Showing 1 – 16 of 16 results.
Curated
Restricted
Alabama Sentencing Simulation Model, 1998-2003 (ICPSR 34671)
Released/updated on: 2014-09-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Alabama
Time period: 1970-01-01--2003-01-01
Prior to 2003, the State of Alabama had no formal methodology to forecast prison populations, including a simulation model or statistical time-series and forecasting methods. Instead, the Alabama Department of Corrections relied on percent growth models, using the existing prison population to forecast future statewide prison populations. As Alabama moved toward a structured sentencing system, more precision was needed to investigate the impact statewide sentencing reform would have on the prison population. Adding to the need for more precise forecast methods, the Alabama Sentencing Commission intended to incorporate Virginia worksheet-style sentencing guidelines into its sentencing reform efforts. The Virginia sentencing guidelines uses offender and offense factors identified with statistical models and weights to guide sentence recommendations. Alabama require an analytical tool to guide the Commission during development of such a complicated sentencing system. To shepherd this process, the simulation model development project was undertaken which consisted of three phases;
- The development of a baseline projection of current practices for later comparison with projections made following implementation of the sentencing standards;
- Incorporating the initial sentencing standards into the simulation model; and
- Integrating disparate modules together into a user-friendly model interface.
Curated
Restricted
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
Restricted
Assessing the Impact of Pre-Adjudication Assessment Approaches on Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Oregon, 2014-2018 (ICPSR 37595)
Released/updated on: 2022-11-10
Time period: 2005-01-01--2018-01-01
This study examines two counties in Oregon (Multnomah and Yamhill) that have utilized a pre-adjudication risk assessment (PAA) to inform criminal case negotiation since 2014. This study seeks to answer these core questions:
- has the introduction of a PAA into the court decision-making process impacted racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes over time in each county;
- does one PAA process appear to produce more promising results in impacting racial/ethnic disparities;
- using interviews and visual observations, how does the PAA influence case discussion and negotiation, decision-making, and workgroup norms and culture;
- does validation of the PAA tool yield significant mean score differences across racial groups and/or predictive biases?
A number of jurisdictions have turned to pre-adjudication risk assessments (PAA) as a tool to potentially lower or stabilize incarceration rates by identifying the best suitable cases for community-based supervision. Questions have been raised about using risk assessment tools to help with the negotiation of sentencing outcomes in the pre-adjudication stages of criminal cases, particularly the potential for exacerbating disparate racial/ethnic sentencing outcomes.
Curated
Criminal Justice Outcomes of Male Offenders in 14 Jurisdictions in the United States, 1985-1988 (ICPSR 9671)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1985-01-01--1988-01-01
This data collection provides information on multiple prosecutions for individual offenders. The data are intended for use in the exploration and description of relationships among the various elements of the adjudication process (characteristics of the offender and offense and decisions made by various actors in the prosecution and sentencing of the offenders). The sampled incidents were drawn from two types of offenses: residential burglary and armed robbery. The collection includes only those incidents involving male offenders who were previously unknown to their victims and who were facing adjudication in adult court. The data collection instrument probed five areas for each offender and incident sampled: A. Related Incidents (information to identify all other incidents for which processing overlapped that of the sampled incident), B. Incident Description (information about the criminal incident itself, such as date and location of the incident, date of arrest, victims, weapons, accomplices, witnesses, and evidence), C. Adjudication Process (information such as bond amount, legal representation, adjudication events and outcomes, date of sentencing, and type and length of incarceration), D. Defendant (information about the defendant himself, including date of birth, race/descent, and employment status), and E. Prior Record (information about the defendant's record, such as his age at first arrest and first incarceration, the number of times he was incarcerated, and history of drug and/or alcohol abuse).
Curated
Evaluation of No-Drop Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in San Diego, California, Omaha, Nebraska, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Everett, Washington, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3319)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Omaha, Klameth Falls, San Diego, United States, Everett, California, Washington, Nebraska
Time period: 1996-01-01--2000-01-01
This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the justice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted to determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation was feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing a no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer dismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions where no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a plea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and (4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop policy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without victim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes, researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and resulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett, Washington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha, Nebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted in a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the four sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under the no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1 include defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was sentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the counseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal history, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between the victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2 include length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution, defendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the victim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts testified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent psychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant, relationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes, whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the defendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the victim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic surveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be arrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs, or domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away from the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with the police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the defendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the victim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables on the victim include race, income, and level of education.
Curated
Federal District Court Civil Decisions, 1981-1987: Detroit, Houston, and Kansas City (ICPSR 9367)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-17
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Texas, Missouri, Kansas City (Missouri), Michigan, Houston
Time period: 1981-01-01--1987-10-01
These data describe unpublished civil cases filed and terminated in the three federal district courts of Detroit, Michigan, Houston, Texas, and Kansas City, Missouri, between 1981 and 1987. The data were collected to enable researchers to measure the relative influence of local legal environments and politicized judicial appointments on unpublished substantive and procedural outcomes. Variables in the collection specify the date a case was filed and terminated, type of case filed, specific judgment and nature of the decision, whether a monetary award was granted and, if so, the amount involved. Information also is included on whether a government litigant was involved, if a jury trial was requested and by whom, type of attorney for plaintiff and defendant, type and number of motions filed (and by whom), and outcome of appeal, if applicable.
Curated
Impact of the Court Process on Sexually Abused Children in North Carolina, 1983-1986 (ICPSR 9985)
Released/updated on: 1994-02-18
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States
Time period: 1983-12-01--1986-06-01
This data collection examines the psychological impact of judicial processes on child sexual abuse victims. More specifically, it provides information on how sexual abuse and the subsequent judicial processes affect the mental health functioning of child victims by assessing the impact of (1) additional harm to victims from out-of-home placement, (2) criminal prosecution of the offender/family member, (3) subject testimony in juvenile or criminal court, and (4) family and professional support for the children. Children were enrolled in the study at the time that social services personnel substantiated claims of sexual abuse, and they were followed for a period of 18 months. Assessments of the mental health functioning of the children were made at the time of initial investigation, five months later, and 18 months later, using a combination of self-reports, parent and teacher reports, and psychological tests. After obtaining informed consent from the parent or guardian, each child was interviewed using a structured psychiatric inventory. The specific impacts of the various judicial processes or interventions under study were examined through comparisons of subgroups of the sample that did and did not experience particular interventions. The interventions included social services investigation, court process, foster placement, and psychological therapy. Other information in the file includes the type of sexual abuse experienced, judicial interventions the child experienced, and the child's level of depression, anxiety, and social adjustment. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race.
Curated
Juror Discussions About Evidence, 1997-1998: [Arizona] (ICPSR 2687)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 1997-06-15--1998-01-31
These data were collected in conjunction with an evaluation of the Arizona court reform effective December 1, 1995, to permit jurors in civil cases to discuss the evidence prior to deliberations. The datasets consist of survey responses by judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants in all civil cases conducted in Maricopa, Pima, Mohave, and Yavapai counties in Arizona between June 15, 1997, and January 31, 1998. Civil cases in the participating courts were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: (1) jurors were told they could discuss the evidence prior to deliberation according to Rule 39(f) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, or (2) jurors were told they could not discuss the evidence per the previous admonition. The datasets contain survey responses under both conditions. Part 1, Case Characteristics Data, contains information from two questionnaires completed by judges about the lawsuit, the parties, the trial procedures, and the case outcome. The data in Part 2, Juror Questionnaire Data, cover jurors' views regarding the complexity of the case, the importance of witnesses and testimonies, and attorneys' performances. The variables in Part 3, Attorney Questionnaire Data, offer information on attorneys' opinions of the jurors, the opposing counsel, and the verdict. Part 4, Litigant Questionniare Data, consists of litigants' views regarding the jurors and the verdict. Demographic data include respondents' gender, age, race, income, and job status.
Curated
National Assessment of Criminal Justice Needs, 1983: [United States] (ICPSR 8362)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
In 1983, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a program evaluation survey by Abt Associates that was designed to identify the highest priority needs for management and operational improvements in the criminal justice system. Six groups were surveyed: judges and trial court administrators, corrections officials, public defenders, police, prosecutors, and probation/parole officials. Variables in this study include background information on the respondents' agencies, such as operating budget and number of employees, financial resources available to the agency, and technical assistance, research, and initiative programs used by the agency. The codebook includes the mailed questionnaire sent to each of the six groups in the study as well as a copy of the telephone interview guide.
Curated
Pretrial Release Practices in the United States, 1976-1978 (ICPSR 7972)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1976-01-01--1978-01-01
Funded by the National Institute of Justice, this data collection represents Phase II of a larger project to evaluate pretrial release practices. The study focuses on four major topics: (1) release--rates and types of releases, defendant or case characteristics and their impact on the release decision, (2) court appearance --extent to which released defendants appear in court, factors associated with defendants' failure to appear in court, (3) pretrial criminality--number of rearrests during the pretrial period and the factors predicting rearrest, charges and rates of conviction for crimes committed during the pretrial period, and (4) impact of pretrial release programs--effect of programs on release decisions and on the behavior of defendants. The study is limited to adult defendants processed through state and local trial courts, and to pretrial release rather than pretrial intervention or diversion programs. Part 1 is an analysis of release practices and outcomes in eight jurisdictions (Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland, Washington, DC, Dade County, Florida, Jefferson County, Kentucky, Pima County, Arizona, Santa Cruz County, California, and Santa Clara County, California). The pretrial release "delivery systems," that is, the major steps and individuals and organizations in the pretrial release process, were analyzed in each jurisdiction. Additionally, a sample of defendants from each site was studied from point of arrest to final case disposition and sentencing. Part 2 of this study examines the impact of the existence of pretrial release programs on release, court appearance, and pretrial release outcomes. An experimental design was used to compare a group of defendants who participated in a pretrial release program with a control group who did not. Experiments were conducted in Pima County (Tucson), Arizona, Baltimore City, Maryland, Lincoln, Nebraska, and Jefferson County (Beaumont-Port Arthur), Texas. In Tucson, separate experiments were conducted for felony and misdemeanor cases.
Curated
Public Image of Courts, 1977: General Public Data (ICPSR 7703)
Released/updated on: 1997-02-25
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection and its companion study, PUBLIC IMAGE OF COURTS, 1977: SPECIAL PUBLICS DATA (ICPSR 7704), were undertaken to explore attitudes toward courts and justice. These surveys sought to measure perceptions of and experiences with local, state, and federal courts as well as general attitudes toward the administration of justice and legal actors. The general objectives of the studies were to (1) determine levels of public knowledge of courts, (2) test reactions to situations that might, or might not, prompt recourse to courts, (3) determine the incidence, nature, and evaluations of court experience, (4) describe and account for evaluations of court performance, (5) indicate attitudes toward legal actors, and (6) indicate reactions to alternative means of dispute resolution. Two samples were drawn: a national sample of the general public and a "special publics" sample of judges, lawyers, and community leaders (ICPSR 7704). The 1,931 respondents in the general public sample were interviewed in person by the National Consumer Field Staff of Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc.
Curated
Public Image of Courts, 1977: Special Publics Data (ICPSR 7704)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection and its companion study, PUBLIC IMAGE OF COURTS, 1977: GENERAL PUBLIC DATA (ICPSR 7703), were undertaken to explore attitudes toward courts and justice. These surveys sought to measure perceptions of and experiences with local, state, and federal courts as well as general attitudes toward the administration of justice and legal actors. The general objectives of the studies were to (1) determine levels of public knowledge of courts, (2) test reactions to situations that might, or might not, prompt recourse to courts, (3) determine the incidence, nature, and evaluations of court experience, (4) describe and account for evaluations of court performance, (5) indicate attitudes toward legal actors, and (6) indicate reactions to alternative means of dispute resolution. Two samples were drawn: a national sample of the general public (ICPSR 7703) and a "special publics" sample of judges, lawyers, and community leaders. The 1,112 respondents in the special publics sample were interviewed by a group of interviewers described as "retired business executives specially trained to interview leadership groups."
Curated
Restricted
Race and the Decision to Seek the Death Penalty in Federal Cases, 1995-2000 [United States] (ICPSR 4533)
Released/updated on: 2006-09-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--2000-12-31
The purpose of this project was to examine possible defendant and victim race effects in capital decisions in the federal system. Per the terms of their grant, the researchers selected cases that were handled under the revised Death Penalty Protocol of 1995 and were processed during Attorney General Janet Reno's term in office. The researchers began the project by examining a sample of Department of Justice Capital Case Unit (CCU) case files. These files contained documents submitted by the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), a copy of the indictment, a copy of the Attorney General's Review Committee on Capital Cases (AGRC's) draft and final memorandum to the Attorney General (AG), and a copy of the AG's decision letter. Next, they created a list of the types of data that would be feasible and desirable to collect and constructed a case abstraction form and coding rules for recording data on victims, defendants, and case characteristics from the CCU's hard-copy case files. The record abstractors did not have access to information about defendant or victim gender or race. Victim and defendant race and gender data were obtained from the CCU's electronic files. Five specially trained coders used the case abstraction forms to record and enter salient information in the CCU hard-copy files into a database. Coders worked on only one case at a time. The resulting database contains 312 cases for which defendant- and victim-race data were available for the 94 federal judicial districts. These cases were received by the CCU between January 1, 1995 and July 31, 2000, and for which the AG at the time had made a decision about whether to seek the death penalty prior to December 31, 2000. The 312 cases includes a total of 652 defendants (see SAMPLING for cases not included). The AG made a seek/not-seek decision for 600 of the defendants, with the difference between the counts stemming mainly from defendants pleading guilty prior to the AG making a charging decision. The database was structured to allow researchers to examine two stages in the federal prosecution process, namely the USAO recommendation to seek or not to seek the death penalty and the final AG charging decision. Finally, dispositions (e.g., sentence imposed) were obtained for all but 12 of the defendants in the database. Variables include data about the defendants and victims such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, employment, education, marital status, and the relationship between the defendant and victim. Data are provided on the defendant's citizenship (United States citizen, not United States citizen), place of birth (United States born, foreign born), offense dates, statute code, counts for the ten most serious offenses committed, defendant histories of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, mental illness, physical or sexual abuse as a child, serious head injury, intelligence (IQ), or other claims made in the case. Information is included for up to 13 USAO assessments and 13 AGRC assessments of statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Victim characteristics included living situation and other reported factors, such as being a good citizen, attending school, past abuse by the defendant, gross size difference between the victim and defendant, if the victim was pregnant, if the victim had a physical handicap, mental or emotional problems or developmental disability, and the victim's present or former status (e.g., police informant, prison inmate, law enforment officer). Data are also provided for up to 13 factors each regarding the place and nature of the killing, defendant motive, coperpetrators, weapons, injuries, witnesses, and forensic and other evidence.
Curated
State Appellate Court Adaptation to Caseload Increase, 1968-1984: [United States] (ICPSR 8262)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1968-01-01--1984-01-01
This data collection examines the impact of caseload pressures on both intermediate appellate courts and supreme courts for each state in the nation. The data describe in detail the changes made by appellate courts and supply information related to each change. These changes include (1) adding judges, law clerks and staff attorneys, (2) expanding or creating intermediate appellate courts, (3) reducing panel size, (4) using summary procedures, (5) curtailing opinion practices by deciding cases without opinion or unpublished and memo opinions, and (6) curtailing oral argument length.
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
Use of Adjuncts to Supplement Judicial Resources in Six Jurisdictions, 1983-1986: [United States] (ICPSR 8979)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Connecticut, Minnesota, Arizona, Washington
Time period: 1983-01-01--1986-01-01
This multi-site data collection evaluates the impact of judicial adjunct attorneys and referees on the court system at the county and state levels in six jurisdictions: (1) Pima County, Arizona, (2) Multnomah County, Oregon, (3) King County, Washington, (4) Hennepin County, Minnesota, (5) Phoenix, Arizona, and (6) the state of Connecticut. There are three different units of observation in this study: (1) civil trial cases, (2) trial judges, including regular judges and adjunct attorneys, and (3) litigating attorneys. The court case data include information on type of case, date of trial, type of judge, type of disposition, and date of disposition. For the questionnaire data obtained on judges, adjuncts, and litigating attorneys, information includes experience with the program, satisfaction, and ideas for changes.