Public Perception of Leniency

***

Advanced Research Methods

Week 5

Discussion 2

***

St. Amand and Zamble discuss the issue of public surveys in regards to the perception of leniency in the criminal justice punishment system. Factors that play a part involve the public perception of the “typical” offender and the public's knowledge of the criminal justice system as a whole. They contend that a “better” informed public would have a more “positive” perception of levels of leniency. They offer the hypothesis that “lack of familiarity with actual sentencing patterns contributes to dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system” (St. Armand & Zamble, 2001, p. 518) To test their hypothesis, they initiated a pilot study and main study of college student subjects; The pilot study was a 2-factor study(information and attitude accessibility) conducted in 3 phases which first weighed sentencing decisions, then manipulated attitude accessibility, and finally tested sentencing scenarios against a range of offenses (controlling for offender characteristics across offenses) based upon their prediction of judgment. The main study had one independent variable based upon four levels of information access. These measures were based upon the first phase of the pilot study. The second phase of the pilot was removed from the main study. The final phase was conducted as in the pilot. They found a general level of dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system, which matches past studies. They conclude that “negative attitudes are not a straightforward relation to an overly lenient system” (St. Armand & Zamble, 2001, p. 526)

• What does the article teach us about the uses of survey research?

That survey results do not always match the actual reactions of participants; Armand and Zamble found that, although studies have shown the public finds the system too lenient, when asked to make sentencing decisions, the public's sentencing choices match those made by the judiciary.

• What are the implications of the authors' research in this article for the criminal justice system?

One implication is that citizens will have a better perception about the criminal justice system by educating themselves about it. The major implication is that although the public may say the system is too lenient, they would often make the same decisions.

St. Amand, M., & Zamble, E. (2001). Impact of information about sentencing decisions on public attitudes toward the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 515–528. Retrieved from July 30, 2014 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/204148404

***

you would have to start with a better public school curricula;  our citizenry is horribly ignorant of basic concepts regarding our political system as a whole, including the criminal justice system, and more people get their perception of the criminal justice system from TV shows.  Past that, you can't force people in a free society to educate themselves.  This goes beyond the scope of the discussion, but I think a society could require certain educational standards to participate politically, but that opens up a whole can of worms ( literacy tests applied to black but not white voters, for instance); then again any political construction is subject to abuse by politicians.

I won't be using surveys for my research;  I am looking at a series of past actions and trying to determine if a political agenda made a difference on the targets of the actions.  A survey wouldn't add any information for me, I'm sorry.
***

For my own part, I think we are too lenient with criminals that commit mala in se offenses, and overly harsh with drug possession, regulatory violation, and pretty much any other "crimes" that really shouldn't be crimes to begin with.   I fail to see any point in putting people in jail for failing to pay traffic tickets, for instance.

***

I see what you mean, and it's interesting because there seems to be a loosening of parental responsibility at the same time that school administrators are going crazy with "zero tolerance" policies:
   (all these incidences are where the children are 10 or younger)
   -a little girl draws on a desk, and gets arrested and handcuffed
   -a little boy is suspended from school for eating a sandwich "into the shape of a gun"
   -a little boy is labeled as a sex offender for kissing a little girl on the cheek;  had he touched her on the privates, or simulated sexual activity towards her, I could see some kind of intervention; not in this case, and not in the way they handled it.

It just seems to me overall that the burrocrats of our society are ignoring real problems and are harassing citizens for no just cause.

***

I think you are right on the money about making it a business...We teach the concept of "growth complex" in theory, but we don't apply it while considering policy.

The issue of teen sex is pretty complicated; the whole reason you have an age of consent is the idea that a girl is not mature enough to make informed decisions about sex under a certain age.  I know there are many differences in state laws about how this is applied, and becomes even more complicated with close-in-age exemptions. ( I guess this compensates for the idea that a boy of a certain age isn't competent re: sex decisions either) Finally, there is the consideration that kids of that age are hormone-addled to begin with

***

Environmental Criminology

• What is the research question used by the authors?

They contend that environmental criminology can be advanced by utilizing self-report studies, such as street-intercept interviews and focus group interviews, in addition to official police records.

• What are the advantages of the authors' chosen methodology for the study in the article?

By focusing on smaller areas, some problems are avoided such as applying the characteristics of a neighborhood or a community to the issues faced by a block or a family, This becomes important in that the hot=spots of crime are centered on small areas. The researchers feel that“ the social and demographic characteristics of local residents are generally stronger predictors of criminality at specific locations than are the physical characteristics of the environment”(Rosenbaum & Lavrakas, 1995, p.288)

• What is the value added to research that uses the authors' methodology?

By focusing on small areas, they hope to use non-conventional methods, including surveys with “relatively small sizes” (1995, p.295) to gather data that can be “analyzed to develop a detailed case study, based on both quantitative and qualitative information”(Rosenbaum & Lavrakas, 1995, p.308) In the authors' words they feel that there are two contributions:
(1)by advancing our knowledge of the social processes that operate in specific locations;
and (2) by contributing to the development and evaluation of new anti-crime policies and programs directed at these locations.
(Rosenbaum & Lavrakas, 1995, p.308)

• What are the challenges and shortcomings of the techniques used by the authors such as survey and interview methods?

Telephone surveys can miss households; the likeness (heterogeneity) of the target population; the sizes of the population and of the sample; non-response;poorly worded surveys; bias within the survey; the cost of performing a survey; these are all potential pitfalls of a survey.

There is also a problem with how the results of surveys are interpreted and that isn't discussed in this study: In 2008, I did not think that Obama would be elected as I was looking primarily at AOL polls; their polling had been more accurate then polling by the news agencies for the previous elections I had monitored. However, AOL skews to an older population, young people turned out in much higher numbers, and AOL's polling results did not match reality for that reason.

• How might you incorporate surveys and interviews with geographical analysis in your own research?

I don't see an application of this technique that would aid my research; I will be looking over already collected data and comparing situations. If I conduct interviews, they will targeted at individuals who can explain some of the reasoning behind decisions made, not of random samples.

Rosenbaum, D, & Lavrakas, P. (1995). Self-Reports about place: The application of survey and interview methods to the study of small areas. Crime Prevention Studies, 4: 285-314. Retrieved July 30, 2014 from http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_04/13-Resonbaum.pdf

***

One of the arguments the researchers presented for using smaller samples then are usually considered statistically "valid" was to avoid sampling outside of the actual "hot spot" of crime; for their purpose, they felt that taking sample responses from outside the area created an error in accuracy.

***

 The researcher should always be aware that the interviewee might be lying for a variety of reasons; as you said, to avoid culpability for criminal or embarrassing acts.  Another reason might be to inflate the subject's importance by taking credit for things that weren't done, or by assuming a reason for the action that would be considered valid after the act, as opposed to making a decision that luck validated.

A question that arose for me from your response: does criminology/criminal justice research collect police interviews/interrogations as data and develop "survey" responses?  A very quick bing search is giving me nothing but studies regarding the process of police interrogations.  I may be using the wrong search terms.
 

***

 Do you know where the term A-1 came from?

Once upon a time, military intelligence evaluated information on a 2 factor scale; A-E was the range for the reliability of a source, with a score of A representing the most trusted source; 1-5 was the range for the likelihood that the information was accurate, with a score of 1 indicating that the intelligence had been corroborated with another source( so if you got a report that a German tank division was running amok in Chicago during WWII, you would judge that to be a 5, not a likely event)

I can't source this because I lost the book I got this from, a US Army WWII era guide to military intelligence.  But it does match your suggestion for scoring interviews!

There is another explanation, which probably fits the usage better:
"Lloyd’s, a British company that insured ships, coined the term. Before any ship was insured, the company inspected it and then rated it. The letters A, E, I, O and U were used to indicate the condition of the hull of the ship, and the numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. were used to indicate the state of the equipment (cables, anchor, etc.) on board. If the ship was rated A1, it meant that both the hull and the equipment were in excellent condition"

http://www.thehindu.com/books/know-your-english/know-your-english-meaning-and-origin-of-a1/article6210180.ece

***

Yes, I believe that kind of matrix would help in the weighting I would give the information developed in interviews.  I'd give a Klan informant or a Congressman less credibility than I would a field agent of the FBI, for example.

I think I would still include all the information as part of the study, but I would have a formal method for explaining why I didn't take some of the information with as much credibility.

***

PCL-R and SSSS

 ***

 Advanced Research Methods

Week 4

Discussion 2

***

What is the research question discussed by the authors in this article?
    How have the authors set up their binomial distribution? What do the authors expect to find?
    What evidence do the authors provide that the two psychological conditions (psychopathy and sexual sadism) are not the same (even though they share certain characteristics?
    What are the possible binomial distributions in the data set for your city? How would you test your data using the binomial approach? How will it benefit your research?

Mokros, Osterheider, Hucker, and Nitschke study the concept of whether psychopathy and sexual sadism are a unified concept. The researchers define sexual sadism as the arousal of a person based on fantasies and “acts of inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on another human-being” (Mokros, Osterheider, Hucker, & Nitschke, 2011, p.188). They further make the distinction that “severe sexual sadism is based upon the coercion of involuntary victims (2011, p.188.. Persons suffering from psychopathy “display egocentric, selfish traits, act in a brazen, reckless manner, and are proficient at deception and manipulation,without showing remorse “ (2011,p.189), and that this personality disorder “shows considerable overlap with antisocial personality or dissocial personality disorders from the DSM-IV-TR” (2011, p.189) One thing to keep in mind that the DSM definition of a particular disorder may be different from year to year depending on current studies.

Mokros et al compared their subjects on the basis of the PCL-R ( a checklist scoring test for psychopathy – I got a 16, so obviously I am not a pyscho) and on the SSSS (Severe Sexual

Sadism Scale, a similar test for sexual sadism. A binomial distribution is based on the results of a series of yes/no questions. Mokros et al are testing two hypotheses; the first that sexual sadism and psychopathy are different constructs and that a a two-factor model in which indicators of psychopathy can be grouped on a factor separately from symptoms of sexual sadism will fit better then grouping all symptoms on the same factor, and the second hypothesis that specific components of of the construction of psychopathy will “significantly predict sexually sadistic behavior.”(2011, p.190) The binomial distribution applies to the yes/no question of whether the two specific components of the psychopathic construct indicated sexual sadism.

In testing the first hypotheses on a two-factor basis, Mokros et al found “the first of these factors was characterized by aspects of sexual sadism (with most of the psychopathy items showing loadings near 0 or negative loadings). The second factor showed a reverse pattern with substantial loadings of psychopathy items and marginal or negative loadings of sexual sadism criteria” (2011, p.192)

I don't understand the final question; are we applying a binomial distribution test to selected data from our census/UCR data, or extrapolating the Mokros group study to our own city? In my own research, I could build a dataset of operations, and for each incident, ask if the operations were different against the Klan then they were for the various leftist groups, I could then run a second “test” as to whether that difference could be accounted for by politics.

You “test” yourself for psychopathy at:

http://www.psychforums.com/antisocial-personality/topic62959.html

But remember that “the test must be administered by professionals"!

Mokros, A., Osterheider, M., Hucker, S. J., & Nitschke, J. (2011). Psychopathy and sexual sadism. Law and Human Behavior, 35(3), 188–199. Retrieved July 24, 2014 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/864196731

***

There are some assumptions you can make concerning this population:
1- The sex drive is very primary in humans; people make choices every day based on fulfilling sex needs.
2- Persons with severe sexual sadism are going to act upon non-consensual victims, which leads to a higher chance of getting caught; this is contrast to a random sample of a population that has condition x, that person isn't going to be "highlighted".  Perhaps a better way of saying this is that a severe sexual sadist is going to be more representative of his "community" then a completly random sample would be.
3- Conversely, the subject in jail/pych care got caught; maybe the general population of sever sexual sadists is smarter then the jailed population
4- But considering that they are going to have to keep acting in the interests of their sex drive, they will commit more crime, increasing the chances of getting caught.

***

I need to clean up statement 2 a bit - a severe sexual sadist in the corrections system will be more representative of the severe sexual sadist population at large, then will be a random subject with a generic x condition; this assumption is based on the nature of the behavior of the disorder, which requires crimes to be committed.
 

***

 The researchers made a distinction between severe sexual sadism and sexual sadism.  Given that severe sexual sadism chooses non-consensual victims, is there a reason to be worried about those with sexual sadism that have consensual  partners?

***

Sexual Sadism. (2012) Forensic Psychiatry.
www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/paraphilia/sadism.htm 

***

I don't think that there that many psychopaths running around to begin with:  Coid, Tang, Ullrich, Roberts and Hare estimate the prevalence of psychopathy in the United kingdom at 0.6% of the population. (2009, Abstract)  You could also look at the prevalence of psychopathy in the corrections population, and the percentage of the population in the corrections system as a whole.


Coid, J., Tang, M., Ullrich, S., Roberts, A. and Hare, R. (2009, March–April). Prevalence and correlates of psychopathic traits in the household population of Great Britain.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 65–73. Retrieved July 25, 2014 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252709000028

***

The Straubing facility covers an "area" of 12.5 million people;  I didn't see anything in the study about the number of detainees at the facility itself, only that they used a sample size of to subjects for each category.  Maybe there were more detainees at the facility, and they just used a small sample size to determine if a larger study was justified.

***

I took the self-test at the forum link;  you would want a psychology professional to give an actual test to make a better measure of the answers.
***I should have noted that this is a version of the PCL-R****, which is why I brought it up.

My own opinion of the difference is based on sex drive;  psychopaths tend to be selfish in overall behavior (lying, irresponsibility, parasitism, poor behavioral control), while sexual sadists do well on those tests but have higher levels of correlation on sexually related questions ( just about everything on the SSSS) then the psychopaths did.  (Although the psychopaths scored higher on the PCL-R promiscuity)

The similarity would be the lack of empathy to the victim, but the "goals" of the disorders are different.

***

Taken form the forums links; this is the same that was given to the subjects:

"The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is a diagnostic tool used to rate a person's psychopathic or antisocial tendencies. Originally designed to assess people accused or convicted of crimes, the PCL-R consists of a 20-item symptom rating scale that allows qualified examiners to compare a subject's degree of psychopathy with that of a prototypical psychopath. It is accepted by many in the field as the best method for determining the presence and extent of psychopathy in a person.

Precautions

Obviously, diagnosing someone as a psychopath is a very serious step. It has important implications for a person and for his or her associates in family, clinical and forensic settings. Therefore, the test must be administered by professionals who have been specifically trained in its use and who have a wide-ranging and up-to-date familiarity with studies of psychopathy.

Scoring and Result

The PCL-R provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject matches the "perfect" score that a classic or prototypical psychopath would rate. Each of the twenty items is given a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on how well it applies to the subject being tested. A prototypical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for a diagnosis of psychopathy. People with no criminal backgrounds normally score around 5. Many non-psychopathic criminal offenders score around 22.


The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:
Score 0 if it does not apply to you, score 1 if it somewhat applies, score 2 if it fully applies to you.

1. Glibness and superficial charm
– smooth-talking, engaging and slick.

2. Grandiose self-worth
– greatly inflated idea of one’s abilities and self-esteem, arrogance and a sense of superiority.

3. Pathological lying
– shrewd, crafty, sly and clever when moderate; deceptive, deceitful, underhanded and unscrupulous when high.

4. Cunning/manipulative
– uses deceit and deception to cheat others for personal gain.

5. Lack of remorse or guilt
- no feelings or concern for losses, pain and suffering of others, coldhearted and unempathic.

6. Shallow affect / emotional poverty
– limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness.

7. Callous/lack of empathy
– a lack of feelings toward others; cold, contemptuous and inconsiderate.

8. Fails to accept responsibility for own actions
– denial of responsibility and an attempt to manipulate others through this.

9. Needs stimulation/prone to boredom
– an excessive need for new, exciting stimulation and risk-taking.

10. Parasitic lifestyle
– Intentional, manipulative, selfish and exploitative financial dependence on others.

11. Poor behavioral controls
– expressions of negative feelings, verbal abuse and inappropriate expressions of anger.

12. No realistic long-term goals
– inability or constant failure to develop and accomplish long-term plans.

13. Impulsiveness
– behaviors lacking reflection or planning and done without considering consequences.

14. Irresponsible
– repeated failure to fulfill or honor commitments and obligations.

15. Juvenile delinquency
– criminal behavioral problems between the ages of 13-18.

16. Early behavior problems
– a variety of dysfunctional and unacceptable behaviors before age thirteen.

17. Revocation of Conditional Release
– Violating probation or other conditional release because of technicalities.

18. Promiscuity
– brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs and an indiscriminate choice of sexual partners.

19. Many short-term marital relationships
– lack of commitment to a long-term relationship.

20. Criminal versatility
– diversity of criminal offenses, whether or not the individual has been arrested or convicted."

***

Poisson distribution

 ***

Advanced Research Methods

Week 4

Discussion 1

***

I wanted to say one thing before I start; I am going to be using as simple terms as I can in this discussion. I don't want to give the impression that I'm talking down to anybody; at this point I don't understand the use of Poisson distribution clearly, so I am talking simply for my own benefit.

“A Poisson distribution is a discrete probability distribution that applies to occurrences of some event over a specified interval. The random variable x is the number of occurrences of the event in an interval. The interval can be time, distance, area, volume, or some similar unit” (Trioli p229)

My judgement of the advantage of using Poisson distribution in research is that is allows for the standardization of results across the defined interval as opposed to basing the analysis on an aggregate of counts.

The disadvantages of using Poisson distribution are that there are several requirements to using it:

1. The random variable x is the number of occurrences of an event over some interval
2. The occurrences must be random
3. The occurrences must be independent of each other
4. The occurrences must be uniformly distributed over the interval being used

(Triloi)

I think that the value added to statistical analysis would be the same as the advantage of using Poisson distribution; that the measurements of occurrences would be by the defined interval.

Baumer, Wolff, and Amio use census tracts as an interval for Poisson distribution in their study of the effects of foreclosure rates on crime levels ( specifically, robbery and burglary). They “adopt a Poisson framework because our data contain a considerable number of tracts with relatively small populations and low crime counts; these features yield highly skewed distributions for crime rates and a heterogeneous error variance, properties that violate assumptions of conventional linear regression models.” (589-590) This implies to me that the use of the census tract allows a standardized measure.

I am not sure I will be using Poisson distribution in my research on COINTELPRO operations I don't think I understand it's use correctly. In addition, while I could possibly measure (operations per time unit) or (operations per state) as intervals, I think the severity of operations or the importance of targets will be of more distinction in my study, which I think is more qualitative then quantitative.

I am going to keep looking at the Poisson distribution, because I think I am missing something easy, and I am thinking fuzzy this week ;>

Finally, I got a little distracted by a question. We know that correlation does not imply causation, but what about the reverse? Does causation always result in correlation? Those two links present arguments that causation does NOT always cause correlation – the third link...well, I'm still working on it.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/causation-without-correlation-is-possible/

“Causation without Correlation is Possible”

http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/09/strong-causation-can-exist-without-any.html

“Strong causation can exist without any correlation: The strange case of the chain smokers, and a note about diet"

http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/causation-without-correlation-is-possible

"Causation without Correlation is Possible?”

***

Instructor comment

"The Poisson Distribution is meant to demonstrate the impact of one or more independent variables on the dependent variable.  Essentially, it is determining whether or not there is a predictable correlational relationship, not a causal relationship.  In your proposed study of the juvenile justice system, what is the dependent variable and what are the independent variables that you wish to test?  What type of correlational relationship do you expect to find or explore through the use of Poisson distribution?  Are you  attempting to predict whether current interventions have an impact on future recidivism?"

***

The use of statistics to misinform is pretty common.  There is a  book called "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" ( as well as an updated version) that discusses this issue.

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Mark Twain

It's one reason that valid research is clear in it's methodology:  why did you research this, how did you test it?  what are the definitions of your test terms?
That way others can see what you're up to.

***

numbers can clarify things;  you have to explain where you got your numbers and how you use them.

That way others can replicate your research or contradict it.  If you hide your data, use data that is known to be incorrect, or refuse to disclose your methodology then it's not really research
***

Replication of the Lemiux and Felson Study on Person-Hours/Activity in Relation to Violent Crime Victimization in Austin, Texas

Replication of the Lemiux and Felson Study on Person-Hours/Activity in Relation to Violent Crime Victimization in Austin, Texas

An attempt to replicate the Lemiux and Felson study to determine level of risk for victimization of violent crime localized to Austin, Texas, would not work with the current 2010 Census and (Uniform Crime Reporting) UCR data. The Census data does not include the time/activity data that collected through review of American Time Use Survey (ATUS), and the Part I indexed crimes collated via the UCR do not match the range of crimes labeled as “violent” and gathered through their study of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data. Lemiux and Felson “Twenty types of violence are included in this analysis, ranging from verbal threats of assault to completed rapes.” (2012, p.p 640-641).

So is there a method to replicate this study otherwise? One category of data for ATUS is under the code METAREA, which reports the metropolitan area in which a household was located. By finding METAREA for the Austin area, and filtering the data, we could use the local ATUS data. 2010 ATUS data can be downloaded from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS, 2014) Unfortunately, we would not be able to localize the NCVS data, as there is no sorting this data by region; instead, NCVS defines location of residence by urbanicity, or type of urban location (urban, suburban, or rural). (BJS, n.d) We could return to the UCR Table 6 to match the metropolitan area, but then we run into the issue of the indexed crime data that is collected by the UCR versus the range of definitions for violent crime that Lemiux and Felson garnered from the NCVS. We next turn to the Austin Police Department (APD, and find their reported crime statistics. (APD, n.d.) This returns us to the same issue in reporting that using UCR data presents; APD reports the Part I indexed crimes by their own category, and non-indexed crimes as the total of all non-indexed crime, preventing us from replicating the results of the study of Lemiux and Felson.

However, we can approximate their risk assessment for time activity for the indexed crimes reported by either APD or the UCR, keeping in mind that “Any differences between offenses reported in this[APD's] report and the Uniform Crime Report are due to differences in time of report, reporting requirements, and the inclusion of unfounded cases.”(APD, n.d., para. 6). In fact, with not only that consideration but that the UCR Table 6 represents data from the metropolitan area, not not just the City of Austin, we then would use the UCR Table 6 data as the numerator data, and the ATUS data filtered by the METARE A code for the Austin region for the denominator data. Lemiux and Felson discuss their selection of the numerator/denominator on pp. 640-641 for comparison; in our study, we are looking at the UCR Table 6 data, specifying Part I indexed violent crimes for the Austin metropolitan area as the numerator, and the ATUS METAREA data as the denominator.

In conclusion, the violent crime victimization risk assessment that Lemiux and Felson based on time adjusted study cab be replicated for a metropolitan area with the caveat that the violent crime risk will only be assessed for the violent Part I crimes, and not for all violent crimes as defined by Lemiux and Felson.

Appendix 1 – Tables and Charts

Table 1- 2010 Violent Crime by Indexed Crimes

 

38	Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter
265	Forcible rape
1231	Robbery
2256	Aggravated assault

(Source – Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, 2010

(Source – Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, 2010)

Appendix 2 – Minitab Utilization

To produce a table, and chart from Minitab

1- Input data, either manually, or via cut and paste from the source document (if pasting data into Minitab, be aware of formatting issues and be prepared to delete superfluous rows)

2- Associate data with coding labels; for example, the data value “38” in Table 1, Appendix 1 was entered in the C1 column in Minitab, the label “Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter” was associated in the same row on C2

3- To export the Minitab worksheet into a spreadsheet, select “File->Save Current Worksheet As”, then input filename and the desired format into the option form.

4- To use this data in a Word document, highlight the cells with the desired data, right-click and select “Copy”; in the Word document, move to the “Edit” menu, select “Paste Special”, then select the “calc8” option. Drag the table into the desired layout

5- To create a chart in Minitab, select the “Graph” menu, then choose the type of cart (Area Graph, Bar Chart, or Pie Chart); select the “chart values from a table” option, then assuming your data is in C1, select C1 as the “categorical values” option; and select C2 for the labels option

6-Once the chart has been created, move your mouse to the labels on the chart, edit these labels for clarity

7-To copy the chart into a Word document, right-click the chart and select the “Copy Chart” option; paste into Word and drag the chart into the desired layout

8- To save the worksheet, additional worksheets involved with the data, and all associated charts, select “File → Save Project As”, then select a filename and location.

At this point, the use of Minitab to generate descriptive statistics has not been well illustrated to me; in the case of the 2010 Census data, I felt that the data had to be separated into categories before they provided any useful information/comparison, and only the age category would be better described by the use of descriptive statistics. In the UCR data, I did not feel that generating descriptive statistics for the dataset served any purpose at all, as the data was describing different categories of crime. I don't see any purpose for assigning a mean or standard deviation between the data counting murders and he data counting aggravated assaults.

References

APD. (n.d.) Crime information. Austin Police Department. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://www.austintexas.gov/department/crime-information

APD. (2011). Indexed & Non-indexed offenses by zip code (includes unfounded):01-JAN-10 thru 31-DEC-10. Austin Police Department. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://assets.austintexas.gov/police/zipcode/zipcode/indx_nindx_zip_1210.pdf

BJS.gov. (n.d) NCVS victimization anaylsis tool. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=nvat

BLS.gov (2014). American time use survey — 2010 Microdata Files. Bureau of Labor Statistcs.

Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://www.bls.gov/tus/datafiles_2010.htm

Lemieux, A. M., & Felson, M. (2012). Risk of violent crime victimization during major daily activities. Violence and Victims, 27(5), 635–655. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/1081338409?pq-origsite=summon

Uniform Crime Reports, Table 6 - Crime in the United States by metropolitan statistical area, 2010. (2010). Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved July 12, 2014 from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-6

Time/Space Considerations in Violent Crime Research

Time/Space Considerations in Violent Crime Research

Lemiux and Felson approach the study of violent crime victimization from the perspective of time spent per person per activity, including location. Their research complements location based, or “hot spot” studies; they contend that “no national study has yet collected sufficient lifestyle detail to meet the challenge offered by lifestyle and routine activity theories.” ( Lemiux and Felson, 2012, p. 637). One question they present addresses the function of studying rates by population as opposed to opportunity structures. Issues such as population transiency and the proportion of the population that spends time in relatively dangerous areas are ignored in population-based study. Lemiux and Felson make the counter-point that “people spend very unequal amounts of time in different activities, thus distorting estimates of how much risk one activity generates compared to another.” (2012, p. 638)

Their methodology meets this issue by defining the person-hour as “a useful measure for

determining how much time individuals or a population spends in a specific place or activity.” (Lemiux and Felson, 2012, p. 638) Time adjustment measurements can present a different perspective then can tally counts and population-based rates. To quantify the person-hour, data was drawn from both American Time Use Survey (ATUS) and and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) ; in part because “both use a stratified, multistage sampling strategy and weight estimates to the

national level” (Lemiux and Felson, 2012, p. 639) Some data reconciliation was performed; NCVS data that included the activities of Americans living outside the USA was removed to adjust to ATUS , and series offenses were likewise removed. The researchers reported their data as follows:

We report rates as the number of violent victimizations per 10 million person-hours. These rates can be used to (a) determine which activity is the most dangerous hour for

hour, (b) compare the relative danger of one activity to another, (c) make comparisons

among demographic groups, and (d) make future international and longitudinal compari-

sons as time use and victim surveys continue to develop.

(Lemiux and Felson, 2012, p. 639)

The results of the study show different results then risk assessments based on incident-based reporting. Some activities become much riskier when adjusted for time; the risk for victimization based on incident counting is the lowest for transit to and from school, and yet when adjusted for person-hours, becomes the riskiest activity an American can take part in. In contrast, participating in “Other activities at home” presents the second highest amount of risk when basing the assessment on incident reporting and conversely the second least risky activity when adjusted for time spent. There is not an inverse correlation to risk levels when adjusting for time spent in activity. For example, sleeping is the second least risky activity in incident based counting, and moves to the least riskiest activity when adjusted for time. “Overall, it is evident that time adjustment provides different results and offers a unique way to estimate the risk of violence linked to particular categories of activity” (Lemiux and Felson, 2012, p. 646)

The methodology used allowed Lemiux and Felson to respond to the issues they raised. By adjusting for the time spent in activity located either in “hot spots”, or outside of relatively safer and controlled environments (such as in transit between locales/activities), they were able to asses the risk of victimization by activity. This also allowed comparisons of risk by activity and by demographics.

One interesting facet of the research revealed the higher risk involved in transit from activity to activity when adjusted for time. On a scale of 1 to 10, from least risky to most risky activity, the “To, from school” activity rated as the most risky activity with a score of 9. The second most risky activity was “To, from work” with a score of 8. As Lemiux and Felson chose data based upon it's weight to the national scale, then the medium sized city of Austin, Texas shares with the nation the highest risk of victimization during transit between activities.

Lemiux and Felson discuss the efforts made to recognize the victimization of school attendees during transit, and suggest further study of victimization based on different types of commute, such as public transportation versus privately owned vehicle. One policy recommendation resulting from their study would be the removing of restrictions on citizens for carrying weapons of self-defense and better training for dealing with self-defense situations. Unfortunately, the vast area that would need to be covered by the preventive patrolling of commuter transit would be a strain on law enforcement resources, except in the area of public transit. Finally, Lemiux and Felson stress that time-adjusted risk assessment is not the only factor worth discussing, but they do contend “that the person-hour gives us a more precise way to think about and measure exposure to risk of violence, based on the time people

spend in various activities or locations”(2012, p.650)

References

Lemieux, A. M., & Felson, M. (2012). Risk of violent crime victimization during major daily activities. Violence and Victims, 27(5), 635–655. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/1081338409?pq-origsite=summon

DUF/ADAM Substance Use and Crime Correlation

In 2004, Martin, Maxwell, White, & Zhang investigated the correlation between substance abuse and crime, specifically, cocaine and alcohol abuse.

Martin et al studied the correlation by taking data from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)/Arrestee Drug and Alcohol Monitoring (ADAM) program in the years 1989 through 1998 and data from the Uniform UCR Offenses Known and Cleared by Arrest databases. The researchers matched this data by linking the UCR data to the DUF/ADAM catchment areas. Due to issues matching some areas, the researchers were left with 22 sites of study. Outliers were accounted for by a process of imputing other sources of data ( such as the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports ). Differences in socio-economic conditions (SES) between sites were controlled by creating a construct, the quantification of the “Urban Underclass”. This was intended to “to partially control for between-site differences that may account for observed violence and property crime rates thereby providing a more precise estimate of change over time within each site” (Martin, Maxwell, White, & Zhang, 2004, para. 16). One issue arising from this is that “The DUF/ADAM data are not representative of arrestees as a whole because the data come only from large metropolitan areas and the sample is weighted toward selecting the more serious offenders.” (Martin et al, para.7) In addition, the study excluded data associated with heroin use due to a previously known correlation between heroin and crime, in particular, property crime. The data was then analyzed by site and within each site by year ( referred to as an “individual”. Martin et al “examined the bivariate correlations among DUF/ADAM positive rates for alcohol (self-report), cocaine (urinanalysis), and UCR property and violent crime rates.” (Martin et al, para. 17) They then used the SPSS (a predictive analytics software package) Multilevel Mixed Model to account for violent crime and property crime respectively. This approach allowed them to combine data as they could separate data and run regression analysis by site and year; “regression analysis helps one understand how the typical value of the dependent variable (or 'criterion variable') changes when any one of the independent variables is varied, while the other independent variables are held fixed.” (Wikipedia, 2014, para. 1). To summarize, this allowed the researchers to estimate the correlation between “annual crime rate and the aggregated cocaine and alcohol annual use rates” (Martin et al, para. 17)

Martin, Maxwell, White, & Zhang found that in 20 of 22 of the sites there was a correlation between alcohol use and violent crime, that there was a weaker but still positive correlation between cocaine use and violent crime, that there was a weak but still positive relationship between alcohol use and property crime, and finally there was a positive correlation between cocaine use and property crime. In each case (substance use to type of crime) there was a positive correlation between substance use and crime, however weak.

The research of Martin et al does not surprise me. I don't feel that substance use in an indicator of criminal proclivity in of itself, but that the inherent distortion of perception and the emotional changes, especially in inhibition, brought on by use make it more likely that a person commits a crime under the influence. Increased use leads to a greater probability of crime. Furthermore, in my opinion, crimes are more likely to be committed by people with low impulse control; the abuse of alcohol and cocaine is also more likely in a person with low self-control, exacerbating that problem. I certainly disagree with the idea of alcohol controls on the general public as a remedy for these individuals. As an aside, what is it with academics always wanting to raises taxes?

I think that to replicate this study in my city that I would scrap the use of the DUF/ADAM data completely. If substance use has a positive correlation with crime, then that condition should apply to society as a whole, not simply the “Urban Underclass”, and should be tested for. I could research the per capita use of alcohol by pulling tax receipts from the area's liquor sales; I was unable to find a good method for determining a measure of cocaine use for the area, but I will follow up if I find a better answer then measuring arrests for possession (again, considering that the “underclass” accounts for more arrests due to usage patterns). Then once I had that data I would proceed to compare those numbers versus the UCR data over time.

Martin, S., Maxwell, C., White, H., & Zhang, Y. (2004). Trends in alcohol use, cocaine use, and crime: 1989–1998. Journal of Drug Issues, 34(2), 333–359. Retrieved July 16, 2014 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/208856473

Regression analysis. (2014) Wikipedia. Retrieved July 16, 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis

***

Followup

***

You did a good job clarifying that alcohol is linked to more crime then drugs are;  I'm sure that for people that fully understand statistics the researchers intent was clear, but it's nice to see that pointed out in plain language.

victims perceived the offenders to be under the influence of alcohol compared to to those under the effects of drugs at almost a 3 to 1 ratio, with 13.8% of respondents reporting their perception that he offender was under the influence of alcohol, and 5.1% reporting that the offender was under the effect of drugs.

Greenfield, L.1998 Alcohol and Crime Bureau of Justice Statistics Retrieved January 17, 2014 from HTTP://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf

***

No problem.

My opinion is that most crime is committed by people with low self-control;

"I see it, I want it, I take it"  or "You made me mad, so I hit you".

Low self-control may be a result of poor socialization, but I do see middle-class people do dumb spur-of-the-moment things all the time (they have a little more leeway financially).  If I knew rich people, I would expect to see a certain percentage of them behave completely irresponsible.

Another way of saying low self-control would be the lack of ability to calculate the pain/pleasure matrix of consequences.

This ties into substance abuse/use because it is a bad decision to drink or snort so much you lose control; maybe somebody has low self control, but enough to not commit crime when sober, unfortunately, the self-control doesnt prevent him from getting wasted, and escalates from there.

Let me know if I'm still not being clear!

***

I think a person with low self-control is more likely to commit a crime (whether he is sober or not) then the "normal" person.

I think that a person with low self-control is even more likely to commit a crime when under the influence of a substance then he is when sober.

Finally, I think that a person with low self-control is more likely to be under the influence of a substance then a "normal" person; leading back to that second condition (the last sentence)

***

responding to a question regarding identification of motive based on lack of self-control

*

Not in the UCR which,  according to the NIJ, "Gives a tally of the incidents. Does not contain information on each reported incident."

The NIBRS may make it easier to determine motive, but doesn't specifically collect the motive as data; what it collects that may have an effect on motive are"
Characteristics of victim(s) and offender(s).
Relationship between the victim and offender."

Even that would involve guesswork;  I think you would have to collect data on motive specifically, and that would be difficult in cases where the arrestee is proclaiming innocence.

"Sources of Crime Data: Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System"
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/pages/ucr-nibrs.aspx

***

I don't want to get into a trap about one single cause as a source for crime;  I think there are many causes, but as far as my opinion goes I say that most crimes are committed by people with low self-control.

To test for this you would have to identify other indicators of low self-control;  speeding tickets, at-fault traffic accidents, failing grades in school, children out of wedlock ( or having kids without the personal ability to feed them), substance abuse, multiple job firings, etc.

You would have to be clear as to HOW these indicators would mark low self-control; for example, some businesses hesitate to hire people who move jobs every three years or so, but that isn't something I would consider as an indicator.

You would then set up some sort of scoring measure for the value of "self-control"; or perhaps you could measure for each indicator of low control and aggregate them.

You would then take random samples of the population by using a survey that measured the self-control indicators;  you could either use a self-report on the same survey to measure crimes committed, or you could gain permission to check criminal records.  You would then check the proportion of crimes commited by those with low self-control versus those that did not.

I don't think you would want to sample arrestees because you are drawing from a biased sample.

I did want to reiterate that is what I think causes most crime, but not all crime!

***

To address both your points I think we need to look at the started purpose of the study again:
“This study explores the relationship between alcohol and cocaine use and crime from 1989-1998, based on findings from the Drug Use Forecasting/ Arrestee Drug and Alcohol Monitoring Program and the Uniform Crime Reports Program “ (Martin et al, para.1)

The first clause is simple enough, however it does lead to some ambiguity when modified by the second clause.  Is the study only supposed to apply do the population of substance use arrestees, or to the general population at large?

Martin et al clarify their intent with further remarks linking alcohol use and crime.  “This lack of policy attention to the alcohol-crime link beyond DWI is perplexing since research findings that stretch back nearly 50 years to Wolfgang's classic study of homicide have consistently documented an association between alcohol consumption and violent crime “ (Martin et al, para.4)  They further state that studies have "indicated that alcohol outlets raised the rate of violent crime within the immediate neighborhood context “ (Martin et al, para.4)

Their policy solutions also suggest a causation between alcohol use and crime; "The findings suggest that to reduce violent crime rates, policy makers need to focus on addressing the contribution of alcohol” (Martin et al, para.1)  Their solutions of taxes and other restrictions upon the freedom of the general populace are based upon a relation between alcohol use and crime in general, not upon a correlation between alcohol use and criminal offenders (DUF/ADAM subjects).  An example of a solution based on the second relationship would be additional incapacitation for offenders under the influence.

As to the use of an illicit substance being a crime in of itself, it is hard to address without coming close to circular logic, but I'll try to return to my interpretation of the purpose of the study:  Why is the use of some drugs illegal if that use does not cause crime to begin with?   The researchers controlled against heroin users because of an known correlation.  Martin et al did note the legal distinction, and their focus seemed to be on the alcohol/crime link.  They also contrasted cocaine use against alcohol use; “Cocaine use, in contrast, is not closely associated with either property or violent crime rates in the multivariate analyses “(Martin et al, para.1)  And their proposed solutions were also focused on alcohol.

Both points return to the purpose of the study and it's practical significance.

***

Good point about the reliability of the UCR data.  I wonder what effect it would have on the correlation factors if the hierarchy rule were removed, and had to account for additional crimes that the rule basically "hides" from the Martin group's research

***

UCR Classification Error

***

Advanced Research Methods

Week 3

Discussion 1

***

Nolan, Haas, and Napier focus on the issue of classification error, although they do mention the “error structure” in reporting, and summarize errors in ”missing” data (not noticed by the public, not reported by the public, not filed by the police, and errors in compilation), they reiterate that the issue of focus is the misclassification of crime that is reported to the UCR. They begin by discussing possible sources of classification error; mistakes by officers, bad report writing habits, deliberate downgrading of particular crimes to reduce the crime rate , and automation problems (Nolan, Haas, & Napier, 2011, p.500). Nolan, Haas, and Napier move on to illuminate how to measure classification error by the use of record accuracy and statistical accuracy. “Record accuracy refers to the estimate of classification error in specific crime types viewed alone”. (Nolan et al, p.500) Conversely, “Statistical accuracy refers to the accuracy of the crime totals after all crime types have been examined and offsetting misclassifications have been considered.” (Nolan et al, p.501). They discuss the mathematics involved in the methodology and provide examples of their work; specific error classifications that they found included burglary versus larceny counts, the classification of domestic violence reports as simple assault versus aggravated assault, simple assault versus aggravated assault in general, robbery, and in general found that violent crime was under counted. Finally, they found that 4.17% of the crimes reported to the UCR and included in their study were misclassified. (Nolan et al, p.517)

Two solutions to resolve these problems are provided by Nolan, Haas, and Napier .The first solution is training for LEO that would aid in reporting to“classify crimes according to UCR definitions” (Nolan et al, p.518). The second solution would be to “statistically adjust” reported crime by manipulating reported numbers “on the magnitude and variation of known error in individual crime types as well as aggregate totals.” (Nolan et al, p.518).

Although the first solution should improve accuracy in reporting based upon the efficiency and range of training and the willingness of LEO management to follow up on a continual basis, the second solution of statistical adjustment suffers from the circumstances which overall cause the UCR to suffer from potentially unreliable data.

There are many such circumstances; UCR data is based on a voluntary response sample, which itself is subject to incentive in the form of grant money; “From a statistical point of view, such a sample is fundamentally flawed and should not be used for making general statements about a larger population” (Triola, 2014, p.7). Nolan, Haas, and Napier recognize their use of nonprobabilty sampling; “Although UCR is not produced by sampling, the program is considered statistical because adjustments are made for missing or erroneous data”(Nolan et al, p.499). Another issue is the use of the hierarchy rule; “An incident where a suspect broke into a dwelling, stole property, raped and murdered the inhabitant, burned the structure to destroy evidence, and escaped in the victim's car was counted as one crime, a homicide due to the UCR's hierarchy rule.” (South University Online, 2014, para.3). The hierarchy rule itself is violated by the reporting of arson, which is always reported to the FBI. Other issues involve the failure to include child abuse as a violent crime, the limitation of rape to female victims ( and not accounting for same-sex rape), and racial classifications. Nolan, Haas, and Napier do briefly discuss the issue of false reporting by police, so that consideration was addressed. They defend their findings in that they “believe that the limited context for our study is of less importance in terms of the generalizability of the findings than it would be if we were dealing with other aspects of UCR error” Nolan et al, p.517)

Nolan, J.., Haas, S., & Napier, J. (2011). Estimating the impact of classification error on the "statistical accuracy" of Uniform Crime Reports. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(4), 497–519. Retrieved July 16, 2014 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/901188160

South University Online. (2014). MCJ5100 : Advanced Research Methods and Analysis I : Week 3: Week 3 - The UCR. Retrieved July 16, 2014 from myeclassonline.com

Triola, M. (2014). Elementary Statistics, 12^th ed. Pearson. 

***

Followup

***

I might have to reread the study, but I think you hit a point that the Nolan gang missed, which would be the potential difference in defining crimes uniformly across different jurisdictions.

After reading the Va. legal code, I go back to wondering if the purpose of the law is not to protect the citizenry from each other but to generate income for lawyers... 

***

You have to dance with the one you brought.  If all the data you have is the UCR, then that's what you have to work with.  In the text, they dicuss the concept that you don't always have access to full data, and have to work with what's available.  Which is why you see the researchers in this week's assignments discuss "statistical adjustment" and "imputation" of data.

The problems with the UCR are well-known, and could be fixed, but then you'd have to deal with the accuracy of historical comparisons because your standards have been changed.

There is also the NIBRS

***

Nolan et al briefly touch on the "dark figure of crime" (although they don't refer to it as such) in their discussion of the "error structure" of crime reporting.  Most of their discussion was focused on the misclassification of crime in the UCR. .They summarize the ”missing” data by category (not noticed by the public, not reported by the public, not filed by the police, and errors in compilation)

***

Criminal Justice Intervention in Domestic Violence: Efficiency Under Discussion

***
Advanced Research Methods
Week 2
Discussion 2
***

Criminal Justice Intervention in Domestic Violence: Efficiency Under Discussion

Schmidt and Sherman discuss the current criminal justice policies used to intervene in domestic violence cases, and conclude that policies of intervention, in particular that of mandatory arrest, do not constantly serve to reduce levels of domestic violence. The primary study conducted in the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment suggested that mandatory arrest was the most efficient approach to reducing such violence. “Although the authors opposed mandating arrest until further studies were completed” (Schmidt & Sherman), laws and policies throughout the country dictated that such policy be applied. Unfortunately, this method does not work in all cases, and very often backfires. “No evidence establishes that mandatory arrest has ever worked anywhere. The lack of systematic evidence about mandatory arrest is not to say that it does not protect victims in any circumstances” (Garner, 1997, p.231) Indeed, Schmidt and Sherman mention that many studies contradicted the Minneapolis study by not producing improvements.. Exacerbating the issue is when intervention backfires and causes increased domestic violence, such as in cases where “police intervention in the form of an arrest resulted in retribution by the abuser deterring future reporting.” (Iyenga, 2007, p.14)

Schmidt and Sherman found that intervention worked more in some cases then in others; employed spouses ( and let us note that an arrest of an employed person can lead to that person losing employment), the married, White, and Hispanics; on the other hand, they suggest that intervention backfires more often amongst the unmarried, the unemployed, and Blacks. However, Schmidt and Sherman found inconsistencies even in these results. Another issue they found was that while intervention can reduce domestic violence in the short term, it can make it more likely in the long term. Finally, they suggest that most domestic violence is produced by couples involved in chronic instances of abuse.

Garner, J. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of mandatory arrest for domestic violence in Virginia.William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, Volume 3 Issue 1. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol3/iss1/10

Iyenga, R. (2007) Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence

from mandatory and recommended arrest laws. National Bureau of Economic Research . Retrieved July 11, 2014 from http://people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/mandatory_arrest.pdf

Schmidt, J. D., & Sherman, L. W. (1996). Does arrest deter domestic violence? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/194915503?pq-origsite=summon

***
Followup
***

When I was a security guard, I noticed the same thing.  Most of the "bad" situations I got into were the result of actions I took when I was not being courteous and being brusque and short-tempered.  Some people are going to be aggressive/obnoxious regardless, but most people do respect courtesy

***

 Considering that most domestic violence cases seem to be the same couples, over and over, I think both partners should be given restraining orders to keep away from each other, in those cases specifically.  A person may "love" the spouse that kicks them around the floor every so often, but the taxpayers shouldn't be the ones paying for that "love" when the cops have to show up every time.  Ma and Pa Kettle might chuck beer bottles at each other every payday (or social security check day, etc), but if they want to do it privately they need to do it so that they don't go to the hospital or break the neighbors' windows.
***



That's true, and then sure as g*d made little green apples one of them will start beating on the other, and we'll have to send both of them to jail.  On second thought, I'm not sure if it's either proportional, or a good use of resources.

Of course, I'm not big on the idea of society protecting people from their own stupidity in the first place;  whenever there is a flood, and somebody drives around the flood barriers and inevitably gets stuck, I am tempted to say don't waste the time rescuing them.
***


 I think one of the reasons these cases are so hard to analyze and to keep personal opinions out of is due to privacy and individual rights.  In many cases prior to mandatory arrest, the battered wife would not press charges against her abuser, sometimes to protect the family income, but often as not because she was in love with him; "I love him, I just want him to stop beating me"  From my own point of view, I can't understand that perceptive at all, but I do know that it exists.  In addition, society had a view from a long time that domestic violence was not a crime, but a family issue.  I can understand that point of view, and up to a certain limit, hold to it myself...but that limit is pretty short.  A guy is generally bigger, more muscular, and more aggressive then a woman...and he needs to control himself to prevent harm to her;  of course there are situations where the woman is the aggressor, but in those cases she needs to do the same.
***

One of the factors, in my opinion, in criminal behavior is self-control.  An employed person is more likely to have self-control then an unemployed person, and thus be more responsive to punitive action.

For example, I have a friend that uses weed.  He has a recognizable pattern of behavior regarding employment.  He uses weed and sleeps late, is late to work or misses work, gets chewed out by his boss, develops a persecution complex, intentionally screws up at work or continues to miss work, and then gets mad when he gets fired or gets into a shouting match with his boss and quits with a grand stage exit.  You MIGHT get my friend to work right if you were to stand over him and whack him in the head with a stick constantly, but probably not.  Thankfully, he doesnt beat his wife.

***
No, not at present, he doesn't.  This is a pattern of get a job, lose a job, get a job, lose a job, repeat.

This is a bit of a digression, but I don't think that poverty causes crime.  I think that crime and poverty are both dependent variables on the independent value of self-control.  There are other factors of course ( having poor parents is likely to cause one to be poor)




***



If both poverty and crime are dependent on the sane variable, there will always be correlation between them, but not necessarily causation between them.

Most of the "poverty causes crime" theorists push various "redistributive" solutions; Cloward, for example.  Is this a case of the evidence suggesting the theory, or the theory suggesting the evidence?
***
I didn't make it clear enough, but the studies I mentioned conclude that intervention (arrest, counseling, or separation) does not always work.  The key here is consistency;  a policy that doesn't always work, or that sometimes causes the opposite effect then intended, is not a good policy.
The studies have identified some situations in which the policy works;  [Withheld] has given us an example in which LEO carry a "checklist"to identify domestic violence
So I would say that the conclusion that we do nothing would be a wrong conclusion.  Domestic violence does kill people, it puts people in the hospital, and people suffer other damage from it ( a kid that watches his dad slap his mom around, for example).
But it is hard to identify.  There are ways to beat people without leaving a mark, and conversely a small women CAN be jailed for leaving a mark when she slaps her body-builder husband.  People engaged in consensual BDSM leave various marks on each other.
Even after identification has been made, HOW to deal with it raises questions;  the law that requires mandatory arrest works well when a wife would refuse to charge an abusive bread-winner (or does it?  who wins the bread when the winner is in the slam?  how much should a wife have to endure to feed her kids?  what if she "loves" him enough to put up with abuse? these aren't easy questions)  but it is ridiculous to arrest the wife in the slapping incident above when the husband laughs off the mark on his cheek.  What then if the wife is a body-builder and the husband is a "weakling"?
Maybe the best way to deal with it is multi-layered approach; serious injury requires arrest, visible marks require temporary separation, and the presence of police at all requires counseling.
Which finally brings us to questions of resources; who pays for separation or counseling would be the first question to answer.

The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment

***

Advanced Research Methods

Week 2

Discussion 1

***

The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment

The Kansas City Police Department undertook an experiment to determine if changes in preventive patrolling had an effect on police services (such as reducing crime levels, maintaining a community free of the fear of crime, and even the publics perception of the police). The experiment was conceived based on a shortage of resources, and the “concern was that any serious attempt to deal with priority problems would be confounded by the need to maintain established levels of routine patrol. (Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, and Brown, 1974, p. 40).

To determine if preventative patrolling had an an effect on services, the researchers basically conducted two experiments; the first, in which no preventative patrolling was conducted (this method named as “reactive”), and the second in which 2 to 3 times the number of preventative patrols were conducted (this method named as “proactive”). In both cases, the independent variable, the level of preventative patrolling, was compared to the dependent variable, the effect on police services. To establish a controlled experiment, the area was divided into three test areas based on the “basis of crime data, number of calls for service, ethnic composition, median income and transiency of population” (Kelling et al, 1974, p.7) This was intended to remove other possible variables from affecting the cause and effect relationship between the level of preventative patrolling conducted and the level of police service. Three areas were designated so that both the “reactive” and “proactive” methods could be compared against a control group. Units from the “reactive” method were used to increase patrols in areas designated in the “proactive” method. The same officers that had patrolled the area previously were used in the experiment to eliminate additional variables from affecting the cause and effect relationship. In addition, the areas under experiment were layed out in order to maintain response times. Although the experiment was initially flawed by the failure to maintain the conditions set for the experiment, these issues were identified and corrected; the experiment continued for 1 year.

The researchers measured the effects on police services in the following ways: a victimization survey, crime reported to the police, the arrest rate, a commercial survey, traffic data, encounter surveys from citizens, officers, and observers, officer surveys on noncomitted time, dispatch data, response time surveys from observers and citizens, and finally, a data analysis of officer activity. The researchers concluded that there were no statistically significant difference in any of the areas of police services between the control group and either the “reactive” group or the “proactive” group. There was one exception in the case of “other sex crimes”, but the researchers concluded that “not traditionally considered to be responsive to routine preventive patrol” (Kelling et al, 1974, p.16),. The researchers also found that there was no spillover or displacement effect.

The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment and it's conclusions affected criminal justice policy in several ways. The primary effect was that “it suggested the implementation of targeted crime prevention strategies” (Avdija, 2008, para. 18) Carter suggests that the“implications for community policing were important, not the least of which was the fact that officers could free up time from patrol therefore using that time more efficiently through problem solving” (2000, p.3). The experiment can be said to have provided basis for both the community-oriented policing and the problem-oriented policing concepts.

References

Avdija, A. (2008, July-December). Evidence-based policing: A comparative analysis of eight experimental studies focused in the area of targeted policing. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol. 3. Iss. 2., Retrieved July 11, 2014 from http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/avdi.html

Carter, D. (2000). Reflections on the move to community policing. Regional Community Policing Training Institue at Wichita State University. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/rcpi/Policy%20Papers/Reflections%20on%20Comm%20Pol.pdf

Kelling, G., Pate, T., Dieckman, D.,and Brown, C. (1974) The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. Police Foundation. Retrieved July 8, 2014 from http://www.policefoundation.org/content/kansas-city-preventive-patrol-experiment-0

***
Followup
***

I have a pretty good article floating around my drive on police work as an "art" versus a "science". (I'll see if i can dig it up, but I'm still way behind on organization)
Essentially, the point was that there can be a mutual distrust between academia and LE professionals.  Some academics look down on LEO's and don't trust field experience/department culturization, while street cops can have a distrust in "eggheads", whose ideas can run from unfeasible to purely destructive (see Cloward-Piven).
That isn't to say everyone in those respective fields feels that way, but the author felt there were enough people on both sided to make departments resistant to change led by academia.
If you also take into account organizational biases, it would be easy to say that any organization will be resistant to change.

 ***
One thing that would help would be for academics to mitigate any possible damage their research might cause; in the Kansas City Preventative Policing experiment, for example, both the department and the researchers watched for skyrocketing rates of crime, in which case they prepared to abandon the experiment

***

This comes back to the scarcity of resources issue; by cutting back the number of hours used in preventative patrolling, departments can target resources more efficiently, so I agree with you, this was definitely a success.

***
The more data you have, the more accurate your statistics are going to be (side note - I was surprised to find out how well the bell curve represented reality in my statistics class).  By extending the time the experiment ran, the researchers were able to gather more data.

In addition, in covering a year, the experiment was also able to take into account seasonal variations (in summer, you'll have more unsupervised vagrants and more juveniles will be out and about)

oops, please swap vagrants and juveniles in the above!

***
[Withheld] brought up the targeting of "hot spots" earlier; this would be the best way to start allocation of resources. "In Minneapolis, for instance, only 3 percent of the city’s addresses accounted for 50 percent of calls for service to the police" (Braga, 2008, p.6)
The tactics of how to apply the resources is a another matter of discussion.  Do you use surveillance teams, station additional reactive teams in the area, or take another tact?

Braga, A. (2008).Crime Prevention Research Review No.2: Police Enforcement Strategies to Prevent Crime in Hot Spot Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,. Retrieved July 12, 2014 from
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e040825133-web.pdf