This study collection sought to thoroughly understand the creation, testing, and use of forensic science in five jurisdictions across the country. A random sample was selected of recent criminal cases in the following jurisdictions and tracked from investigation to adjudication to understand how forensic evidence functions: Sacramento County, CA: 990 cases Segwick County, KS: 936 cases Allegheny County, PA: 978 cases Bexar County (San Antonio), TX: 936 cases King County, WA: 892 cases The Principal Investigator sought answers to the following seven primary research questions: How often is forensic evidence collected and analyzed and how is it used pre-arrest? What are the outcomes of forensic evidence testing? What is the effect of forensic evidence on arrest and charging? How does forensic evidence affect the plea-bargaining process? What effect does forensic evidence have on conviction and sentencing outcomes? Does the turnaround time for analysis of forensic evidence have any impact on case disposition? Does the institutional configuration of the crime laboratory have any effect on its productivity? Data for the following types of forensic testing are included in this data collection: hair, fibers, glass, paint, gas chromatography / mass spectrometry (GC/MS), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy / energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX), physical match, drug identification, toxicology, serology, combined DNA index system (CODIS), DNA short tandem repeat (Y-STR), blood pattern, test fire, and comparison scope.

This data collection focuses on adult cases of serious crime such as homicide (and related death investigations), rape, robbery, aggravated assault/battery, burglary, and arson. Data are included for Peoria, Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, Kansas City, Missouri, and Oakland, California. The data consist of police, court, and laboratory records from reports submitted by police personnel during investigations of suspected criminal offenses. The primary source of information was police case files. Prosecutor and court files were reviewed for information regarding the disposition of suspects who were arrested and formally charged. Crime laboratory reports include information concerning the evidence submitted and the examiner's worksheets, notes, and final results. There are eight files in this dataset. Each of the four cities has one file for cases with physical evidence and one file for cases in which physical evidence was not collected or examined.

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 purposes of this study are to describe sentencing outcomes in felony courts for selected serious offenses--homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and drug trafficking--and to establish a statistical series on sentencing outcomes in felony courts throughout the United States. The jurisdictions consist of cities and counties with an average population of 1.1 million. Among the jurisdictions, the sentencing schemes available varied, with both determinate and indeterminate sentencing practices in operation. The study distinguishes between core informational items such as criminal charges, type of sentence imposed and terms of the prison sentence, and optional items such as characteristics of the offense and the defendant, and how the case was processed.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics This series 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 300 counties of the United States. The collection contains socio-demographic 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 included. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by the individual counties.Years Produced: Every 2 years

This survey of crime victims was undertaken to determine whether state constitutional amendments and other legal measures designed to protect crime victims' rights had been effective. It was designed to test the hypothesis that the strength of legal protection for victims' rights has a measurable impact on how victims are treated by the criminal justice system and on their perceptions of the system. A related hypothesis was that victims from states with strong legal protection would have more favorable experiences and greater satisfaction with the system than those from states where legal protection is weak. The Victim Survey (Parts 1, 4-7) collected information on when and where the crime occurred, characteristics of the perpetrators, use of force, police response, victim services, type of information given to the victim by the criminal justice system, the victim's level of participation in the criminal justice system, how the case ended, sentencing and restitution, the victim's satisfaction with the criminal justice system, and the effects of the crime on the victim. Demographic variables in the file include age, race, sex, education, employment, and income. In addition to the victim survey, criminal justice and victim assistance professionals at the state and local levels were surveyed because these professionals affect crime victims' ability to recover from and cope with the aftermath of the offense and the stress of participation in the criminal justice system. The Survey of State Officials (Parts 2 and 8) collected data on officials' opinions of the criminal justice system, level of funding for the agency, types of victims' rights provided by the state, how victims' rights provisions had changed the criminal justice system, advantages and disadvantages of such legislation, and recommendations for future legislation. The Survey of Local Officials (Parts 3 and 9) collected data on officials' opinions of the criminal justice system, level of funding, victims' rights to information about and participation in the criminal justice process, victim impact statements, and restitution.

Investigator(s): United Nations Office at Vienna, R.W. Burnham, Helen Burnham, Bruce DiCristina, and Graeme Newman The United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (formerly known as the United Nations World Crime Surveys) series was begun in 1978 and is comprised of five quinquennial surveys covering the years 1970-1975, 1975-1980, 1980-1986, 1986-1990, and 1990-1994. The project was supported by the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, and conducted under the auspices of the United Nations Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention Branch, United Nations Office in Vienna. Data gathered on crime prevention and criminal justice among member nations provide information for policy development and program planning. The main objectives of the survey include: to conduct a more focused inquiry into the incidence of crime worldwide, to improve knowledge about the incidence of reported crime in the global development perspective and also international understanding of effective ways to counteract crime, to improve the dissemination globally of the information collected, to facilitate an overview of trends and interrelationships among various parts of the criminal justice system so as to promote informed decision-making in its administration, nationally and cross-nationally, and to serve as an instrument for strengthening cooperation among member states by putting the review and analysis of national crime-related data in a broader context. The surveys also provide a valuable source of charting trends in crime and criminal justice over two decades.

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.

Emerging from the tradition of econometric models of deterrence and crime, this study attempts to improve estimates of how crime rates are affected by the apprehension and punishment of persons charged with criminal activity. These data are contained in two files: Part 1, State Data, consists of a panel of observations from each of the 50 states and contains information on crime rates, clearance rates, length of time served, probability of imprisonment, socioeconomic factors such as unemployment rates, population levels, and income levels, and state and local expenditures for police protection. Part 2, SMSA Data, consists of a panel of 77 SMSAs and contains information on crime rates, clearance rates, length of time served, probability of imprisonment, socioeconomic factors such as employment rates, population levels, and income levels, and taxation and expenditure information.

This data collection provides information on multiple prosecutions for individual offenders. The data are intended for use in the exploration and description of relationships among the various elements of the adjudication process (characteristics of the offender and offense and decisions made by various actors in the prosecution and sentencing of the offenders). The sampled incidents were drawn from two types of offenses: residential burglary and armed robbery. The collection includes only those incidents involving male offenders who were previously unknown to their victims and who were facing adjudication in adult court. The data collection instrument probed five areas for each offender and incident sampled: A. Related Incidents (information to identify all other incidents for which processing overlapped that of the sampled incident), B. Incident Description (information about the criminal incident itself, such as date and location of the incident, date of arrest, victims, weapons, accomplices, witnesses, and evidence), C. Adjudication Process (information such as bond amount, legal representation, adjudication events and outcomes, date of sentencing, and type and length of incarceration), D. Defendant (information about the defendant himself, including date of birth, race/descent, and employment status), and E. Prior Record (information about the defendant's record, such as his age at first arrest and first incarceration, the number of times he was incarcerated, and history of drug and/or alcohol abuse).