Showing 1 – 3 of 3 results.
Curated
Detroit Area Study, 1967: Citizens in Search of Justice (ICPSR 7406)
Released/updated on: 2006-12-13
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Michigan
This study of 780 adults in the Detroit metropolitan area provides information on their experiences with conflict situations and the ways in which they resolved them. Respondents' reactions to some actual events were probed, including problems involving neighbors, landlords, and government agencies, as well as situations of discrimination, and failure to receive entitlements due from insurance companies and government agencies. For each problematic area, respondents were asked to indicate how the conflict was resolved. Also explored were respondents' perceptions of and interactions with lawyers and their views on what could be done if an unfair law or decision were passed. Additional items probed respondents' views of Detroit, their neighborhood, the legal system, and the police. Demographic variables specify age, race, gender, education, marital status, place of birth, nationality, occupation, number of children, religion, home ownership, family income, and length of residence in the Detroit area.
Curated
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
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.