CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973-2018 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 2018. The dataset consists of one part which contains 9,583 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 2018 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.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973-2017 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 2017. The dataset consists of one part which contains 9,543 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 2017 as well as inmates who were already on death row.

Our publication covers movements in the death row population in India as well as political and legal developments in the administration of the death penalty and the criminal justice system. The statistics are compiled through a combination of processes such as data mining of court websites, media monitoring and Right to Information applications.

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 pre-analysis plan outlines a research strategy to test a "self-reinforcing" theory of death penalty executions, which holds that counties face decreasing marginal costs for executions. We test this theory through examining event dependence in executions among counties that have the death penalty. To test for the presence of these self-reinforcing processes in executions, and the exogenous factors that may explain executions, we utilize an event history model that accounts for event dependence. The empirical findings of this analysis may have profound consequences for how we understand executions. Evidence of event dependence would reveal that the main determinant of whether an individual is executed is the county's previous experience with execution, which would raise many important policy, legal, and moral questions.

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.

This data collection provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death and prisoners whose offense sentences were commuted or vacated during the period 1973-2005. Information is supplied for basic sociodemographic characteristics such as age, se

We provide a yearly categorization of death penalty status as well as changes of the status in the world. The database covers the period 1800-2022 for all currently independent countries in the world.

Prison Inmates in India

Demographics, Age, Education, Caste, Wages, Rehabilitation, Technical Info

By Rajanand Ilangovan [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides a detailed view of prison inmates in India, including their age, caste, and educational background. It includes information on inmates from all states/union territories for the year 2019 such as the number of male and female inmates aged 16-18 years, 18-30 year old inmates and those above 50 years old. The data also covers total number of penalized prisoners sentenced to death sentence, life imprisonment or executed by the state authorities. Additionally, it provides information regarding the crimehead (type) committed by an inmate along with its grand total across different age groups. This dataset not only sheds light on India’s criminal justice system but also highlights prevelance of crimes in different states and union territories as well as providing insight into crime trends across Indian states over time

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides a comprehensive look at the demographics, crimes and sentences of Indian prison inmates in 2019. The data is broken down by state/union territory, year, crime head, age groups and gender.

This dataset can be used to understand the demographic composition of the prison population in India as well as the types of crimes committed. It can also be used to gain insight into any changes or trends related to sentencing patterns in India over time. Furthermore, this data can provide valuable insight into potential correlations between different demographic factors (such as gender and caste) and specific types of crimes or length of sentences handed out.

To use this dataset effectively there are a few important things to keep in mind: •State/UT - This column refers to individual states or union territories in India where prisons are located •Year – This column indicates which year(s) the data relates to •Both genders - Female columns refer only to female prisoners while male columns refers only to male prisoners •Age Groups – 16-18 years old = 21-30 years old = 31-50 years old = 50+ years old •Crime Head – A broad definition for each type of crime that inmates have been convicted for •No Capital Punishment – The total number sentenced with capital punishment No Life Imprisonment – The total number sentenced with life imprisonment No Executed– The total number executed from death sentence Grand Total–The overall totals for each category

By using this information it is possible to answer questions regarding topics such as sentencing trends, types of crimes committed by different age groups or genders and state-by-state variation amongst other potential queries

Research Ideas

• Using the age and gender information to develop targeted outreach strategies for prisons in order to reduce recidivism rates.
• Creating an AI-based predictive model to predict crime trends by analyzing crime head data from a particular region/state and correlating it with population demographics, economic activity, etc.
• Analyzing the caste of inmates across different states in India in order to understand patterns of discrimination within the criminal justice system

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Columns

File: SLL_Crime_headwise_distribution_of_inmates_who_convicted.csv | Column name | Description | |:--------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | STATE/UT | Name of the state or union territory where the jail is located. (String) | | YEAR | Year when the inmate population data was collected. (Integer) ...

What the general public thinks about crime and punishment is a vexed question. In an effort to bring systematic data to bear on this question, I have assembled the largest compilation of aggregated survey data on attitudes to crime and punishment in England and Wales to date. The dataset contains 1,190 question-year pairs, which track popular attitudes across four areas: (i) Crime concern 1965-2023, (ii) Punitiveness 1981-2023, (iii) Support for the death penalty 1962-2023, and (iv) Prioritisation of crime/law-and-order as a social issue 1973-2023. For example, in 2014, 58% of respondents to the British Election Studies Internet Panel thought that the level of crime was increasing. By 2019, this number had increased to 83%, and by 2023 it had fallen back to 77%. For 16-24 year olds, the numbers are 38%, 69% and 65%. Harmonised latent trends for each area can be derived from the aggregated survey data using Stimson’s (2018) Dyad Ratio Algorithm for different demographic groups using the R script below. This deposit contains aggregate survey responses for four different dimensions of public opinion about crime and punishment: - Crime concern = perceptions of the crime rate and the degree to which the public is fearful or concerned about crime - Punitiveness = the degree to which public opinion supports being tougher on crime or supports less punitive and more rehabilitative policies - Prioritisation of crime as a social issue = the degree to which people prioritise crime as the number one most urgent or important issue facing the country - Support for the death penalty = support for capital punishment in any situation 1190 question-year pairs were collected from the following sources: - British Election Study (1963-2023, 15 post-election cross-sectional studies and 9 panel studies): - British Social Attitude Survey (1983-2021): NatCen Social Research (2023) British Social Attitudes Survey. [data series]. 3rd Release. UK Data Service. SN: 200006. - British Crime Survey / Crime Survey for England and Wales (1982-2021): Office for National Statistics (2021) Crime Survey for England and Wales. [data series]. 3rd Release. UK Data Service. SN: 200009. - YouGov Crime Trackers (2019-2023): - YouGov MII Tracker (2011-2023): - Ipsos Issues Tracker (1974-2023): - A. King, R. Wybrow, A. Gallup. (2001) British Political Opinion 1937-2000: The Gallup Polls. London: Portico's Publishing. - G. Gallup (ed.) (1976) The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls: Great Britain 1937-1975. New York: Random House. - W. Jennings, J. Kenny, A. Roescu, S. Smedley, N. Or, K. Weldon, P. Enns, K. Norek, J. Riggs (2022) UK Gallup Poll collection, 1956-1991. Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. In each case, I calculate the weighted average response to each question per year for different demographic subgroups. For example, in 2014, 58% of respondents to the British Election Studies Internet Panel thought that the level of crime was increasing. By 2019, this number had increased to 83%, and by 2023 it had fallen back to 77%. For 16-24 year olds, the numbers are 38%, 69% and 65%.

This dataset is extracted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country. Context: There s a story behind every dataset and heres your opportunity to share yours.Content: What s inside is more than just rows and columns. Make it easy for others to get started by describing how you acquired the data and what time period it represents, too. Acknowledgements:We wouldn t be here without the help of others. If you owe any attributions or thanks, include them here along with any citations of past research.Inspiration: Your data will be in front of the world s largest data science community. What questions do you want to see answered?

On the eve of World War II, eight countries had completely abolished the death penalty and another six had banned it for ordinary crimes. As of early 2008, 92 countries had prohibited capital punishment for all crimes and 10 more had ruled it out for ordinary crimes. The goal of this article is to account for the pattern of national abolition of the death penalty since 1960. We hypothesize that certain kinds of democracies are more liable to end capital punishment than others. Specifically, the negotiated form of democracy produced by parliamentary systems with proportional representation (“consensus democracy” in Lijphart's terms) is more likely to do away with the death penalty than are other forms of democracy. As previous research indicates, democratic transitions also increase the likelihood of abolition. Finally, international influences can also tip countries toward abolition. We suggest that incentives provided by international organizations, particularly in Europe, have drawn some countries toward abolition. The empirical analysis of approximately 150 countries for the period 1960–2005 confirms our expectations.

Since 2003 Frank Baumgartner and colleagues have been involved in a project tracing the changing politics and issue-definitions associated with the death penalty. The question is to determine the degree to which the new "innocence" frame is displacing the traditional "morality" frame relating to this issue. Important substantive issues about the future of the death penalty in America can be addressed as well as difficult methodological issues concerning how to study the links among issue-definition, public opinion, the media, and public policy. With Suzanna De Boef, graduate student Amber Boydstun, and occasional other collaborators on different parts of the project, Baumgartner and others have addressed a number of questions relating to these issues. The research has focused on substantive issues relating to how the media has covered the death penalty (with particular reference to the use of various frames), public opinion (in particular the cognitive process by which individuals react to the "moral" and the "innocence " frame, based on experiments), and the history of the issue since 1960.

This article analyses the first personal executions by hanging during the eleventh and twelfth centuries of which we have evidence in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula (Galicia and León). Information from wills, witness statements, purchase, and sale litigations will be used to examine three case studies, contextualised at a microhistorical level within their local, social, and legal context. The need for, and interest of, this research lies in the paucity of earlier studies on capital punishment for this period, as well as in the current boom in historiography on judicial history and conflict in the Middle Ages. The study of this social and personal context adds a new dimension to the study of punishments and penalties which have hitherto been analysed primarily from a legal point of view, rather than from the perspective of social history.

This data collection provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death and prisoners whose offense sentences were commuted or vacated during the period 1973-2001. Information is supplied for basic sociodemographic characteristics such as age, se

This survey contains a large amount of information dealing with events spanning the life course. Demographic and social characteristics / perception of crime in neighbourhood: incivility of neighbourhood, fear of crime / victimisation: sexual offences, assault, threat, burglary, bicycle theft, car theft, theft from car, theft/damage car exterior, pickpocketing, other theft, vandalism, hit-and-run accident, telephone harassment, other crimes, frequencies of victimisation 1995, traffic accidents / perceived risk of victimisation, respect for the law, relative importance goals of sentencing, satisfaction with police / offending: fare dodging, drunk driving, switching price tags, shop lifting, vandalism, fencing, bicycle theft, tax fraud, social security fraud, insurance fraud, theft at work, theft from car/home, hit-und-run driving, theft of money, inflicting injury with weapon / norm deviant behaviour / perceived risk of being caught / leisure time / living situation / capital punishment / death penalty / religion / integration in neighbourhood / attitudes towards criminality and law enforcement / sentences / indirect victimisation / estimated level of crime / accidents / quality of relationships, early youth, characteristics father, mother, head of household. Background variables: basic characteristics/ place of birth/ residence/ household characteristics/ occupation/employment/ income/capital assets/ education/ religion

Petition subject: Abolition of capital punishment Original: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:13481595 Date of creation: (unknown) Legislator, committee, or address that the petition was sent to: Roderick S. Merrick, Wilbraham; committee on the death penalty Selected signatures:Z.A. MudgeWilliam RussellH. Sandford SealeElizabeth RaymondSarah NorthBetsey SmithSilas Bliss Actions taken on dates: 1851-03-10,1851-03-11 Legislative action: Received in the House on March 10, 1851 and referred to the committee on the death penalty and sent for concurrence and received in the Senate on March 11, 1851 and concurred Total signatures: 57 Legislative action summary: Received, referred, sent, received, concurred Legal voter signatures (males not identified as non-legal): 37 Female signatures: 20 Female only signatures: No Identifications of signatories: [females], ["others"] Prayer format was printed vs. manuscript: Manuscript Signatory column format: column separated Additional non-petition or unrelated documents available at archive: no additional documents Additional archivist notes: Towns next to names including Newton; [religious] Location of the petition at the Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth: House Unpassed 1851, Docket 3162 Acknowledgements: Supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities (PW-5105612), Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University, Institutional Development Initiative at Harvard University, and Harvard University Library.

This survey was conducted among residents of California on many topics including what it means to be a Californian, capital punishment, court system, jury system, death penalty, crime, street gangs, and domestic violence.

Petition subject: Abolition of capital punishment Original: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:13481581 Date of creation: (unknown) Petition location: Mendon Legislator, committee, or address that the petition was sent to: Francis E. Wheelock, Mendon; committee on the death penalty Selected signatures:Leprielette M. PerhamHenry AldrichCaleb ThayerLiberty Goss Actions taken on dates: 1851-02-11,1851-02-12 Legislative action: Received in the House on February 11, 1851 and referred to the committee on the death penalty and sent for concurrence and received in the Senate on February 12, 1851 and concurred Total signatures: 34 Legislative action summary: Received, referred, sent, received, concurred Legal voter signatures (males not identified as non-legal): 27 Female signatures: 2 Unidentified signatures: 5 Female only signatures: No Identifications of signatories: inhabitants, [females], ["others"] Prayer format was printed vs. manuscript: Printed Signatory column format: not column separated Additional non-petition or unrelated documents available at archive: no additional documents Location of the petition at the Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth: House Unpassed 1851, Docket 3162 Acknowledgements: Supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities (PW-5105612), Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University, Institutional Development Initiative at Harvard University, and Harvard University Library.