CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973-2022 provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death, as well as those who had their sentences commuted or vacated and prisoners who were executed. This study examines basic sociodemographic classifications including age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status at time of imprisonment, level of education, and state and region of incarceration. Criminal history information includes prior felony convictions and prior convictions for criminal homicide and the legal status at the time of the capital offense. Additional information is provided on those inmates removed from death row by year-end 2022. The dataset consists of one part which contains 9,675 cases and 33 variables. The file provides information on inmates whose death sentences were removed in addition to information on those inmates who were executed. The file also gives information about inmates who received a second death sentence by year-end 2022 as well as inmates who were already on death row.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics These data collections provide annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death and on those whose offense sentences were commuted or vacated during the years indicated. Information is supplied for basic sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status at time of imprisonment, level of education, and state of incarceration. Criminal history data include prior felony convictions for criminal homicide and legal status at the time of the capital offense. Additional information is available for inmates removed from death row by yearend of the last year indicated and for inmates who were executed. The universe is all inmates on death row since 1972 in the United States. The inmate identification numbers were assigned by the Bureau of the Census and have no purpose outside these data collections.Years Produced: Annually (latest release contains all years)NACJD has produced a resource guide on the Capital Punishment in the United States Series.

This data collection effort was undertaken to analyze the outcomes of capital appeals in the United States between 1973 and 1995 and as a means of assessing the reliability of death penalty verdicts (also referred to herein as "capital judgments" or "death penalty judgments") imposed under modern death-sentencing procedures. Those procedures have been adopted since the decision in Furman v. Georgia in 1972. The United States Supreme Court's ruling in that case invalidated all then-existing death penalty laws, determining that the death penalty was applied in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner and violated Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Data provided in this collection include state characteristics and the outcomes of review of death verdicts by state and year at the state direct appeal, state post-conviction, federal habeas corpus, and all three stages of review (Part 1). Data were compiled from published and unpublished official and archived sources. Also provided in this collection are state and county characteristics and the outcome of review of death verdicts by county, state, and year at the state direct appeal, state post-conviction, federal habeas corpus, and all three stages of review (Part 2). After designing a systematic method for identifying official court decisions in capital appeals and state and federal post-conviction proceedings (no official or unofficial lists of those decisions existed prior to this study), the authors created three databases original to this study using information reported in those decisions. The first of the three original databases assembled as part of this project was the Direct Appeal Database (DADB) (Part 3). This database contains information on the timing and outcome of decisions on state direct appeals of capital verdicts imposed in all years during the 1973-1995 study period in which the relevant state had a valid post-Furman capital statute. The appeals in this database include all those that were identified as having been finally decided during the 1973 to 1995 period (sometimes called "the study period"). The second original database, State Post-Conviction Database (SPCDB) (Part 4), contains a list of capital verdicts that were imposed during the years between 1973 and 2000 when the relevant state had a valid post-Furman capital statute and that were finally reversed on state post-conviction review between 1973 and April 2000. The third original database, Habeas Corpus Database (HCDB) (Part 5), contains information on all decisions of initial (non-successive) capital federal habeas corpus cases between 1973 and 1995 that finally reviewed capital verdicts imposed during the years 1973 to 1995 when the relevant state had a valid post-Furman capital statute. Part 1 variables include state and state population, population density, death sentence year, year the state enacted a valid post-Furman capital statute, total homicides, number of African-Americans in the state population, number of white and African-American homicide victims, number of prison inmates, number of FBI Index Crimes, number of civil, criminal, and felony court cases awaiting decision, number of death verdicts, number of Black defendants sentenced to death, rate of white victims of homicides for which defendants were sentenced to death per 100 white homicide victims, percentage of death row inmates sentenced to death for offenses against at least one white victim, number of death verdicts reviewed, awaiting review, and granted relief at all three states of review, number of welfare recipients and welfare expenditures, direct expenditures on the court system, party-adjusted judicial ideology index, political pressure index, and several other created variables. Part 2 provides this same state-level information and also provides similar variables at the county level. Court expenditure and welfare data are not provided in Part 2, however. Part 3 provides data on each capital direct appeal decision, including state, FIPS state and county code for trial court county, year of death verdict, year of decision, whether the verdict was affirmed or reversed, and year of first fully valid post-Furman statute. The date and citation for rehearing in the state system and on certiorari to the United States Supreme Court are provided in some cases. For reversals in Part 4 information was collected about state of death verdict, FIPS state and county code for trial court county, year of death verdict, date of relief, basis for reversal, stage of trial and aspect of verdict (guilty of aggravated capital murder, death sentence) affected by reversal, outcome on retrial, and citation. Part 5 variables include state, FIPS state and county codes for trial court county, year of death verdict, defendant's history of alcohol or drug abuse, whether the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime, whether the defense attorney was from in-state, whether the defendant was connected to the community where the crime occurred, whether the victim had a high standing in the community, sex of the victim, whether the defendant had a prior record, whether a state evidentiary hearing was held, number of claims for final federal decision, whether a majority of the judges voting to reverse were appointed by Republican presidents, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, whether habeas corpus relief was granted, what claims for habeas corpus relief were presented, and the outcome on each claim that was presented. Part 5 also includes citations to the direct appeal decision, the state post-conviction decision (last state decision on merits), the judicial decision at the pre-penultimate federal stage, the decision at the penultimate federal stage, and the final federal decision.

Overview

This repository contains a modified version of the existing, recently published dataset, Westermo. The initial dataset was gathered at Westermo Network Technologies AB, located in Västerås, Sweden. It encompasses over 1 Million verdicts obtained from testing embedded systems, collected over a span of more than 500 consecutive days of nightly testing. The dataset has been transformed and tailored specifically to cater to the research community, particularly for addressing challenges such as regression test selection, identification of flaky tests, and visualization of test results. The original dataset can be accessed through the reference provided in [1].

The Westermo dataset offers valuable historical information regarding the execution of test cases and their corresponding results. It serves as a valuable resource for evaluating and comparing different Test case Selection and Prioritization (TSP) techniques, enabling researchers to identify test cases that are more likely to fail during subsequent executions. Test cases in the dataset are characterized by attributes such as execution duration, previous last execution time, and the results of their recent executions.

This dataset offers valuable historical information regarding the execution of test cases and their corresponding results. It serves as a valuable resource for evaluating and comparing different test case prioritization and selection techniques, enabling researchers to identify test cases that are more likely to fail during subsequent executions. Test cases in the dataset are characterized by attributes such as execution duration, previous last execution time, and the results of their recent executions.

Table 1: Dataset Overview


    Test Cases
    1855


    CI Cycles
    15,197


    Verdict
    1,036,818


    Failed
    5.03%

However, the diversity and multitude of the features in the dataset can be irrelevant to some TSP approaches. This led us to perform a dataset conversion, where we customized Westermo to have the same features from Paint Control and IOF/ROL, two widely used datasets in Reinforcement Learning based TSP approaches.

This conversion required the combination of multiple variables and generating the target ones. When it comes to generating the “LastResults” and “Cycle” values, further analysis was required and the data handling needed an in-depth understanding of how the nightly testing was conducted. This led us to investigate what a CI cycle is in their context, and we followed their definition of a session, stating that “a session is when we run a suite of tests on one test system with a certain software version and testware version”. When splitting the data according to the 9 different systems used, we were able to generate 9 different sub-sets that fit the CI context.

File Format

The compressed .zip file contains 9 files, each one corresponding to each of the 9 systems. The datasets are available in CSV format, with the semicolon (;) serving as the delimiter. The columns included are represented in the table below along with their descriptions.

Table 2: Parameters of the dataset


    Column Name
    Content




    jid
    job id, together with the system name, the pair (jid, system) forms a unique key for a test session


    System
    Name of the test system


    Name
    Unique numeric identifier of the test case


    Verdict

Test verdict of this test execution (Failed: 1, Passed: 0)

    Duration
    Approximated runtime of the test case


    Cycle
    The number of the CI cycle this test execution belongs to.


    Group
    The group test case belongs to. 


    LastRun
    Previous last execution of the test case as date-time-string (Format: YYYY-MM-DD HH:ii )


    Id
    Unique numeric identifier of the test execution


    CalcPrio
    Priority of the test case, calculated by the prioritization algorithm (output column, initially 0)


    result_array
    List of previous test results (Failed: 1, Passed: 0), ordered by ascending age. Lists are delimited by [ ].

The implications of this conversion are important as it can help the previous works to re-assess their approaches and have more data for training and testing, as well as opening a broader data spectrum for future researchers in this field to find ready-to-use, rich datasets, on which they could evaluate their approaches and contribute to the TSP community. This also addresses the limitations in the field discussed in the systematic literature review [2], stating that future research on TSP techniques should focus on collecting data from more recent subjects in a CI context with varying failure rates and larger execution times, as reproducible studies with appropriate datasets are needed to develop a usable body of knowledge regarding TSP over time. We believe that this conversion of the Westermo dataset is our contribution to alleviating the gap for the RL-based approaches.

The original dataset can be found here.

This data collection provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death and on those whose offense sentences were commuted or vacated during the period 1973-1993. Information is supplied for basic sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex

Discover LSEG's Tradeweb data, supporting more than 20 asset classes with electronic execution, processing, post-trade analysis and market data.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973-2011 provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death, as well as those who had their sentences commuted or vacated and prisoners who were executed. This study examines basic sociodemographic classifications including age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status at time of imprisonment, level of education, and state and region of incarceration. Criminal history information includes prior felony convictions and prior convictions for criminal homicide and the legal status at the time of the capital offense. Additional information is provided on those inmates removed from death row by yearend 2011. The dataset consists of one part which contains 9,058 cases. The file provides information on inmates whose death sentences were removed in addition to information on those inmates who were executed. The file also gives information about inmates who received a second death sentence by yearend 2011 as well as inmates who were already on death row.

These data offer objective and subjective information about current death row inmates and the management policies and procedures related to their incarceration. The major objectives of the study were to gather data about the inmate population and current management policies and procedures, to identify issues facing correctional administrators in supervising the growing number of condemned inmates, and to offer options for improved management. Four survey instruments were developed: (1) a form for the Department of Corrections in each of the 37 states that had a capital punishment statute as of March 1986, (2) a form for each warden of an institution that housed death-sentenced inmates, (3) a form for staff members who worked with such inmates, and (4) a form for a sample of the inmates. The surveys included questions about inmate demographics (e.g., date of birth, sex, race, Hispanic origin, level of education, marital status, and number of children), the institutional facilities available to death row inmates, state laws pertaining to them, training for staff who deal with them, the usefulness of various counseling, medical, and recreational programs, whether the inmates expected to be executed, and the challenges in managing the death row population. The surveys did not probe legal, moral, or political arguments about the death penalty itself.

This study addressed questions related to potential geographic and racial disparity in the investigation and prosecution of federal capital cases and examined the process by which criminal cases, specially homicide cases, enter the federal criminal justice system. The primary method of data collection used was face-to-face interviews of key criminal justice officials within each district included in the study. Between 2000 and 2004, the researchers visited nine federal districts and interviewed all actors in the state and federal criminal justice systems who potentially would play a role in determining whether a homicide case was investigated and prosecuted in the state or federal systems. The study focused on homicide cases because federal homicides represented the offense of conviction in all capital case convictions in the federal system under the 2000 and 2001 DOJ reports (see U.S. Department of Justice, "The Federal Death Penalty System: A Statistical Survey (1988-2000)," Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September 12, 2000, and U.S. Department of Justice, "The Federal Death Penalty System: Supplementary Data, Analysis and Revised Protocols for Capital Case Review," Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, June 6, 2001). In addition, federally related homicides are frequently involved with drug, gang, and/or organized crime investigations. Using 11 standardized interview protocols, developed in consultation with members of the project's advisory group, research staff interviewed local investigative agencies (police chief or his/her representative, section heads for homicide, drug, gang, or organized crime units as applicable to the agency structure), federal investigative agencies (Special Agent-in-Charge or designee, section heads of relevant units), local prosecutors (District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, including the line attorneys and section heads), and defense attorneys who practiced in federal court. Due to the extensive number of issues to be covered with the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, interviews were conducted with: (1) the U.S. Attorney or designated representative, (2) section heads, and (3) Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) within the respective sections. Because the U.S. Attorneys were appointed following the change in the U.S. Presidency in 2000, a slightly altered U.S. Attorney questionnaire was designed for interviews with the former U.S. Attorney who was in office during the study period of 1995 through 2000. In some instances, because the project focus was on issues and processes from 1995 through 2000, a second individual with longer tenure was chosen to be interviewed simultaneously when the head or section head was newer to the position. In some instances when a key respondent was unavailable during the site visit and no acceptable alternative could be identified, arrangements were made to complete the interview by telephone after the visit. The interviews included questions related to the nature of the local crime problem, agency crime priorities, perceived benefits of the federal over the local process, local and federal resources, nature and target of joint task forces, relationships between and among agencies, policy and agreements, definitions and understanding of federal jurisdiction, federal investigative strategies, case flow, and attitudes toward the death penalty.