Showing 1 – 7 of 7 results.
Curated
Restricted
Building Tribal-Researcher Capacity to Inform Data-Driven Practices, Technology, and Tribal Justice, United States, 2019 (ICPSR 38013)
Released/updated on: 2023-02-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The Center for Court Innovation, in partnership with independent consultants from the public defender's office of certain tribes, conducted a comprehensive survey of tribal justice system stakeholders, focused on the existing use of risk-needs assessments and similar tools, and existing data collection/technology used by tribal jurisdictions around the country. The survey results create a comprehensive portrait of tribal court system risk and need assessment, data collection, management, and challenges reported by those directly involved in managing and working with people in the system.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of Waiver Effects in Maryland, 1998-2000 (ICPSR 4077)
Released/updated on: 2005-03-04
Geographic coverage: Maryland
Time period: 1998-01-01--2000-01-01
The purpose of this research was to assist policymakers in determining if the targeted youths affected by the waiver laws passed by the Maryland legislature in 1994 and 1998 were being processed as intended. The waiver laws were enacted to ensure that a youth who was unwilling to comply with treatment and/or committed a serious offense would have a serious consequence to his/her action and, therefore, would be processed in the adult system. As a result of the legislation, four pathways of court processing emerged which created four groups of youths to study: at-risk of waiver (not waived), waiver, legislative waiver, and reverse waver. A variety of data sources in both the juvenile and adult systems were triangulated to obtain the necessary information to accurately describe the youths involved. The triangulation of data from multiple file sources happened in a variety of formats (automated, hardcopy, and electronic files) from a variety of agencies to compare and contrast youths processed in the juvenile and adult systems. The five legislative criteria (age, mental and physical condition, amenability to treatment, crime seriousness, and public safety) plus extra-legal data were used as a framework to profile the youths in this study. Many of the variables chosen to explore each domain were included in previous studies. Other variables, such as those designed to operationalize mental health issues (not defined by the legislation) were chosen to extend the literature and to generate the most complete profile of youths processed in each system. The study includes variables pertinent to the five legislative criteria in addition to demographic and family information variables such as gender, race, and socioeconomic status, information on school expulsions, school suspensions, gang involvement, drug history, health, and hospitalization.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Evidence, Sexual Assaults, and Case Outcomes: Understanding the Role of Sexual Assault Kits, Non-Forensic Evidence, and Case Characteristics, 2015-2017 (ICPSR 37261)
Released/updated on: 2020-03-31
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2015-01-01--2017-01-01
This project examined the role of sexual assault medical forensic exams (sexual assault kits) and other case characteristics in achieving investigative and prosecutorial outcomes in sexual assault cases. The study team conducted comprehensive reviews of over 500 sexual assault cases based on reports to police to identify evidence and case characteristics as they progress through case processing. Using statistical models, the study team predicted case outcomes using a variety of case, suspect, and victim characteristics, with a focus on the role of sexual assault exams and kits. Additionally, the study team interviewed key stakeholders in each site to supplement the case-level information, including law enforcement, prosecutors, representatives from victim service agencies, and sexual assault nurse examiners.
Curated
Restricted
Investigation and Prosecution of Homicide Cases in the United States, 1995-2000: The Process for Federal Involvement (ICPSR 4540)
Released/updated on: 2015-01-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--2000-12-31
This study addressed questions related to potential geographic and racial disparity in the investigation and prosecution of federal capital cases and examined the process by which criminal cases, specially homicide cases, enter the federal criminal justice system. The primary method of data collection used was face-to-face interviews of key criminal justice officials within each district included in the study. Between 2000 and 2004, the researchers visited nine federal districts and interviewed all actors in the state and federal criminal justice systems who potentially would play a role in determining whether a homicide case was investigated and prosecuted in the state or federal systems. The study focused on homicide cases because federal homicides represented the offense of conviction in all capital case convictions in the federal system under the 2000 and 2001 DOJ reports (see U.S. Department of Justice, "The Federal Death Penalty System: A Statistical Survey (1988-2000)," Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September 12, 2000, and U.S. Department of Justice, "The Federal Death Penalty System: Supplementary Data, Analysis and Revised Protocols for Capital Case Review," Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, June 6, 2001). In addition, federally related homicides are frequently involved with drug, gang, and/or organized crime investigations. Using 11 standardized interview protocols, developed in consultation with members of the project's advisory group, research staff interviewed local investigative agencies (police chief or his/her representative, section heads for homicide, drug, gang, or organized crime units as applicable to the agency structure), federal investigative agencies (Special Agent-in-Charge or designee, section heads of relevant units), local prosecutors (District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, including the line attorneys and section heads), and defense attorneys who practiced in federal court. Due to the extensive number of issues to be covered with the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, interviews were conducted with: (1) the U.S. Attorney or designated representative, (2) section heads, and (3) Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) within the respective sections. Because the U.S. Attorneys were appointed following the change in the U.S. Presidency in 2000, a slightly altered U.S. Attorney questionnaire was designed for interviews with the former U.S. Attorney who was in office during the study period of 1995 through 2000. In some instances, because the project focus was on issues and processes from 1995 through 2000, a second individual with longer tenure was chosen to be interviewed simultaneously when the head or section head was newer to the position. In some instances when a key respondent was unavailable during the site visit and no acceptable alternative could be identified, arrangements were made to complete the interview by telephone after the visit. The interviews included questions related to the nature of the local crime problem, agency crime priorities, perceived benefits of the federal over the local process, local and federal resources, nature and target of joint task forces, relationships between and among agencies, policy and agreements, definitions and understanding of federal jurisdiction, federal investigative strategies, case flow, and attitudes toward the death penalty.
Curated
Prosecuting Adolescents in Juvenile and Criminal Jurisdictions in Selected Counties in New Jersey and New York, 1992-1993 (ICPSR 3976)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: New York, United States, New Jersey
Time period: 1992-01-01--1993-01-01
A different model of justice is assumed to be reflected in the prosecution of adolescents in juvenile jurisdictions compared to criminal jurisdictions, with a juvenile justice model in the juvenile jurisdiction and a criminal justice model in the criminal jurisdiction. These two models of justice are believed to be very different from one another across three dimensions: formality of case processing, evaluation of defendants, and punishment. This research project compared the prosecution and punishment of adolescent felony offenders in the New Jersey juvenile jurisdiction and the New York criminal jurisdiction to determine whether these two models of justice varied across the two jurisdiction types. Data from this collection were used by the researcher only to examine the dimension of punishment severity across jurisdiction types and across courts within each jurisdiction type. Data were collected on comparable cases of adolescent felony offenders from counties in New Jersey and New York. Due to the very different boundaries between juvenile and criminal jurisdictions in these adjacent states, the data include cases (matched by offense and offender age) in New Jersey's juvenile jurisdiction and New York's criminal jurisdiction. Cases of 15- and 16-year-old defendants who had been charged with aggravated assault, robbery, or burglary in three counties of New Jersey and three counties of New York City in 1992 and 1993 were sampled. Variables include offender characteristics, such as age at offense, sex, race, and ethnicity, offense characteristics, court action and sentencing information, state, and county.
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
State and Local Probation and Parole Systems, 1976 (ICPSR 7673)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study is a census of all state and local probation and parole systems. It was conducted in late 1976 by the United States Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The data contain information on each agency, including jurisdiction, funding and operation, employment, and client caseload.