes age, sex, race, educational attainment, occupation and employing agency, and income.

Curated

Systems Change Analysis of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs in One Midwestern County of the United States, 1994-2007 (ICPSR 25881)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-06

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1994-01-01--2005-12-01, 1999-09-01--2005-12-01, 2007-04-01--2007-05-01, 1994-01-01--2005-12-01, 1999-09-01--2007-05-01, 2008-07-01--2008-08-01

The purpose of this study was to determine whether adult sexual assault cases in a Midwestern community were more likely to be investigated and prosecuted after the implementation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program, and to identify the 'critical ingredients' that contributed to that increase.

Part 1 (Study 1: Case Records Quantitative Data) used a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent comparison group cohort design to compare criminal justice systems outcomes for adult sexual assault cases treated in county hospitals five years prior to the implementation of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program (January 1994 to August 1999) (the comparison group, n=156) to cases treated in the focal SANE program during its first seven years of operation (September 1999 to December 2005) (the intervention group, n=137). Variables include focus on case outcome, law enforcement agency that handled the case, DNA findings, and county-level factors, including prosecutor elections and the emergence of the focal SANE program.

Part 2 (Study 2: Case Characteristics Quantitative Data) used the adult sexual assault cases from the Study 1 intervention group (post-SANE) (n=137) to examine whether victim characteristics, assault characteristics, and the presence and type of medical forensic evidence predicted case progression outcomes.

Part 3 (Study 3: Police and Prosecutors Interview Qualitative Data) used in-depth interviews in April and May of 2007 with law enforcement supervisors (n=9) and prosecutors (n=6) in the focal county responsible for the prosecution of adult sexual assault crimes to explore if and how the SANEs affect the way in which police and prosecutors approach such cases. The interviews focused on four main topics: (1) whether they perceived a change in investigations and prosecution of adult sexual assault cases in post-SANE, (2) their assessment of the quality and utility of the forensic evidence provided by SANEs, (3) their perceptions regarding whether inter-agency training has improved the quality of police investigations and reports post-SANE, and (4) their perceptions regarding if and how the SANE program increased communication and collaboration among legal and medical personnel, and if such changes have influenced law enforcement investigational practices or prosecutor charging decisions.

Part 4 (Study 4: Police Reports Quantitative Data) examined police reports written before and after the implementation of the SANE program to determine whether there had been substantive changes in ways sexual assaults cases were investigated since the emergence of the SANE program. Variables include whether the police had referred the case to the prosecutor, indicators of SANE involvement, and indicators of law enforcement effort.

Part 5 (Study 5: Survivor Interview Qualitative Data) focused on understanding how victims characterized the care they received at the focal SANE program as well as their expriences with the criminal justices system. Using prospective sampling and community-based retrospective purposive sampling, twenty adult sexual assault vicitims were identified and interviewed between January 2006 and May 2007. Interviews covered four topics: (1) the rape itself and initial disclosures, (2) victims' experiences with SANE program staff including nurses and victim support advocates, (3) the specific role forensic evidence played in victims' decisions to participate in prosecution, and (4) victims' experiences with law enforcement, prosecutors, and judicial proceedings, and if/how the forensic nurses and advocates influenced those interactions.

Part 6 (Study 6: Forensic Nurse Interview Qualitative Data) examined forensic nurses' perspectives on how the SANE program could affect survivor participation with prosecution indirectly and how the interactions between SANEs and law enforcement could be contributing to increased investigational effort. Between July and August of 2008, six Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs) were interviewed. The interviews explored three topics: (1) the nurses' philosophy on victim reporting and participating in prosecution, (2) their perceptions regarding how patient care may or may not affect victim participation in the criminal justice system, and (3) their perception of how the SANE programs influence the work of law enforcement investigational practices.The interviews explored three topics: (1) the nurses' philosophy on victim reporting and participating in prosecution, (2) their perceptions regarding how patient care may or may not affect victim participation in the criminal justice system, and (3) their perception of how the SANE programs influence the work of law enforcement investigational practices.

Curated

Partially restricted

Understanding Court Culture and Improving Court Performance in 12 Courts in California, Florida, and Minnesota, 2002 (ICPSR 20366)

Released/updated on: 2008-08-25

Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota, California, Florida

Time period: 2002-04-01--2002-08-01

The purpose of this study was to examine the organizational culture in 12 felony criminal trial courts selected in 3 states and to gauge prosecuting and public defender attorneys' views on how well the courts in which they practice achieve the goals of access, fairness, and managerial effectiveness. Data on organizational culture in each of the 12 courts (Part 1) were obtained by administering the Court Culture Assessment Instrument (CCAI) to all judges with a felony criminal court docket and to all senior court administrators. A total of 224 respondents completed the questionnaire. Additionally, surveys were conducted of prosecuting attorneys (Part 2) and public defender attorneys (Part 3) to gauge their views on how well the courts in which they practice achieve the goals of access, fairness, and managerial effectiveness. A total of 334 prosecuting attorneys and 260 public defense attorneys completed the 46-item trial court process survey. Part 1 contains 40 variables pertaining to 5 dimensions of current and preferred court culture. Variables in Part 2 and Part 3 each include seven items from a jurisdictional practice scale, eight items from a procedural fairness scale, seven items from a resource scale, nine items from a management scale, nine items from a practitioner competence scale, and six items from a court access scale.

Curated

United Nations World Crime Surveys: Fifth Survey, 1990-1994 (ICPSR 3686)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: Papua New Guinea, Cambodia, Paraguay, Kazakhstan, Syria, Solomon Islands, Bahamas, Mali, Marshall Islands, Panama, Laos, Argentina, Seychelles, Zambia, Belize, Bahrain, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia, Finland, Comoros, Yemen, Eritrea, China (Peoples Republic), Madagascar, Ivory Coast, Libya, Western Samoa, Sweden, Malawi, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Poland, Jordan, Bulgaria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Tuvalu, Kenya, Lebanon, Djibouti, Brunei, Azerbaijan, Cuba, Czech Republic, Mauritania, Saint Lucia, Israel, San Marino, Australia, Tajikistan, Myanmar, Cameroon, Cyprus, Malaysia, Iceland, Global, Oman, Armenia, Gabon, Luxembourg, Brazil, Algeria, Slovenia, Antigua and Barbuda, Ecuador, Colombia, Moldova, Vanuatu, Italy, Honduras, Micronesia (Federated States), Nauru, Haiti, Afghanistan, Burundi, Singapore, Russia, Netherlands, Kyrgyzstan, Reunion, Bhutan, Romania, Togo, Philippines, Uzbekistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Dominica, Benin, Angola, Sudan, Portugal, North Korea, Grenada, Greece, Mongolia, Latvia, Morocco, Iran, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Guatemala, Guyana, Iraq, Chile, Nepal, Georgia (Republic), Ukraine, Tanzania, Ghana, India, Canada, Maldives, Turkey, Belgium, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Central African Republic, Jamaica, Peru, Turkmenistan, Germany, Vietnam (Socialist Republic), Fiji, Hong Kong, United States, Guinea, Chad, Somalia, Sao Tome and Principe, Thailand, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Costa Rica, Kuwait, Nigeria, Croatia, Uruguay, Sri Lanka, Cook Islands, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Spain, Liberia, Venezuela, Burkina Faso, Swaziland, Palau, Estonia, Niue, South Korea, Austria, Mozambique, El Salvador, Monaco, Lesotho, Tonga, Hungary, Japan, Belarus, Mauritius, Albania, New Zealand, Senegal, Macedonia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Sierra Leone, Bolivia, Malta, Saudi Arabia, Cape Verde, Pakistan, Gambia, Ireland, Qatar, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, France, Lithuania, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Niger, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Nicaragua, Barbados, Norway, Botswana, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Uganda, Suriname

Time period: 1990-01-01--1994-01-01

The Fifth United Nations Survey, covering the years 1990-1994, was designed to collect data on the incidence of reported crime and the operation of criminal justice systems with a view to improving the dissemination of that information globally. To that end, the survey facilitates an overview of trends and interrelationships among various parts of the criminal justice system to promote informed decision-making in its administration, nationally and crossnationally. Variables describe combined police and prosecution expenditure by year and by country, number of police personnel by gender, total number of homicides by country and by city, number of assaults, rapes, robberies, thefts, burglaries, frauds, and embezzlements, amount of drug crime, number of people formally charged with crime, age of suspects, number and gender of prosecutors, number of individuals prosecuted and the types of crimes prosecuted, gender and age of individuals prosecuted, types of courts, number of individuals convicted and acquitted, numbers sentenced to capital punishment and various other punishments, number of convictions on various charges, number of individuals sentenced and in detention, number of prisoners, sentence lengths, and prison demographics.