

下載本文檔
版權(quán)說明:本文檔由用戶提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權(quán),請進行舉報或認領(lǐng)
文檔簡介
1、,口WINSTONSALEMSTATEUNIVERSmr _Center * for:CommunitySafety:Zero Armed Perpetrators:An Examination and Analysis of Program DataLynn K. Harvey, Ph.D.Associate Professor of SociologyDepartme nt of Social Scien ces and Cen ter for Com mun ity SafetyWin sto n-Salem State Un iversitySeptember 2005The Cen
2、ter for Com mun ity Safety at Winston-Salem State Un iversity works in part nership with the Centerfor Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro as theProject Safe Neighborhoods Research Partner for ehUnited States AttorneysOffice, Middle District of
3、 North Caroli na. These efforts are supported by PSN fun di ng (Award#2002-GP-CX-0220) through the U.S. Departme nt of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. The opinions,findin gs, and con clusi ons or recomme ndati ons expressed in this docume nt are those of the author anddo not n ecessarily reflec
4、t the views of the Departme nt of Justice.2Zero Armed Perpetrators:An Examination and Analysis of Program DataBackgro undZero Armed Perpetrators (ZAP) is a program in itiated by the Forsyth County District Attor ney in July 2000to reduce gun viole nee in Win sto n-Salem and Forsyth Coun ty.The progr
5、am is designed to review all firearm cases that come to the attention of the DAs office, eve nthose in which a gun is not seized; a report of a threat to use a gun is sufficie nt to trigger a review. ZAPseeks to ide ntify the most dan gerous offen ders and develop prosecuti on strategies that can le
6、ad to theremoval of those in dividuals from the streets of the city and the coun ty.ZAP is coord in ated by an in dividual within the DAs office, with help from an assista nt. A meeti ng toreview all rece nt gun cases is held weekly. In vited to the meet ing are represe ntatives of state andfederal
7、prosecutors offices; city, coun ty, state and federal law en forceme nt age ncies, in clud ing ATFand ICE; state adult and juve nile probati on offices; the city/county school system; the county attorneys office-basobd universitycom mun ity outreach cen ter. Participa nts share in formatio n about e
8、ach case and the in dividuals invoIved, and a decisi on is made about what charges to pursue and whether the case should be taken to stateor federal court.Data related to cases reviewed in ZAP meeti ngs are en tered into a Microsoft Excel dataset. In cluded inthe dataset are the follow ing fields:*D
9、efendants name, race, sex, date of birth, Social Security number, Pistol number(Winston-Salem Police Departme nt database ide ntifier)*Whether the defe ndant is a conv icted felon*In cide nt Report nu mber (from law en forceme nt age ney)*Charges aga inst the defe ndant*Docket nu mber*Law en forceme
10、 nt age ney invo Ived in the case*Law enforcement officers name*Assista nt DA assig ned to the case*Date the in cide nt was reviewed by ZAP*Whether the case was take n to federal courtf so, the federal age nts n ame*Whether the case invo Ived domestic viole nee*Whether guns, ammun iti on, an d/or ca
11、s ings were seized*Type of gun invo Ived*Dispositi on of the court case*Sentence give n the guilty partyA copy of the dataset was made available in the Spring of 2005, for two purposes: an alysis of the existi ngdata and suggesti ons about ways to capture data regard ing future ZAP cases. This repor
12、t resp onds tothose requests.Procedures3The structure of the dataset was exam ined to determ ine its implicati ons for an alysis using SPSSsoftware. Several eleme nts of the structure, while useful for ZAP purposes through visual in spect ion andExcel capabilities, prese nted difficulties for SPSS a
13、n alysis. For example, each charge aga inst a defendant is listed on a separate row of the spreadsheet, each with the defendants name anddemographic/identifying information, with rowsalphabetized by defendants last name. While this is useful for such prosecutorial concerns as track ingrepeat offendi
14、ng by an in dividual and separati ng those with sin gle charges from those with multiplecharges, the demographic characteristics of defe ndants with multiple charges would skew the overalldemographic patter n of defe ndants in the dataset as a whole, if an alyzed using SPSS. To avoid this typeof pro
15、blem, the dataset for an alysis was restructured to reflect separate in cide nts, rather tha n defendant n ames. Thus, if one in cide nt report invo Ived multiple charges aga inst a defe ndant, that defendant n ame and demographic/ide ntify ing characteristics were removed from all but one of the re
16、cords(all but one of the rows with in formatio n about that in cide nt). If the same defe ndant faced additi onalcharges as a result of other in cide nts, his/her n ame and characteristics were reta ined in only one row foreach additi onal in cide nt. Where an in cide nt report nu mber was un availa
17、ble, docket nu mbers wereused to determ ine the nu mber of separate in cide nts invo Ived (not a perfect way to make such a determinatio n, but the method used for this in cide nt-based an alysis).In 142 rows of the ZAP dataset, the Defendant field does not in clude a n ame. The first colu mn, in st
18、ead,shows such en tries as 50-B Seizure, Found Property, Suicide, Police Service, and Safekeep ing. Tomaintain a focus on in cide nts with a defe ndant, these rows were elimi nated from the dataset used forthis an alysis. All other in cide nts were retai ned, eve n whe n no charges were show n.The o
19、rig inal dataset also contains some rows with only defe ndant n ame, demographic in formatio n, andide ntificati on nu mbers. When these descriptive characteristics were not in cluded for the defe ndant onrows with in cide nt data, the in formati on was tran sferred to appropriate rows, so that reco
20、rds of in cident data would be complete. The rows with only defe ndant n ame and descriptive characteristics were then elimi nated from the dataset used for an alysis.Several variables (fields) were added to the dataset used for an alysis. First, age of the defe ndant at thetime the dataset was deli
21、vered was calculated for each defe ndant, based on in formatio n in the Date ofBirth field. This method of calculati ng age is somewhat misleading -i.e., it inflates the defendantsage, compared to his/her age at the time of thein cide nt, especially since some of the cases occurred several years pri
22、or to the delivery of the data. Thisestimati on method was used because the dataset in cludes no in formati on on the date of the in cide nt,and the date the case was reviewed in a ZAP meet ing is miss ing for many of the cases. Despite thelimitati ons, however, the age calculati on does provide som
23、e estimate of the overall distributio n of defendant ages, especially since ages were categorized (under 16, 16-17, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, etc.) in the analysis.Sec ond, the many differe nt charges faced by defe ndants were categorized into felo ni es,misdemeanors, and others. Third, the many types of
24、 firearms involved in these incidents were categorizedas handguns, rifles, shotguns, or others. The added dataset column with this categorization includesmultiple types of weapons (e.g., handgun and rifle) in any in cide nt, where that in formatio n was available.In some cases the orig inal dataset
25、showed only“multiple”firearms, and that designation was retained inthe new categorizati on.4The final dataset used for an alysis contains data on cases inv olvi ng 4,420 charges stemmi ng from 2009differe nt in cide nts. The an alysis focuses on demographic characteristics of defe ndants in these in
26、 cidents and whether they were conv icted felons, types of charges aga inst them, whether guns were seized,the types of firearms invo lved, whether the case invo lved a domestic viole nee charge, whether the casewas selected for prosecuti on at the federal level, and the dispositi on of the court ca
27、se.ResultsTable 1 prese nts characteristics of defe ndants invo lved in the 2009 in cide nts. Nine out of tendefendants were males; 62% were black, 26% white, and 11% Hispanic; and three in ten were convi ctedfelons at the time their cases were reviewed by the ZAP team. When the data were delivered
28、for this study,over two-thirds of the defe ndants were 18-34 years of age, and their average age was 30. Twenty-fivepercent were under the age of 22, half un der 27, and three-fourths un der 36.Table 1. Defendant characteristics.SexFemale. 9.3%Male. .90.7%Race/Eth ni cityAsia n. . 0.1%Black. .62.3%H
29、ispanic . 11.2%Native America n . . 0.0%White. .26.3%AgeUnder 16 . 2.3%16-17. . 3.6%18-24. .35.3%25-34. .33.0%35-44. .14.9%45-54. . 6.5%55-64. . 3.1%65 or over . . 1.3%Fel onNo. .70.2%Yes. 29.8%5Characteristics of incidents and charges are shown in Table 2. Almost half (46%) of the charges that coul
30、dbe classified as felo nies or misdemea nors fell in to the more serious category. At least one gun wasseized in 58% of the incidents; 4.6% of incidents were known to have involved domestic violenee.Although not shown in Table 2, the Winston-Salem Police Departme nt (WSPD) was listed as the law enfo
31、rceme nt age ncy in about three-fourths of the in cide nts.Table 2. Characteristics of In cide nts and Charges Gun Seized in In cide ntAs show n in Table 3, handguns were by far the most likely type of firearm to be invo lved in theseincidents. Seventy-two percent of cases where a gun was identified
32、 involved at least one handgun, eitheralone or with another type of firearm. Only a rifle was involved in 6.3% of the in cide nts, while on ly a shotgun was no ted in 5.2%. Other types of firearms in cluded BB guns and pellet guns, as well as many othertypes. In 3.4% of the cases exam in ed, the dat
33、asendicated only“multiple”firearms, which mayhave in cludedany of the above types.Table 3. Types of Firearms Invo lvedHandgun only . .67.4%Handgun and Rifle . . 2.7%Handgun and Shotgun . 1.5%Handgun and Other Type of Firearm . . 0.3%Handgun, Rifle, and Shotgu n . . 0.2%Rifle on ly . 6.3%Shotg un onl
34、y . . 5.2%Rifle and Shotgu n . . 0.9%Other Type of Firearm only . .12.1%Multiple Un specified Firearms . . 3.4%The vast majority of cases discussed by the ZAP team (96.5%) were prosecuted at the state level (Table4). Only 2.6% of the incidents in the dataset were designated for federal prosecuti on
35、alone, and one incide nt was no ted as lead ing to prosecuti on in both state and federal courts. Sixteen incidents were to berevisited by the team for a decision at a later date.No.Yes.Domestic Viole nee In cident No.Yes.ChargesFelony .Misdemea nor.41.9%58.1%.95.4%4.6%.46.1%53.9%6Table 4. Prosecuti
36、 on Decisi onFel ony charges were associated with higher rates of federal prosecuti on tha n were misdemeanors(1.9% of all felony charges vs. 0.6% of all misdemeanors), and federal prosecuti on was more likely whe nthe defe ndant was already a conv icted felo n (4.7% of felons vs. 0.7% of others). A
37、ll defe ndants designated for federal prosecuti on were 18-54 years of age. Elim in at ing the three defe ndants in the datasetwho were either Asia n or Native America n allows for a sig nifica nee test of the associati on betwee nrace/eth ni city (for blacks, whites, and Hispa ni cs) and federal pr
38、osecuti on. Doi ng so dem on strates asig nifica nt associati on: 1.3% of white defe ndan ts, 2.5% of black defe ndan ts, and 5.3% of Hispanicdefendants were designated for federal prosecution. This finding is likely affected by the fact that it isillegal for an undocumented immigrant to possess a f
39、irearm.A nu mber of these variables are related to one ano ther. For example, 62.2% of felocompared with43.6% perce nt of non-felo nswere charged with a felony in these cases. About 57% of felons-compared with about 22% of non-felons -were invo Ived in cases where a gun was seized. Among blackdefe n
40、dants in these cases, 38.7% were felons, compared with 18.7% of whites and 5.8% of Hispanics.About 54% of black defendants were charged with felonies in these cases, compared with 37% of Hispanics and 33% of whites. Hispa nic defe ndants were most likely (65.5%) to be invo Ived in cases whereguns we
41、re seized, compared with whites (61.2%) and blacks (54.4%). A gun seizure was not related towhether a defe ndant was charged with a felony or a misdemea nor: 46.5% of cases in which a gun wasseized resulted in felony charges, compared with 46.0% of cases in which a gun was not seized.Dispositi ons r
42、elated to 2482 charges are in cluded in the dataset (see Table 5). A guilty verdict wasrecorded for 1438 (57.9%) of those, in cludi ng 62 where the dataset no tes that the defe ndant was foundguilty of a lesser charge. Volun tary dismissals acco un ted for 31.5% of the dispositi ons. Only 4.5%result
43、ed in a not guilty verdict.Table 5. Dispositi on of ChargesGuilty . 57.9%Not Guilty . . 4.5%Prayer for Judgme nt Con ti nued . 2.6%Volu ntary Dismissal . .31.5%Other. . 3.5%Fel ony charges, compared with misdemea nors, were more likely to result in a guilty verdict (73.5% vs.46.8%) and less likely t
44、o be volu ntarily dismissed (24.2% vs. 37.0%). More likely to be dismissed werecases in which there was no gun seizure (32.8% vs.27.7%) and cases in which some type of gun other tha n a han dgu n, rifle or shotg un was seized (mostoften a BB or pellet gun) (33.3% vs. 26.6%). Guilty verdicts declined
45、 steadily with age, from 73% of defeStateFederalBothRevisit96.5%2.6%0.0%.0.8%7nda nts 16-17 years old to 36.8% of those 55-64;however, 58.8% of the 17 defe ndants 65 years of age of older were found guilty. None of the othervariables of interest in this analysis was significantly associated with a g
46、uilty verdict.Con clusi ons and Recomme ndatio nsAny pote ntial restructuri ng of the ZAP dataset should be based on a careful con siderati on of the usesfor which it is inten ded. If the type of an alysis in this report is useful, the n the kind of dataset restructuring done for this study would be
47、 advisable. However, the value of such a cha nge must be bala need against the usefu In ess of the curre nt dataset structure for the ZAP program and other purposes. Judgme nton these issues should be made by individuals intimately involved with the program.At the least, it does seem advisable to ad
48、d fields not contained in the current dataset. For example, in cident date, the felony-misdemea nor classificati on, and the categorizati on of types of firearms appear to beimporta nt. Such data could be much more efficie ntly included at the time of initial data entry than at alater date. All such
49、 additions, of course, in crease the amount of time required for data en try, so theirvalue, too, must be weighed in the con text of time and budget con stra in ts. Some data en try errors areto be expected, but careful con siste ncy in data codes would in crease efficie ncy in con duct ing analyses
50、.For example, the original data set used“Y”in some cases and“X”in others as anin dicator of a federal case or a domestic viole nee in cide nt, and several differe nt en tries were clearlyinten ded to represe nt the Winston-Salem Police Departme nt.The overrepresentation of males in this analysis is
51、consistent with arrest figures in the FBIs UniformCrime Report for 2003: 90.7% of defendants in the ZAP cases werearie, compared with 91.8% of thosearrested n ati on ally for weap ons (not just firearms) violati ons. Age breakdow ns are also similar: theperce ntage of arrestees 18-24 years of age wa
52、s 35.3% in the ZAP dataset and 35.7% for weapo nsviolatio ns in the 2003 UCR.The un der 18 perce ntage is larger n ati on ally (23.3% vs. 5.9%) and the 25-34 perce ntageis larger locally (33% vs. 20.8%), probably due to ZAPs focus on individuals to beprosecuted as adults and the way the ages were ca
53、lculated in this analysis. African America ns are highlyoverreprese nted as defe ndants in ZAP cases (62.1%), compared with their proportion in the ForsythCounty population, according to the 2000 Census (25.9%), and compared with 2003 UCR arrests forweap ons violatio ns (36.1%). Whites are un derrep
54、rese nted in local statistics (26.3%), compared withtheir local populati on prevale nee (69.3%) and n ati onal arrest figures for weap ons violati ons (62.1%).Fel onies con stitute a large proportio n (46%) of charges reviewed in ZAP meeti ngs, and guns are seizedin almost 60% of the incidents, suggesting th
溫馨提示
- 1. 本站所有資源如無特殊說明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
- 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權(quán)益歸上傳用戶所有。
- 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁內(nèi)容里面會有圖紙預覽,若沒有圖紙預覽就沒有圖紙。
- 4. 未經(jīng)權(quán)益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文庫網(wǎng)僅提供信息存儲空間,僅對用戶上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護處理,對用戶上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對任何下載內(nèi)容負責。
- 6. 下載文件中如有侵權(quán)或不適當內(nèi)容,請與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
- 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準確性、安全性和完整性, 同時也不承擔用戶因使用這些下載資源對自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。
最新文檔
- 油煙治理施工合同范例
- 企業(yè)培訓演講課件
- 企業(yè)培訓數(shù)學課件
- 嬰兒壞疽性皮炎的皮膚微生物組
- 應知應會-熱處理技術(shù)員
- 草牧場承包經(jīng)營與可持續(xù)發(fā)展合同
- 房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)有限責任公司股東土地開發(fā)合作協(xié)議
- 生態(tài)農(nóng)業(yè)園廠房租賃及農(nóng)產(chǎn)品直銷合作協(xié)議
- 企業(yè)物流貨運服務(wù)方案
- 制造業(yè)廠長任期目標責任合同
- 2025年校長職級考試題及答案
- 統(tǒng)借統(tǒng)還資金管理辦法
- 國家能源集團采購管理規(guī)定及實施辦法知識試卷
- 2023-2024學年四川省成都市高新區(qū)八年級(下)期末數(shù)學試卷
- 2025年廣西繼續(xù)教育公需科目考試試題和答案
- 2024年廣州市南沙區(qū)社區(qū)專職招聘考試真題
- 心理健康科普常識課件
- 山東醫(yī)藥技師學院招聘筆試真題2024
- 倉庫超期物料管理制度
- 奶茶公司供應鏈管理制度
- 加氣站風控分級管理制度
評論
0/150
提交評論