{"@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": "The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) project\r\ncompared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of\r\na restorative justice intervention known as conferencing for four\r\nkinds of cases: drunk driving (over .08 blood alcohol content) at any\r\nage, juvenile property offending with personal victims, juvenile\r\nshoplifting offenses detected by store security officers, and youth\r\nviolent crimes (under age 30). Reintegrative shaming theory underpins\r\nthe conferencing alternative. It entails offenders facing those harmed\r\nby their actions in the presence of family and friends whose opinions\r\nthey care about, discussing their wrongdoing, and making repayment to\r\nsociety and to their victims for the costs of their crimes, both\r\nmaterial and emotional. These conferences were facilitated by police\r\nofficers and usually took around 90 minutes, compared with around ten\r\nminutes for court processing time. The researchers sought to test the\r\nhypotheses that (1) there would be less repeat offending after a\r\nconference than after a court treatment, (2) victims would be more\r\nsatisfied with conferences than with court, (3) both offenders and\r\nvictims would find conferences to be fairer than court, and (4) the\r\npublic costs of providing a conference would be no greater than, and\r\nperhaps less than, the costs of processing offenders in court. This\r\nstudy contains data from ongoing experiments comparing the effects of\r\ncourt versus diversionary conferences for a select group of\r\noffenders. Part 1, Administrative Data for All Cases, consists of data\r\nfrom reports by police officers. These data include information on the\r\noffender's attitude, the police station and officer that referred the\r\ncase, blood alcohol content level (drunk driving only), offense type,\r\nand RISE assigned treatment. Parts 2-5 are data from observations by\r\ntrained RISE research staff of court and conference treatments to\r\nwhich offenders had been randomly assigned. Variables for Parts 2-5\r\ninclude duration of the court or conference, if there was any violence\r\nor threat of violence in the court or conference, supports that the\r\noffender and victim had, how much reintegrative shaming was expressed,\r\nthe extent to which the offender accepted guilt, if and in what form\r\nthe offender apologized (e.g., verbal, handshake, hug, kiss), how\r\ndefiant or sullen the offender was, how much the offender contributed\r\nto the outcome, what the outcome was (e.g., dismissed, imprisonment,\r\nfine, community service, bail release, driving license cancelled,\r\ncounseling program), and what the outcome reflected (punishment,\r\nrepaying community, repaying victims, preventing future offense,\r\nrestoration). Data for Parts 6 and 7, Year 0 Survey Data from\r\nNon-Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences and Year\r\n0 Survey Data from Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and\r\nConferences, were taken from interviews with offenders by trained RISE\r\ninterview staff after the court or conference proceedings. Variables\r\nfor Parts 6 and 7 include how much the court or conference respected\r\nthe respondent's rights, how much influence the respondent had over\r\nthe agreement, the outcome that the respondent received, if the court\r\nor conference solved any problems, if police explained that the\r\nrespondent had the right to refuse the court or conference, if the\r\nrespondent was consulted about whom to invite to court or conference,\r\nhow the respondent was treated, and if the respondent's respect for\r\nthe justice system had gone up or down as a result of the court or\r\nconference. Additional variables focused on how nervous the respondent\r\nwas about attending the court or conference, how severe the respondent\r\nfelt the outcome was, how severe the respondent thought the punishment\r\nwould be if he/she were caught again, if the respondent thought the\r\ncourt or conference would prevent him/her from breaking the law, if\r\nthe respondent was bitter about the way he/she was treated, if the\r\nrespondent understood what was going on in the court or conference, if\r\nthe court or conference took account of what the respondent said, if\r\nthe respondent felt pushed around by people with more power, if the\r\nrespondent felt disadvantaged because of race, sex, age, or income,\r\nhow police treated the respondent when arrested, if the respondent\r\nregretted what he/she did, if the respondent felt ashamed of what\r\nhe/she did, what his/her family, friends, and other people thought of\r\nwhat the respondent did, and if the respondent had used drugs or\r\nalcohol the past year. Demographic variables in this data collection\r\ninclude offender's country of birth, gender, race, education, income,\r\nand employment.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02993.v1", "title": "Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999"}], "identifier": "3812", "issued": "2001-06-18T00:00:00", "keyword": ["case processing", "driving under the influence", "intervention", "intervention strategies", "juvenile offenders", "petty theft", "police officers", "pretrial procedures", "property crime", "restorative justice"], "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": "Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999"}