Search Results

This special topic poll sought respondents' views on O.J. Simpson, especially his comments during a recent interview with Esquire magazine, in which Simpson was quoted as saying, "Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would have been because I loved her very much, right?" Respondents were asked whether they believed that Simpson killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, whether Simpson should be removed from the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and whether news shows should have him as an interview guest. The results of the poll were announced on the ESPN sports network. Background information on respondents includes age, sex, race, and ethnicity.

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. To assess the current practices in cold-case investigations, this study utilized a national online survey of law enforcement agencies (Cold Case Survey Data, n = 1,051) to document the range of ways in which cold-case work is conducted and assess how this organization affects cold-case clearance rates. In November 2008, the chiefs of police in the sample were sent a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and inviting them to participate. Potential respondents were directed to the web-based survey instrument through a provided web address. The results from the national survey were used to select sites for an analysis of case files. Researchers chose three jurisdictions that conducted a large number of cold-case homicide investigations: the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Maryland, and Dallas, Texas (Cold Case Homicide Data, n = 429). To these three sites, researchers added Denver, Colorado (Cold Case Sexual Assault Data, n = 105) because it had received a Department of Justice grant to conduct testing of DNA material in sexual assault cold cases. At all four sites, cold cases were examined for seven categories of data including victim's characteristics, crime context, motivation, human capital, physical evidence, basis for cold-case investigations and cold-case actions.

This study followed the outcomes of the Bridge of Faith program. Bridge of Faith is an expansion project based on efforts of the Aim4Peace Violence Prevention Program, serving youth 13-24 years of age living in a prioritized area of Kansas City, Missouri. Bridge of Faith created goals and objectives that strategically address a continuum from response to violence exposure, intervention for violence survivors, and preventing of violence exposure. Activities were designed to target a reduction in risk factors and improvement in resiliency factors associated with the use of violence, as well as improve access to care and quality of services for those who are survivors of violence to reduce the probability of violence and exposure to others in the future. The overall purpose was to improve the health, social, and economic outcomes for youth and families who have been exposed to trauma and/or violence and prevent further violence from occurring. The project will facilitate these outcomes in specific goals and objectives to expand access to evidence-based programs and services for youth survivors through a new platform for collaborating agencies to link survivors of violence to additional wrap around services, and enhance the performance of service agencies through training, strengthening knowledge and skill development to ensure quality, trauma-informed, and culturally competent care. This study on the Bridge of Faith Project was split into two datasets, Participant Survey Data and Police Data. Individuals were the unit of analysis measured in the Participant Survey Data, and criminal acts were the unit of analysis measured in the Police Data. Participant Survey Data contains 22 variables and 12 cases. Police Data contains 26 variables and 9 cases.

This data collection resulted from the project "Linked Homicide File for 1990-1999," which was conducted by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS), Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Control Branch, for the purpose of studying homicide and providing evidence for the development of strategies to reduce homicide in California. The researchers combined the strengths of law enforcement reporting and medical reporting in one dataset. The homicide data contain information on victims and circumstances of the 34,542 homicides investigated by law enforcement agencies in California for the period 1990 to 1999. The data are Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), which are received monthly by the Department of Justice from all local California law enforcement agencies as part of the national Uniform Crime Reporting program (UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS [UNITED STATES]: SUPPLEMENTARY HOMICIDE REPORTS, 1976-1999 [ICPSR 3180]). The researchers linked the SHRs to the CDHS vital statistics mortality data, which contain the death records provided by the medical examiner or coroner of each county after investigation of the death. Variables include total number of offenders involved, weapon used in the homicide, county of the victim's residence, location and date of the incident, date of death, cause of death, date of arrest for the suspect, and whether supplemental homicide report matched the death record. Demographic data include age, sex, and race of the victim and the suspect, relationships between the suspect and the victim, and the victim's marital status.

This study sought to assess changes in the volume and types of homicide committed in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis from 1980 to 1994 and to document the nature of those changes. Three of the eight cities originally studied by Margaret Zahn and Marc Riedel (NATURE AND PATTERNS OF HOMICIDE IN EIGHT AMERICAN CITIES, 1978 [ICPSR 8936]) were revisited for this data collection. In each city, police records were coded for each case of homicide occurring in the city each year from 1980 to 1994. Homicide data for St. Louis were provided by the St. Louis Homicide Project with Scott Decker and Richard Rosenfeld as the principal investigators. Variables describing the event cover study site, year of the case, date and time of assault, location of fatal injury, method used to kill the victim, and circumstances surrounding the death. Variables pertaining to offenders include total number of homicide and assault victims, number of offenders arrested, number of offenders identified, and disposition of event for offenders. Variables on victims focus on whether the victim was killed at work, if the victim was using drugs or alcohol, the victim's blood alcohol level, and the relationship of the victim to the offender. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status of victims and offenders.

This study focused on the effect of economic resources and racial/ethnic composition on the change in crime rates from 1970-2004 in United States cities in metropolitan areas that experienced a large growth in population after World War II. A total of 352 cities in the following United States metropolitan areas were selected for this study: Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, Orange County, Orlando, Phoenix, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Silicon Valley (Santa Clara), and Tampa/St. Petersburg. Selection was based on the fact that these areas developed during a similar time period and followed comparable development trajectories. In particular, these 14 areas, known as the "boomburbs" for their dramatic, post-World War II population growth, all faced issues relating to the rapid growth of tract-style housing and the subsequent development of low density, urban sprawls. The study combined place-level data obtained from the United States Census with crime data from the Uniform Crime Reports for five categories of Type I crimes: aggravated assaults, robberies, murders, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts. The dataset contains a total of 247 variables pertaining to crime, economic resources, and race/ethnic composition.

This data collection examines the ways in which victim harm affects decisions regarding arrest, prosecution, and sentencing, and the impact of these decisions on the victim's perception of the criminal justice system. Five types of offenses were studied: homicide, sexual assault, burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault. The victim file contains information on personal characteristics, results of victimization, involvement in case processing, use of victim assistance service, satisfaction with case outcomes, and opinions about the court system. The police file and the prosecutor file variables cover personal background, screening decisions on scenario cases, communication with victims, and opinions about the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The prosecutor file also includes sentencing recommendations on the scenarios. Data in the judge file cover personal background, sentencing recommendations on the scenario cases, communications with victims, sources of information regarding victim harm, and opinions about the role of victims in the criminal justice system.

The Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) program is an annual national census of persons who die either during the process of arrest or while in the custody of state or local law enforcement personnel. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) implemented the ARD program in 2003 as part of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The DCRP was initiated to fulfill the data collection requirement of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (DICRA, P.L. 106- 247). It collects in-depth information on deaths during arrest and incarceration, and it provides national-level information on the deaths of suspects and offenders from their initial contact with law enforcement personnel through the time they are incarcerated in a jail or prison. ARD data are collected to quantify and describe the circumstances surrounding civilian deaths that take place during an arrest or while in the custody of law enforcement. These data describe the prevalence and incidence of arrest-related deaths across the nation, identify the circumstances or activities that contribute to these deaths, and reveal trends in the causes and circumstances of these deaths in custody at national and state levels. These data can be used to inform specific policies that may increase the safety of law enforcement officers and citizens, identify training needs in law enforcement agencies, and assist in developing prevention strategies. The current ARD program relies on state reporting coordinators (SRCs) in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia to identify and report on all eligible cases of arrest-related deaths. BJS compiles data from the states to produce national-level statistics on deaths that occur in the process of arrest by, or while in the custody of, state and local law enforcement personnel.

The Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP) is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The DCRP began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. The DCRP collects data on persons dying in state prisons, local jails and in the process of arrest. Each collection is a separate subcollection, but each is under the umbrella of the DCRP collection. This deals with the local jails subcollection, which has a local jail facilities death file. The jails portion of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program began in 2000 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The jails component of the DCRP collects data on inmate deaths occurring in local jail facilities while inmates are in the physical custody of jail facility officials.

The Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP) is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The DCRP began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. The DCRP collects data on persons dying in state prisons, local jails and in the process of arrest. Each collection is a separate subcollection, but each is under the umbrella of the DCRP collection. This deals with the prison subcollection, which has a prison death file. The prison portion of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program began in 2001 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The prison component of the DCRP collects data on inmate deaths occurring in the 50 state departments of corrections while inmates are in the physical custody of prison officials.

The Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP) is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The DCRP began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. The DCRP collects data on persons dying in state prisons, local jails and in the process of arrest. Each collection is a separate subcollection, but each is under the umbrella of the DCRP collection. This deals with the prison subcollection, which has a prison death file. The prison portion of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program began in 2001 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The prison component of the DCRP collects data on inmate deaths occurring in the 50 state departments of corrections while inmates are in the physical custody of prison officials.

The Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP) is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The DCRP began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. The DCRP collects data on persons dying in state prisons, local jails and in the process of arrest. Each collection is a separate subcollection, but each is under the umbrella of the DCRP collection. This deals with the prison subcollection, which has a prison death file. The prison portion of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program began in 2001 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The prison component of the DCRP collects data on inmate deaths occurring in the 50 state departments of corrections while inmates are in the physical custody of prison officials.

The purpose of the study was to examine homicide trends in Chicago neighborhoods from 1980-2000 using HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO, 1965-1995 (ICPSR 6399), 1980-2000 Census data, and PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS: COMMUNITY SURVEY, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2766). Drawing on the social disorganization and concentrated disadvantage literature, this study used growth-curve modeling and semi-parametric group-based trajectory modeling to: (1) assess neighborhood variation in homicide trends; (2) identify the particular types of homicide trajectory that Chicago neighborhoods follow; (3) assess whether structural characteristics of neighborhoods influence homicide trends and trajectories; and (4) determine the extent to which the influence of structural characteristics is mediated by neighborhood levels of collective efficacy. This project extended prior research by not only describing the homicide trends and trajectories of Chicago neighborhoods, but also identifying the neighborhood characteristics that directly and indirectly influence those trends.

This data collection was designed to assess the effects of the New York Juvenile Offender Law on the rate of violent crime committed by juveniles. The data were collected to estimate the deterrent effects of the law and to permit the use of an interrupted time-series model to gauge the effects of intervention. The deterrent effects of the law are assessed on five types of violent offenses over a post-intervention period of 75 months using two comparison time series to control for temporal and geographical characteristics. One time series pertains to the monthly juvenile arrests of 16- to 19-year-olds in New York City, and the other covers monthly arrests of juveniles aged 13 to 15 years in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the control jurisdiction. Included in the collection are variables concerning the monthly rates of violent juvenile arrests for homicide, rape, assault, arson, and robbery for the two juvenile cohorts. These time series data were compiled from records of individual police jurisdictions that reported monthly arrests to the Uniform Crime Reporting Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This study was designed to develop crime forecasting as an application area for police in support of tactical deployment of resources. Data on crime offense reports and computer aided dispatch (CAD) drug calls and shots fired calls were collected from the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Bureau of Police for the years 1990 through 2001. Data on crime offense reports were collected from the Rochester, New York Police Department from January 1991 through December 2001. The Rochester CAD drug calls and shots fired calls were collected from January 1993 through May 2001. A total of 1,643,828 records (769,293 crime offense and 874,535 CAD) were collected from Pittsburgh, while 538,893 records (530,050 crime offense and 8,843 CAD) were collected from Rochester. ArcView 3.3 and GDT Dynamap 2000 Street centerline maps were used to address match the data, with some of the Pittsburgh data being cleaned to fix obvious errors and increase address match percentages. A SAS program was used to eliminate duplicate CAD calls based on time and location of the calls. For the 1990 through 1999 Pittsburgh crime offense data, the address match rate was 91 percent. The match rate for the 2000 through 2001 Pittsburgh crime offense data was 72 percent. The Pittsburgh CAD data address match rate for 1990 through 1999 was 85 percent, while for 2000 through 2001 the match rate was 100 percent because the new CAD system supplied incident coordinates. The address match rates for the Rochester crime offenses data was 96 percent, and 95 percent for the CAD data. Spatial overlay in ArcView was used to add geographic area identifiers for each data point: precinct, car beat, car beat plus, and 1990 Census tract. The crimes included for both Pittsburgh and Rochester were aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal mischief, misconduct, family violence, gambling, larceny, liquor law violations, motor vehicle theft, murder/manslaughter, prostitution, public drunkenness, rape, robbery, simple assaults, trespassing, vandalism, weapons, CAD drugs, and CAD shots fired.

This study measured the difference that defense counsel made to the outcome of homicide and death penalty cases. One in five indigent murder defendants in Philadelphia were randomly assigned representation by the Defender Association of Philadelphia while the remainder received court-appointed private attorneys. This study's research design utilized this random assignment to measure how defense counsel affected murder case outcomes. The research team collected data on 3,157 defendants charged with murder in Philadelphia Municipal Court between 1995-2004, using records provided by the Philadelphia Courts (First Judicial District of Pennsylvania). Data were also obtained from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System web portal, the National Corrections Reporting Program, and the 2000 Census. This study contains a total of 47 variables including public defender representation, defendant demographics, ZIP code characteristics, prior criminal history, case characteristics, case outcomes, and case handling procedures.

These data assess the effects of the risk of local jail incarceration and of police aggressiveness in patrol style on rates of violent offending. The collection includes arrest rates for public order offenses, size of county jail populations, and numbers of new prison admissions as they relate to arrest rates for index (serious) crimes. Data were collected from seven sources for each city. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 1A (ICPSR 7941), provided county-level data on number of persons by race, age, and age by race, number of persons in households, and types of households within each county. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3A (ICPSR 8071), measured at the city level, provided data on total population, race, age, marital status by sex, persons in household, number of households, housing, children, and families above and below the poverty level by race, employment by race, and income by race within each city. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1980 data provided variables on total offenses and offense rates per 100,000 persons for homicides, rapes, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle offenses, and arson. Data from the FBI for 1980-1982, averaged per 100,000, provided variables for the above offenses by sex, age, and race, and the Uniform Crime Report arrest rates for index crimes within each city. The NATIONAL JAIL CENSUS for 1978 and 1983 (ICPSR 7737 and ICPSR 8203), aggregated to the county level, provided variables on jail capacity, number of inmates being held by sex, race, and status of inmate's case (awaiting trial, awaiting sentence, serving sentence, and technical violations), average daily jail populations, number of staff by full-time and part-time, number of volunteers, and number of correctional officers. The JUVENILE DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CENSUS for 1979 and 1982-1983 (ICPSR 7846 and 8205), aggregated to the county level, provided data on the number of individuals being held by type of crime and sex, as well as age of juvenile offenders by sex, average daily prison population, and payroll and other expenditures for the institutions.

This data collection explores the relationship between homicide and ethnicity in California during 1850-1900. The data are presented in three files. Part 1, Homicide, includes information on time, place, location, and cause of the crime for all murder cases in seven California counties. The relationship between the victim and the accused, and the race, sex, age, and occupation of each are also provided. Part 2, Indictment, includes information on criminal charge, plea, verdict, and sentence for all murder trials in the same seven counties during the time period. Part 3 provides information on all prisoners incarcerated in California for murder. Included are age, sex, ethnicity, place of birth, and occupation of each prisoner, as well as sentence, disposition of case, years served, and year in which the prisoner was released.

This study evaluated CeaseFire, a program of the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention. The evaluation had both outcome and process components. The outcome evaluation assessed the program's impact on shootings and killings in selected CeaseFire sites. Two types of crime data were compiled by the research team: Time Series Data (Dataset 1) and Shooting Incident Data (Dataset 2). Dataset 1 is comprised of aggregate month/year data on all shooting, gun murder, and persons shot incidents reported to Chicago police for CeaseFire's target beats and matched sets of comparison beats between January 1991 and December 2006, resulting in 1,332 observations. Dataset 2 consists of data on 4,828 shootings that were reported in CeaseFire's targeted police beats and in a matched set of comparison beats for two-year periods before and after the implementation of the program (February 1998 to April 2006). The process evaluation involved assessing the program's operations and effectiveness. Researchers surveyed three groups of CeaseFire program stakeholders: employees, representatives of collaborating organizations, and clients. The three sets of employee survey data examine such topics as their level of involvement with clients and CeaseFire activities, their assessments of their clients' problems, and their satisfaction with training and management practices. A total of 154 employees were surveyed: 23 outreach supervisors (Dataset 3), 78 outreach workers (Dataset 4), and 53 violence interrupters (Dataset 5). The six sets of collaborating organization representatives data examine such topics as their level of familiarity and contact with the CeaseFire program, their opinions of CeaseFire clients, and their assessments of the costs and benefits of being involved with CeaseFire. A total of 230 representatives were surveyed: 20 business representatives (Dataset 6), 45 clergy representatives (Dataset 7), 26 community representatives (Dataset 8), 35 police representatives (Dataset 9), 36 school representatives (Dataset 10), and 68 service organization representatives (Dataset 11). The Client Survey Data (Dataset 12) examine such topics as clients' involvement in the CeaseFire program, their satisfaction with aspects of life, and their opinions regarding the role of guns in neighborhood life. A total of 297 clients were interviewed.

The purpose of the study was to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the Homicide Clearance Project in the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. The primary objective of the Homicide Clearance Project was to improve homicide clearance rates by increasing investigative time through the transfer of four crime scene specialists to the homicide unit. In 2004, the Phoenix Police Department received a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance providing support for the assignment of four crime scene specialists directly to the department's Homicide Unit. Responsibilities of the crime scene specialists were to collect evidence at homicide scenes, prepare scene reports, develop scene diagrams, and other supportive activities. Prior to the project, homicide investigators were responsible for evidence collection, which reduced the time they could devote to investigations. The crime scene specialists were assigned to two of the four investigative squads within the homicide unit. This organizational arrangement provided for a performance evaluation of the squads with crime scene specialists (experimental squads) against the performance of the other squads (comparison squads). During the course of the evaluation, research staff coded information from all homicides that occurred during the 12-month period prior to the transfers (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004), referred to as the baseline period, the 2-month training period (July 1, 2004 - August 31, 2004), and a 10-month test period (September 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005). Data were collected on 404 homicide cases (Part 1), 532 homicide victims and survivors (Part 2), and 3,338 records of evidence collected at homicide scenes (Part 3). The two primary sources of information for the evaluation were investigative reports from the department's records management system, called the Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE) system, and crime laboratory reports from the crime laboratory's Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 each contain variables that measure squad type, time period, and whether six general categories of evidence were collected. Part 1 contains a total of 18 variables including number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, number of crime scene specialists at the scene, number of investigators collecting evidence at the scene, total number of evidence collectors, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, and whether the case was open or closed by arrest. Part 2 contains a total of 37 variables including victim characteristics and motives. Other variables in Part 2 include an instrumental/expressive homicide indicator, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, whether the case was open or closed by arrest, number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, and investigative time to closure. Part 3 contains a total of 46 variables including primary/secondary scene indicator, scene type, number of pieces of evidence, total time at the scene, and number of photos taken. Part 3 also includes variables that measure whether 16 specific types of evidence were found and the number of items of evidence that were collected for 13 specific evidence types.

This study examined spatial and temporal features of crime guns in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in order to ascertain how gun availability affected criminal behavior among youth, whether the effects differed between young adults and juveniles, and whether that relationship changed over time. Rather than investigating the general prevalence of guns, this study focused only on those firearms used in the commission of crimes. Crime guns were defined specifically as those used in murders, assaults, robberies, weapons offenses, and drug offenses. The emphasis of the project was on the attributes of crime guns and those who possess them, the geographic sources of those guns, the distribution of crime guns over neighborhoods in a city, and the relationship between the prevalence of crime guns and the incidence of homicide. Data for Part 1, Traced Guns Data, came from the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. Gun trace data provided a detailed view of crime guns recovered by police during a two-year period, from 1995 to 1997. These data identified the original source of each crime gun (first sale to a non-FFL, i.e., a person not holding a Federal Firearms License) as well as attributes of the gun and the person possessing the gun at the time of the precipitating crime, and the ZIP-code location where the gun was recovered. For Part 2, Crime Laboratory Data, data were gathered from the local county crime laboratory on guns submitted by Pittsburgh police for forensic testing. These data were from 1993 to 1998 and provided a longer time series for examining changes in crime guns over time than the data in Part 1. In Parts 3 and 4, Stolen Guns by ZIP-Code Data and Stolen Guns by Census Tract Data, data on stolen guns came from the local police. These data included the attributes of the guns and residential neighborhoods of owners. Part 3 contains data from 1987 to 1996 organized by ZIP code, whereas Part 4 contains data from 1993 to 1996 organized by census tract. Part 5, Shots Fired Data, contains the final indicator of crime gun prevalence for this study, which was 911 calls of incidents involving shots fired. These data provided vital information on both the geographic location and timing of these incidents. Shots-fired incidents not only captured varying levels of access to crime guns, but also variations in the willingness to actually use crime guns in a criminal manner. Part 6, Homicide Data, contains homicide data for the city of Pittsburgh from 1990 to 1995. These data were used to examine the relationship between varying levels of crime gun prevalence and levels of homicide, especially youth homicide, in the same city. Part 7, Pilot Mapping Application, is a pilot application illustrating the potential uses of mapping tools in police investigations of crime guns traced back to original point of sale. NTC. It consists of two ArcView 3.1 project files and 90 supporting data and mapping files. Variables in Part 1 include date of manufacture and sale of the crime gun, weapon type, gun model, caliber, firing mechanism, dealer location (ZIP code and state), recovery date and location (ZIP code and state), age and state of residence of purchaser and possessor, and possessor role. Part 2 also contains gun type and model, as well as gun make, precipitating offense, police zone submitting the gun, and year the gun was submitted to the crime lab. Variables in Parts 3 and 4 include month and year the gun was stolen, gun type, make, and caliber, and owner ,residence. Residence locations are limited to owner ZIP code in Part 3, and 1990 Census tract number and neighborhood name in Part 4. Part 5 contains the date, time, census tract and police zone of 911 calls relating to shots fired. Part 6 contains the date and census tract of the homicide incident, drug involvement, gang involvement, weapon, and victim and offender ages. Data in Part 7 include state, county, and ZIP code of traced guns, population figures, and counts of crime guns recovered at various geographic locations (states, counties, and ZIP codes) where the traced guns first originated in sales by an FFL to a non-FFL individual. Data for individual guns are not provided in Part 7.

As a contribution to nationwide efforts to more thoroughly understand urban violence, this study was conducted to assess the impact of cultural dynamics on homicide rates in Houston, Texas, and to profile homicides in the city from 1985 to 1994. This data collection provides the results of quantitative analysis of data collected from all Houston homicide cases recorded in the police murder logs for 1985-1994. Variables describe the homicide circumstances, the victim-offender relationship, the type of weapon used, and any drug- or gang-related activity involved. Other variables include the year and month in which the homicide occurred, whether the homicide occurred on a weekday or over the weekend, the motive of the homicide, whether the homicide was drug-related, whether the case was cleared by police at time of data entry, weapon type and means of killing, the relationship between the victim and the offender, whether a firearm was the homicide method, whether it was a multiple victim incident or multiple offender incident, whether the victim or the offender was younger than age 15, and the inter-racial relationship between the victim and the offender. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of the victim as well as the offender.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (DICRA) requires the head of each federal law enforcement agency to submit to the U.S. attorney general, information about the death of any person who is detained, under arrest, or in the process of being arrested by a federal law enforcement officer (or by a state or local law enforcement officer while participating in a federal law enforcement operation, task force, or other capacity) being transported to, incarcerated at, or detained at any facility (including immigration or juvenile facilities) pursuant to a contract with a federal law enforcement agency, state or local government facility used by a federal law enforcement agency, or federal correctional or pre-trial detention facility located within the United States (Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013, P.L. 113-242). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) created the Federal Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (FDCRP) to collect the data required of federal law enforcement agencies. Federal law enforcement agencies are surveyed on an annual basis about deaths that fall under the scope of DICRA. This data collection includes the 2016 Arrest-Related Death Incident Report (CJ-13A) data and the 2016 Detention/Incarceration Incident Report (CJ-13B) data.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (DICRA) requires the head of each federal law enforcement agency to submit to the U.S. attorney general, information about the death of any person who is detained, under arrest, or in the process of being arrested by a federal law enforcement officer (or by a state or local law enforcement officer while participating in a federal law enforcement operation, task force, or other capacity) being transported to, incarcerated at, or detained at any facility (including immigration or juvenile facilities) pursuant to a contract with a federal law enforcement agency, state or local government facility used by a federal law enforcement agency, or federal correctional or pre-trial detention facility located within the United States (Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013, P.L. 113-242). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) created the Federal Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (FDCRP) to collect the data required of federal law enforcement agencies. Federal law enforcement agencies are surveyed on an annual basis about deaths that fall under the scope of DICRA. This data collection includes the 2017 Arrest-Related Death Incident Report (CJ-13A) data and the 2017 Detention/Incarceration Incident Report (CJ-13B) data.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (DICRA) requires the head of each federal law enforcement agency to submit to the U.S. attorney general, information about the death of any person who is detained, under arrest, or in the process of being arrested by a federal law enforcement officer (or by a state or local law enforcement officer while participating in a federal law enforcement operation, task force, or other capacity) being transported to, incarcerated at, or detained at any facility (including immigration or juvenile facilities) pursuant to a contract with a federal law enforcement agency, state or local government facility used by a federal law enforcement agency, or federal correctional or pre-trial detention facility located within the United States (Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013, P.L. 113-242). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) created the Federal Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (FDCRP) to collect the data required of federal law enforcement agencies. Federal law enforcement agencies are surveyed on an annual basis about deaths that fall under the scope of DICRA. This data collection includes the 2018-2019 Arrest-Related Death Incident Report (CJ-13A) data and the 2018-2019 Detention/Incarceration Incident Report (CJ-13B) data.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (DICRA) requires the head of each federal law enforcement agency to submit to the U.S. attorney general, information about the death of any person who is detained, under arrest, or in the process of being arrested by a federal law enforcement officer (or by a state or local law enforcement officer while participating in a federal law enforcement operation, task force, or other capacity) being transported to, incarcerated at, or detained at any facility (including immigration or juvenile facilities) pursuant to a contract with a federal law enforcement agency, state or local government facility used by a federal law enforcement agency, or federal correctional or pre-trial detention facility located within the United States (Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013, P.L. 113-242). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) created the Federal Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (FDCRP) to collect the data required of federal law enforcement agencies. Federal law enforcement agencies are surveyed on an annual basis about deaths that fall under the scope of DICRA. This data collection includes the 2020 Arrest-Related Death Incident Report (CJ-13A) data and the 2020 Detention/Incarceration Incident Report (CJ-13B) data.

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. The objective of this study was to determine how homicide investigators use evidence during the course of their investigations. Data on 294 homicide cases (315 victims) that occurred in Cleveland between 2008 and 2011 was collected from investigative reports, forensic analysis reports, prosecutors and homicide investigators, provided by the Cleveland Ohio Police Department, Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office, and Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts. The study collection includes 1 Stata data file (NIJ_Cleveland_Homicides.dta, n=294, 109 variables).

This research involved the exploration of how the geographies of different crimes intersect with the geographies of social, economic, and demographic characteristics in Nashville, Tennessee, Portland, Oregon, and Tucson, Arizona. Violent crime data were collected from all three cities for the years 1998 through 2002. The data were geo-coded and then aggregated to block groups and census tracts. The data include variables on 28 different crimes, numerous demographic variables taken from the 2000 Census, and several land use variables.

The Home Safety Project was a population-based case control study of homicide in the home with control households matched to cases by victim age range, race, gender, and neighborhood (a proxy for socioeconomic status). The study was conducted in the following locations: Shelby County, Tennessee (August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992), King County, Washington (August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992), and Cuyahoga County, Ohio (January 1, 1990-August 23, 1992). The purpose of the data collection was to study risk and protective factors for homicide in the home and to identify individual and household factors associated with homicide (both behavioral and environmental). Respondents were asked a series of questions related to alcohol consumption, such as whether drinking ever created problems between household members, whether any household members had had trouble at work because of drinking, whether any physical fights or other violence had occurred in the home or outside the home due to drinking, and whether any injuries or hospital stays had resulted from drinking/fighting episodes. Additional queries covered whether any adult in the household had ever been arrested for any reason, whether anyone in the household used illicit drugs, and, if so, which ones. Questions on home safety features included whether the home had a burglar alarm, bars on the windows, exterior door deadbolt, security door, dogs, and any restricted access to the residence. Items on gun ownership covered whether there were any guns in the home and, if so, what type. Information also was elicited on the homicide that had taken place in the home, including whether the suspect was intimate with the victim, whether there was evidence of forced entry or entry without consent, whether the victim attempted to resist, and the respondent's assumption of the method of death as well as the medical examiner's determination. Demographic information includes victims' age, sex, and race, and respondents' age and sex. The unit of analysis is individual cases of homicide.

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.

These datasets contain information on every homicide in the murder analysis files of the Chicago Police Department for the years 1965-1995. For the victim-level file, Part 1, data are provided on the relationship of victim to offender, whether the victim or offender had previously committed a violent or nonviolent offense, time of occurrence and place of homicide, type of weapon used, cause and motivation for the incident, whether the incident involved drugs, alcohol, gangs, child abuse, or a domestic relationship, if or how the offender was identified, and information on the death of the offender(s). Demographic variables such as the age, sex, and race of each victim and offender are also provided. The victim-level file contains one record for each victim. Information for up to five offenders is included on each victim record. The same offender information is duplicated depending on the number of victims. For example, if a sole offender is responsible for five victims, the file contains five victim records with the offender's information repeated on each record. Part 2, Offender-Level Data, is provided to allow the creation of offender rates and risk analysis that could not be accurately prepared using the victim-level file due to the repeating of the offender information on each victim record. Offender variables were reorganized during the creation of the offender file so that each known offender is associated with a single record. A majority of the variables in the offender-level file are replicas of variables in the victim-level file. The offender records contain demographic information about the offender, demographic and relationship information about the offender's first victim (or sole victim if there was only one), and information about the homicide incident. Information pertaining to the homicide incident such as location, weapon, or drug use are the same as in the victim-level file. In cases where the offender data were completely missing in the victim-level data, no offender records were generated in the offender-level file. The offender-level data do not contain information about the victims in these cases. Geographic variables in both files include the census tract, community area, police district, and police area.

There has been little research on United States homicide rates from a long-term perspective, primarily because there has been no consistent data series on a particular place preceding the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which began its first full year in 1931. To fill this research gap, this project created a data series on homicides per capita for New York City that spans two centuries. The goal was to create a site-specific, individual-based data series that could be used to examine major social shifts related to homicide, such as mass immigration, urban growth, war, demographic changes, and changes in laws. Data were also gathered on various other sites, particularly in England, to allow for comparisons on important issues, such as the post-World War II wave of violence. The basic approach to the data collection was to obtain the best possible estimate of annual counts and the most complete information on individual homicides. The annual count data (Parts 1 and 3) were derived from multiple sources, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports and Supplementary Homicide Reports, as well as other official counts from the New York City Police Department and the City Inspector in the early 19th century. The data include a combined count of murder and manslaughter because charge bargaining often blurs this legal distinction. The individual-level data (Part 2) were drawn from coroners' indictments held by the New York City Municipal Archives, and from daily newspapers. Duplication was avoided by keeping a record for each victim. The estimation technique known as "capture-recapture" was used to estimate homicides not listed in either source. Part 1 variables include counts of New York City homicides, arrests, and convictions, as well as the homicide rate, race or ethnicity and gender of victims, type of weapon used, and source of data. Part 2 includes the date of the murder, the age, sex, and race of the offender and victim, and whether the case led to an arrest, trial, conviction, execution, or pardon. Part 3 contains annual homicide counts and rates for various comparison sites including Liverpool, London, Kent, Canada, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco.

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 research was conducted in two phases. Phase one analyzed a random sample of approximately 2,000 case files from 2006 through 2009 that contain forensic analyses from the Connecticut State Forensic Science Laboratory, along with corresponding police and court case file data. As with Peterson, et al. (2010), this research had four objectives: 1) estimate the percentage of cases in which crime scene evidence is collected; 2) discover what kinds of forensic are being collected; 3)track such evidence through the criminal justice system; and 4)identify which forms of forensic evidence are most efficacious given the crime investigated. Phase two consisted of a survey administered to detectives within the State of Connecticut regarding their comparative assessments of the utility of forensic evidence. These surveys further advance our understanding of how the success of forensic evidence in achieving arrests and convictions matches with detective opinion.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the role and impact of forensic science evidence on the criminal justice process. The study utilized a prospective analysis of official record data that followed criminal cases in five jurisdictions (Los Angeles County, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; Evansville, Indiana; Fort Wayne, Indiana; and South Bend, Indiana) from the time of police incident report to final criminal disposition. The data were based on a random sample of the population of reported crime incidents between 2003 and 2006, stratified by crime type and jurisdiction. A total of 4,205 cases were sampled including 859 aggravated assaults, 1,263 burglaries, 400 homicides, 602 rapes, and 1,081 robberies. Descriptive and impact data were collected from three sources: police incident and investigation reports, crime lab reports, and prosecutor case files. The data contain a total of 175 variables including site, crime type, forensic variables, criminal offense variables, and crime dispositions variables.

This data collection contains information on solved murders occurring in Washington State between 1981 and 1986. The collection is a subset of data from the Homicide Investigation Tracking System (HITS), a computerized database maintained by the state of Washington that contains information on murders and sexual assault cases in that state. The data for HITS are provided voluntarily by police and sheriffs' departments covering 273 jurisdictions, medical examiners' and coroners' offices in 39 counties, prosecuting attorneys' offices in 39 counties, the Washington State Department of Vital Statistics, and the Uniform Crime Report Unit of the Washington State Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. Collected data include crime evidence, victimology, offender characteristics, geographic locations, weapons, and vehicles.

This data set explored the effect of imprisonment on violent crime rates prior to 1991. Previous research focused exclusively on rates of imprisonment, rather than using a measure that combines institutionalization in both prisons and mental hospitals. Using state-level panel-data regressions over the 68-year period from 1934 to 2001 and controlling for economic conditions, youth population rates, criminal justice enforcement, and demographic factors, this study found a large, robust, and statistically significant relationship between aggregated institutionalization (in mental hospitals and prisons) and homicide rates. This finding provided strong evidence of what should now be called an institutionalization effect -- rather than an imprisonment or incapacitation effect. Demographic information collected include national unemployment rates and institutional race and age composition.

The research team collected data on homicide, robbery, and assault offending from 1984-2006 for youth 13 to 24 years of age in 91 of the 100 largest cities in the United States (based on the 1980 Census) from various existing data sources. Data on youth homicide perpetration were acquired from the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and data on nonlethal youth violence (robbery and assault) were obtained from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Annual homicide, robbery, and assault arrest rates per 100,000 age-specific populations (i.e., 13 to 17 and 18 to 24 year olds) were calculated by year for each city in the study. Data on city characteristics were derived from several sources including the County and City Data Books, SHR, and the Vital Statistics Multiple Cause of Death File. The research team constructed a dataset representing lethal and nonlethal offending at the city level for 91 cities over the 23-year period from 1984 to 2006, resulting in 2,093 city year observations.

There has been little research on United States homicide rates from a long-term perspective, primarily because there has been no consistent data series on a particular place preceding the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which began its first full year in 1931. To fill this research gap, this project created a data series that spans two centuries on homicides per capita for the city of Los Angeles. The goal was to create a site-specific, individual-based data series that could be used to examine major social shifts related to homicide, such as mass immigration, urban growth, war, demographic changes, and changes in laws. The basic approach to the data collection was to obtain the best possible estimate of annual counts and the most complete information on individual homicides. Data were derived from multiple sources, including Los Angeles court records, as well as annual reports of the coroner and daily newspapers. Part 1 (Annual Homicides and Related Data) variables include Los Angeles County annual counts of homicides, counts of female victims, method of killing such as drowning, suffocating, or strangling, and the homicide rate. Part 2 (Individual Homicide Data) variables include the date and place of the murder, the age, sex, race, and place of birth of the offender and victim, type of weapon used, and source of data.

The Mortality in Correctional Institutions series (MCI), formerly Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP), is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The MCI began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. The local jail portion began in 2000 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The jails component of MCI collects data on inmate deaths occurring in local jail facilities while inmates are in the physical custody of jail facility officials.

The Mortality in Correctional Institutions series (MCI), formerly Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP), is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The MCI began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. The local jail portion began in 2000 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The jails component of MCI collects data on inmate deaths occurring in local jail facilities while inmates are in the physical custody of jail facility officials.

Mortality in Correctional Institutions (MCI) (formerly, the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP)), is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The MCI collection began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. MCI collects data on persons dying in state prisons, local jails and in the process of arrest. Each collection is a separate subcollection, but each is under the umbrella of the MCI collection. This deals with the prison subcollection, which has a prison death file. The prison portion of Mortality in Correctional Institutions began in 2001 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The prison component of MCI collects data on inmate deaths occurring in the 50 state departments of corrections while inmates are in the physical custody of prison officials.

Mortality in Correctional Institutions (MCI) (formerly, the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP)), is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The MCI collection began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. MCI collects data on persons dying in state prisons, local jails and in the process of arrest. Each collection is a separate subcollection, but each is under the umbrella of the MCI collection. This deals with the prison subcollection, which has a prison death file. The prison portion of Mortality in Correctional Institutions began in 2001 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The prison component of MCI collects data on inmate deaths occurring in the 50 state departments of corrections while inmates are in the physical custody of prison officials.

This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes the sentences these individuals received. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. Sociodemographic information includes age, race, and sex of felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed on a national level or by the individual counties.

This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes the sentences these individuals received. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed on a national level or by the individual counties.

This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by the individual counties.

This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by the individual counties.

This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.

This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 344 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.

This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 344 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.

This data collection provides detailed information on the sentences and characteristics of convicted felons based on data collected from state courts. The 2000 survey was based on a sample of 344 counties selected to be nationally representative. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.