Showing 1 – 14 of 14 results.
Curated
Calling the Police: Citizen Reporting of Serious Crime, 1979 (ICPSR 8185)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, Illinois, Peoria, Rochester (New York), California, Florida, New York (state), Jacksonville
Time period: 1979-04-21--1979-12-07
This dataset replicates the citizen reporting component of POLICE RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS, 1975 (ICPSR 7760). Information is included on 4,095 reported incidents of aggravated assault, auto theft, burglary, larceny/theft offenses, forcible rape, and robbery. The data cover citizen calls to police between April 21 and December 7, 1979. There are four files in this collection, one each for Jacksonville, Florida, Peoria, Illinois, Rochester, New York, and San Diego, California. The data are taken from police dispatch records and police interviews of citizens who requested police assistance. Variables taken from the dispatch records include the dispatch time, call priority, police travel time, age, sex, and race of the caller, response code, number of suspects, and area of the city in which the call originated. Variables taken from the citizen interviews include respondent's role in the incident (victim, caller, victim-caller, witness-caller), incident location, relationship of caller to victim, number of victims, identification of suspect, and interaction with police.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Exploring Alternative Data Sources for the Study of Assault in Miami, Florida, St. Louis, Missouri, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1994 -1997 (ICPSR 4358)
Released/updated on: 2013-06-10
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, Florida, St. Louis, Pennsylvania, Miami, Pittsburgh
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
The study involved the collection of data on serious assaults that occured in three cities: Miami, Florida (1996-1997), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1994-1996), and St. Louis, Missouri (1995-1996). The data were extracted from police offense reports, and included detailed information about the incidents (Part 1) as well as information about the victims, suspects, and witnesses for each incident (Parts 2-9).
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Extending Bystander Intervention Prevention Models from College Campuses to the Workplace, United States, 2022 (ICPSR 38659)
Released/updated on: 2023-10-12
Geographic coverage: United States
In this exploratory study, the research team examined factors such as power dynamics and social identity that affect a bystander's (individuals who directly or indirectly witness harassment, discrimination, or another form of violence happening to someone else) decision to intervene in events of harassment and discrimination at their workplace. The specific objectives of this study were to: (1) Understand the environment in which workplace harassment and discrimination occurs by analyzing the frequencies of individual events by type and location; (2) Assess contextual variables influencing bystander decisions through analyses of bystander interpretations of the event of harassment/discrimination and motivations for inaction/action; and (3) Contextualize bystander responses by understanding how the workplace environment and the bystander's assessment of power and identities of those involved interplay. The project used a survey design with quantitative data collected from employed adults in the United States (n=1,484) via Qualtrics online survey.
Curated
Restricted
Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Midwestern Urban Area, 1997-1998: [United States] (ICPSR 3010)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01
The goal of this study was to identify factors that influence whether city misdemeanor domestic violence cases in which batterers are arrested by police result in dismissals, acquittals, or convictions in the courts, and how these cases are processed. The researchers sought to examine factors that influence court officials' decision-making in domestic violence cases, as well as factors that influence victim and witness reluctance in bringing batterers to successful adjudication. In Part 1 researchers merged pretrial services data with information from police and prosecutors' reports in the urban area under study to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of dismissals, acquittals, and convictions for misdemeanor court cases and what are the conditions of these sentences? (2) What factors in court cases are significantly related to whether the disposition is a dismissal, acquittal, or conviction, and how are these cases processed? In Part 2, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders were asked detailed questions about their level of knowledge about, attitudes toward, and self-reported behaviors regarding the processing of domestic violence cases to find out: (1) What roles do legal and extra-legal factors play in decision-makers' self-reported behaviors and attitudes? (2) How do decision-makers rate victim advocate and batterer treatment programs? (3) How do court professionals view the victim's role in the court process? and (4) To what degree do court professionals report victim-blaming attitudes and experiences? For Part 3 researchers used a stratified random sample to select court cases of misdemeanor domestic violence that would be transcribed and used for a content analysis to examine: (1) Who speaks in court and how? and (2) What is considered relevant by different court players? In Parts 4-103 victim surveys and interviews were administered to learn about battered women's experiences in both their personal lives and the criminal processing system. Researchers sought to answer the following questions: (1) How do victim/witnesses perceive their role in the prosecution of their abusers? (2) What factors inhibit them from pursuing prosecution? (3) What factors might help them pursue prosecution? and (4) How consistent are the victims'/witnesses' demographic and psychological profiles with existing research in this area? Domestic violence victims attending arraignment between January 1 and December 31 of 1997 were asked to complete surveys to identify their concerns about testifying against their partners and to evaluate the effectiveness of the court system in dealing with domestic violence cases (Part 4). The disposition of each case was subsequently determined by a research team member's examination of defendants' case files and/or court computer files. Upon case closure victims who had both completed a survey and indicated a willingness to be interviewed were contacted to participate in an interview (Parts 5-103). Variables in Part 1, Pretrial Services Data, include prior criminal history, current charges, case disposition, sentence, victim testimony, police testimony, victim's demeanor at trial, judge's conduct, type of abuse involved, weapons used, injuries sustained, and type of evidence available for trial. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of defendants, victims, prosecutors, and judges. In Part 2, Professional Survey Data, respondents were asked about their tolerance for victims and offenders who appeared in court more than once, actions taken when substance abuse was involved, the importance of injuries in making a decision, attitudes toward battered women, the role of victim advocates and the police, views on restraining orders, and opinion on whether arrest is a deterrent. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, and years of professional experience. Variables in Part 3, Court Transcript Data, include number and type of charges, pleas, reasons for dismissals, types of evidence submitted by prosecutors and defense, substance abuse by victim and defendant, living arrangements and number of children of victim and defendant, specific type of abuse, injuries sustained, witnesses to injuries, police testimony, verdict, and sentence. Demographic variables include age and sex of defendant and victim and relationship of victim and defendant. In Part 4, Victim Survey Data, victims were asked about their relationship and living arrangements with the defendant, concerns about testifying in court, desired outcomes of case and punishment for defendant, emotional issues related to abuse, health problems, substance abuse, support networks, other violent domestic incidents and injuries, and safety concerns. Part 5 variables measured victims' safety at different stages of the criminal justice process and danger experienced due to further violent incidents, presence of weapons, and threats of homicide or suicide. Parts 6-103 contain the qualitative interview data.
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
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies, 1994-2012 (ICPSR 34274)
Released/updated on: 2014-03-07
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--2012-01-01
The data results from a study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) designed to obtain the first nationwide assessment of the state of the criminal justice field regarding eyewitness identification procedures used by law enforcement agencies. PERF designed and conducted a survey of 619 police departments across the United States. The study focused on the departments training and policy when conducting eyewitness identification; particularly the study examined the use of "blind" administrators and the use of simultaneous or sequential presentation to the witness. The number of lineup members, witness instructions, police training, number of witness viewings and recording of the witness statements were also examined. A pilot test of the survey was conducted prior to the study.
Curated
Operation Hardcore [Crime] Evaluation: Los Angeles, 1976-1980 (ICPSR 9038)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles, California
Time period: 1976-01-01--1980-01-01
This evaluation was developed and implemented by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office to examine the effectiveness of specialized prosecutorial activities in dealing with the local problem of rising gang violence, in particular the special gang prosecution unit Operation Hardcore. One part of the evaluation was a system performance analysis. The purposes of this system performance analysis were (1) to describe the problems of gang violence in Los Angeles and the ways that incidents of gang violence were handled by the Los Angeles criminal justice system, and (2) to document the activities of Operation Hardcore and its effect on the criminal justice system's handling of the cases prosecuted by that unit. Computer-generated listings from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office of all individuals referred for prosecution by local police agencies were used to identify those individuals who were subsequently prosecuted by the District Attorney. Data from working files on all cases prosecuted, including copies of police, court, and criminal history records as well as information on case prosecution, were used to describe criminal justice handling. Information from several supplementary sources was also included, such as the automated Prosecutors Management Information System (PROMIS) maintained by the District Attorney's Office, and court records from the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County, the local felony court.
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
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
Partially restricted
Reduction of False Convictions through Improved Identification Procedures: Further Refinements for Street Practice and Public Policy, 1983-2010, in five countries. (ICPSR 34316)
Released/updated on: 2016-04-28
Geographic coverage: Canada, United States, Tucson, United Kingdom, South Africa, Germany, Arizona
Time period: 1983-01-01--2010-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
This study was a three part project which evaluated the procedural aspects of police lineups. The first part was a meta-analysis of existing laboratory data on comparative eyewitness accuracy rates for sequential versus simultaneous lineups. The second part was three experiments on the elements of current field lineup practices in simultaneous and sequential lineups. The third part was a field experiment in Tucson, Arizona, which tested double-blind simultaneous versus double-blind sequential lineups.
Curated
Partially restricted
Social Science Research on Wrongful Convictions and Near Misses, 1980-2012 (ICPSR 34522)
Released/updated on: 2016-05-31
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1980-01-01--2012-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
This study examined how the criminal justice system avoids wrongful convictions by comparing violent felony cases that ended in an official exoneration after conviction ("wrongful convictions") with those in which defendants had charges dismissed before trial or were acquitted on the basis of their factual innocence ("near misses"). Data were collected on a total of 460 cases (260 wrongful convictions and 200 near misses), and these cases were compared quantitatively and qualitatively on variables that might explain the different outcomes. These variables included the usual causes of wrongful convictions, such as eyewitness misidentification, false confession, and forensic error, as well as demographic, social, and procedural variables.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Testing a ''Not Sure'' Instruction as a Prophylactic Against the Harmful Impact of System and Estimator Variables on Lineup Identification Accuracy, United States and United Kingdom, 2019-2023 (ICPSR 38947)
Released/updated on: 2024-07-15
Geographic coverage: United States, United Kingdom
Time period: 2019-01-01--2023-01-01
Eyewitness lineup identification accuracy is affected by numerous variables, including those that are under the control of the legal system, called system variables (e.g., pre-lineup instructions), and those that are not under the control of the legal system, called estimator variables (e.g., the race of the perpetrator). One of the ultimate goals of eyewitness researchers is to develop procedures that:
- minimize false identifications caused by system and estimator variables (while minimizing any decrease in correct identifications), and
- require few resources for law enforcement to enact.
The project tested the effectiveness of a system variable--providing witnesses with an explicit 'not sure' instruction before viewing the lineup-- that potentially meets both of these criteria. Furthermore, a 'not sure' instruction may act as a prophylactic against the harmful effects of system and estimator variables known to inflate false identifications. The specific objective of the research was to test the effectiveness of this 'not sure' instruction.