{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop\r\npolicies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the\r\njustice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted\r\nto determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation\r\nwas feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing\r\na no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer\r\ndismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions\r\nwhere no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a\r\nplea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and\r\n(4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade\r\ndefense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop\r\npolicy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed\r\nto make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to\r\nincrease the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without\r\nvictim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes,\r\nresearchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic\r\nviolence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and\r\nresulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred\r\nbetween 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett,\r\nWashington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha,\r\nNebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence\r\ncases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted\r\nin a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the\r\nfour sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under\r\nthe no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1\r\ninclude defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was\r\nsentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the\r\ncounseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal\r\nhistory, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between\r\nthe victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2\r\ninclude length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution,\r\ndefendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the\r\nvictim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts\r\ntestified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent\r\npsychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables\r\nfor Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant,\r\nrelationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes,\r\nwhether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there\r\nwas medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the\r\ndefendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the\r\nvictim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the\r\ndefendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic\r\nsurveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other\r\ngeneral counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between\r\nvictim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be\r\narrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs,\r\nor domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away\r\nfrom the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court\r\nsystem, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense\r\nattorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with\r\nthe police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the\r\ndefendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the\r\nvictim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables\r\non the victim include race, income, and level of education.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03319.v1", "title": "Evaluation of No-Drop Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in San Diego, California, Omaha, Nebraska, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Everett, Washington, 1996-2000"}], "identifier": "3652", "issued": "2002-06-19T00:00:00", "keyword": ["court cases", "criminal histories", "defendants", "disposition (legal)", "domestic violence", "judicial process", "prosecution", "sentencing", "trials", "victim safety", "victim services", "victims"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2006-03-30T00:00:00", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "title": "Evaluation of No-Drop Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in San Diego, California, Omaha, Nebraska, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Everett, Washington, 1996-2000"}