In 2023, the violent crime rate in the United States was 363.8 cases per 100,000 of the population. Even though the violent crime rate has been decreasing since 1990, the United States tops the ranking of countries with the most prisoners. In addition, due to the FBI's transition to a new crime reporting system in which law enforcement agencies voluntarily submit crime reports, data may not accurately reflect the total number of crimes committed in recent years. Reported violent crime rate in the United States The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation tracks the rate of reported violent crimes per 100,000 U.S. inhabitants. In the timeline above, rates are shown starting in 1990. The rate of reported violent crime has fallen since a high of 758.20 reported crimes in 1991 to a low of 363.6 reported violent crimes in 2014. In 2023, there were around 1.22 million violent crimes reported to the FBI in the United States. This number can be compared to the total number of property crimes, roughly 6.41 million that year. Of violent crimes in 2023, aggravated assaults were the most common offenses in the United States, while homicide offenses were the least common. Law enforcement officers and crime clearance Though the violent crime rate was down in 2013, the number of law enforcement officers also fell. Between 2005 and 2009, the number of law enforcement officers in the United States rose from around 673,100 to 708,800. However, since 2009, the number of officers fell to a low of 626,900 officers in 2013. The number of law enforcement officers has since grown, reaching 720,652 in 2023. In 2023, the crime clearance rate in the U.S. was highest for murder and non-negligent manslaughter charges, with around 57.8 percent of murders being solved by investigators and a suspect being charged with the crime. Additionally, roughly 46.1 percent of aggravated assaults were cleared in that year. A statistics report on violent crime in the U.S. can be found here.

Number, percentage and rate (per 100,000 population) of persons accused of homicide, by racialized identity group (total, by racialized identity group; racialized identity group; South Asian; Chinese; Black; Filipino; Arab; Latin American; Southeast Asian; West Asian; Korean; Japanese; other racialized identity group; multiple racialized identity; racialized identity, but racialized identity group is unknown; rest of the population; unknown racialized identity group), gender (all genders; male; female; gender unknown) and region (Canada; Atlantic region; Quebec; Ontario; Prairies region; British Columbia; territories), 2019 to 2023.

The UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST, 2016 dataset is a compilation of offenses reported to law enforcement agencies in the United States. Due to the vast number of categories of crime committed in the United States, the FBI has limited the type of crimes included in this compilation to those crimes which people are most likely to report to police and those crimes which occur frequently enough to be analyzed across time. Crimes included are criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Much information about these crimes is provided in this dataset. The number of times an offense has been reported, the number of reported offenses that have been cleared by arrests, and the number of cleared offenses which involved offenders under the age of 18 are the major items of information collected.

***Starting on March 7th, 2024, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will adopt a new Records Management System for reporting crimes and arrests. This new system is being implemented to comply with the FBI's mandate to collect NIBRS-only data (NIBRS — FBI - https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/nibrs). During this transition, users will temporarily see only incidents reported in the retiring system. However, the LAPD is actively working on generating new NIBRS datasets to ensure a smoother and more efficient reporting system. *** **Update 1/18/2024 - LAPD is facing issues with posting the Crime data, but we are taking immediate action to resolve the problem. We understand the importance of providing reliable and up-to-date information and are committed to delivering it. As we work through the issues, we have temporarily reduced our updates from weekly to bi-weekly to ensure that we provide accurate information. Our team is actively working to identify and resolve these issues promptly. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding. Rest assured, we are doing everything we can to fix the problem and get back to providing weekly updates as soon as possible. ** This dataset reflects incidents of crime in the City of Los Angeles dating back to 2020. This data is transcribed from original crime reports that are typed on paper and therefore there may be some inaccuracies within the data. Some location fields with missing data are noted as (0°, 0°). Address fields are only provided to the nearest hundred block in order to maintain privacy. This data is as accurate as the data in the database. Please note questions or concerns in the comments.

This dataset includes all valid felony, misdemeanor, and violation crimes reported to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for all complete quarters so far this year (2017). For additional details, please see the attached data dictionary in the ‘About’ section.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 8:11 PM EASTERN ON JULY 16

OVERVIEW

2019 had the most mass killings since at least the 1970s, according to the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings Database.

In all, there were 45 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings . This summer was especially violent, with three high-profile public mass shootings occurring in the span of just four weeks, leaving 38 killed and 66 injured.

A total of 229 people died in mass killings in 2019.

The AP's analysis found that more than 50% of the incidents were family annihilations, which is similar to prior years. Although they are far less common, the 9 public mass shootings during the year were the most deadly type of mass murder, resulting in 73 people's deaths, not including the assailants.

One-third of the offenders died at the scene of the killing or soon after, half from suicides.

About this Dataset

The Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings database tracks all U.S. homicides since 2006 involving four or more people killed (not including the offender) over a short period of time (24 hours) regardless of weapon, location, victim-offender relationship or motive. The database includes information on these and other characteristics concerning the incidents, offenders, and victims.

The AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database represents the most complete tracking of mass murders by the above definition currently available. Other efforts, such as the Gun Violence Archive or Everytown for Gun Safety may include events that do not meet our criteria, but a review of these sites and others indicates that this database contains every event that matches the definition, including some not tracked by other organizations.

This data will be updated periodically and can be used as an ongoing resource to help cover these events.

Using this Dataset

To get basic counts of incidents of mass killings and mass shootings by year nationwide, use these queries:

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

Mass murder is defined as the intentional killing of four or more victims by any means within a 24-hour period, excluding the deaths of unborn children and the offender(s). The standard of four or more dead was initially set by the FBI.

This definition does not exclude cases based on method (e.g., shootings only), type or motivation (e.g., public only), victim-offender relationship (e.g., strangers only), or number of locations (e.g., one). The time frame of 24 hours was chosen to eliminate conflation with spree killers, who kill multiple victims in quick succession in different locations or incidents, and to satisfy the traditional requirement of occurring in a “single incident.”

Offenders who commit mass murder during a spree (before or after committing additional homicides) are included in the database, and all victims within seven days of the mass murder are included in the victim count. Negligent homicides related to driving under the influence or accidental fires are excluded due to the lack of offender intent. Only incidents occurring within the 50 states and Washington D.C. are considered.

Methodology

Project researchers first identified potential incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide incidents in the SHR were flagged as potential mass murder cases if four or more victims were reported on the same record, and the type of death was murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Cases were subsequently verified utilizing media accounts, court documents, academic journal articles, books, and local law enforcement records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Each data point was corroborated by multiple sources, which were compiled into a single document to assess the quality of information.

In case(s) of contradiction among sources, official law enforcement or court records were used, when available, followed by the most recent media or academic source.

Case information was subsequently compared with every other known mass murder database to ensure reliability and validity. Incidents listed in the SHR that could not be independently verified were excluded from the database.

Project researchers also conducted extensive searches for incidents not reported in the SHR during the time period, utilizing internet search engines, Lexis-Nexis, and Newspapers.com. Search terms include: [number] dead, [number] killed, [number] slain, [number] murdered, [number] homicide, mass murder, mass shooting, massacre, rampage, family killing, familicide, and arson murder. Offender, victim, and location names were also directly searched when available.

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

Contact AP Data Editor Justin Myers with questions, suggestions or comments about this dataset at jmyers@ap.org. The Northeastern University researcher working with AP and USA TODAY is Professor James Alan Fox, who can be reached at j.fox@northeastern.edu or 617-416-4400.

The UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST, 2022 dataset is a compilation of offenses reported to law enforcement agencies in the United States. Due to the vast number of categories of crime committed in the United States, the FBI has limited the type of crimes included in this compilation to those crimes which people are most likely to report to police and those crimes which occur frequently enough to be analyzed across time. Crimes included are criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Much information about these crimes is provided in this dataset. The number of times an offense has been reported, the number of reported offenses that have been cleared by arrests, and the number of cleared offenses which involved offenders under the age of 18 are the major items of information collected.

This dataset was compiled by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) at the request of the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet. This data contains the population of youth ages 13-26 in each county, the total population of each county, and the number and rate of index crimes reported, with domestic violence offenses and rates reported separately for every year between 2006 and 2015.

For the purpose of this analysis the crime data was gathered from the Illinois State Police Annual report Crime in Illinois. This publication is produced by the Illinois State Police every year using the UCR data that is submitted to them by individual jurisdictions throughout the state. The accuracy of this data presented is dependent on the local jurisdictions reporting their index crime and domestic violence offenses to ISP, so it can be included in the annual report.

Therefore, if there is large decrease in number of index crimes reported in the dataset it is likely that one or more jurisdictions did not report data for that year to ISP. If there is a large increase from year to year within a county it is likely that a jurisdiction within the county, who previously had not reported crime data, did report crime data for that year. If there is no reported crime in a certain year that means no jurisdictions, or a small jurisdiction with no crime from that county reported data to the Illinois State Police. The annual Crime in Illinois reports can be found on the ISP website www.isp.state.il.us.

A direct link to that annual reports is: http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/ucrhome.cfm#anlrpts.

The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority did not record the data that is expressed in the dataset. ICJIA simply used the ISP reports to compile that yearly crime data into one chart that could be provided to the Illinois Governor’s Children’s Cabinet. This data set has be critically examined to be accurate according to the annual Crime in Illinois Reports. If there are issues with the data set provided please contact the Illinois State Police or the individual jurisdictions within a specific county.

**Index offenses do not include every crime event that occurs. Prior to 2014 there were 8 index crimes reported by the Illinois State Police in their annual reports, Criminal Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Battery/Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, and Arson. In 2014 there were two new offenses added to the list of index crimes these were Human Trafficking – Commercial Sex Acts and Human Trafficking – Involuntary Servitude. These are the index crimes that are recorded in the chart provided.

**“Domestic offenses are defined as offenses committed between family or household members. Family or household members include spouses; former spouses; parents; children; foster parents; foster children; legal guardians and their wards; stepchildren; other persons related by blood (aunt, uncle, cousin) or by present or previous marriage (in-laws); persons who share, or formerly shared, a common dwelling; persons who have, or allegedly have, a child in common; persons who share, or allegedly share, a blood relationship through a child; persons who have, or have had, a dating or engagement relationship; and persons with disabilities, their personal care assistants, or care givers outside the context of an employee of a public or private care facility. Every offense that occurs, when a domestic relationship exists between the victim and offender, must be reported (Illinois State Police).”

**“Offenses reported are not limited to domestic battery and violations of orders of protection; offenses most commonly associated with domestic violence (Illinois State Police).”

The crime rate was compiled using the total population, and the index crime. The Index crime whether all crime or Domestic Violence crime was divided by the total population then multiplied by 10,000, hence crime rate per 10,000.

The sources of data are the Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The source of the description is the Illinois State Police and their Reporting guidelines and forms.

Content

Hate Crimes

This folder contains data behind the story Higher Rates Of Hate Crimes Are Tied To Income Inequality.

Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser Family Foundation Census Bureau Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser Family Foundation Census Bureau Kaiser Family Foundation United States Elections Project Southern Poverty Law Center FBI

Correction

Please see the following commit: https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data/commit/fbc884a5c8d45a0636e1d6b000021632a0861986

Context

This is a dataset from FiveThirtyEight hosted on their GitHub. Explore FiveThirtyEight data using Kaggle and all of the data sources available through the FiveThirtyEight organization page!

• Update Frequency: This dataset is updated daily.

Acknowledgements

This dataset is maintained using GitHub's API and Kaggle's API.

This dataset is distributed under the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

Real-world Anomaly Detection in Surveillance Videos

Surveillance videos are able to capture a variety of realistic anomalies. In this paper, we propose to learn anomalies by exploiting both normal and anomalous videos. To avoid annotating the anomalous segments or clips in training videos, which is very time consuming, we propose to learn anomaly through the deep multiple instance ranking framework by leveraging weakly labeled training videos, i.e. the training labels (anomalous or normal) are at video-level instead of clip-level. In our approach, we consider normal and anomalous videos as bags and video segments as instances in multiple instance learning (MIL), and automatically learn a deep anomaly ranking model that predicts high anomaly scores for anomalous video segments. Furthermore, we introduce sparsity and temporal smoothness constraints in the ranking loss function to better localize anomaly during training. We also introduce a new large-scale first of its kind dataset of 128 hours of videos. It consists of 1900 long and untrimmed real-world surveillance videos, with 13 realistic anomalies such as fighting, road accident, burglary, robbery, etc. as well as normal activities. This dataset can be used for two tasks. First, general anomaly detection considering all anomalies in one group and all normal activities in another group. Second, for recognizing each of 13 anomalous activities. Our experimental results show that our MIL method for anomaly detection achieves significant improvement on anomaly detection performance as compared to the state-of-the-art approaches. We provide the results of several recent deep learning baselines on anomalous activity recognition. The low recognition performance of these baselines reveals that our dataset is very challenging and opens more opportunities for future work.

Problem & Motivation

One critical task in video surveillance is detecting anomalous events such as traffic accidents, crimes or illegal activities. Generally, anomalous events rarely occur as compared to normal activities. Therefore, to alleviate the waste of labor and time, developing intelligent computer vision algorithms for automatic video anomaly detection is a pressing need. The goal of a practical anomaly detection system is to timely signal an activity that deviates normal patterns and identify the time window of the occurring anomaly. Therefore, anomaly detection can be considered as coarse level video understanding, which filters out anomalies from normal patterns. Once an anomaly is detected, it can further be categorized into one of the specific activities using classification techniques. In this work, we propose an anomaly detection algorithm using weakly labeled training videos. That is we only know the video-level labels, i.e. a video is normal or contains anomaly somewhere, but we do not know where. This is intriguing because we can easily annotate a large number of videos by only assigning video-level labels. To formulate a weakly-supervised learning approach, we resort to multiple instance learning. Specifically, we propose to learn anomaly through a deep MIL framework by treating normal and anomalous surveillance videos as bags and short segments/clips of each video as instances in a bag. Based on training videos, we automatically learn an anomaly ranking model that predicts high anomaly scores for anomalous segments in a video. During testing, a longuntrimmed video is divided into segments and fed into our deep network which assigns anomaly score for each video segment such that an anomaly can be detected.

Method

Our proposed approach (summarized in Figure 1) begins with dividing surveillance videos into a fixed number of segments during training. These segments make instances in a bag. Using both positive (anomalous) and negative (normal) bags, we train the anomaly detection model using the proposed deep MIL ranking loss. https://www.crcv.ucf.edu/projects/real-world/method.png

UCF-Crime Dataset

We construct a new large-scale dataset, called UCF-Crime, to evaluate our method. It consists of long untrimmed surveillance videos which cover 13 realworld anomalies, including Abuse, Arrest, Arson, Assault, Road Accident, Burglary, Explosion, Fighting, Robbery, Shooting, Stealing, Shoplifting, and Vandalism. These anomalies are selected because they have a significant impact on public safety. We compare our dataset with previous anomaly detection datasets in Table 1. For more details about the UCF-Crime dataset, please refer to our paper. A short description of each anomalous event is given below. Abuse: This event contains videos which show bad, cruel or violent behavior against children, old people, animals, and women. Burglary: This event contains videos that show people (thieves) entering into a building or house with the intention to commit theft. It does not include use of force against people. Robbery: This event contains videos showing thieves taking money unlawfully by force or threat of force. These videos do not include shootings. Stealing: This event contains videos showing people taking property or money without permission. They do not include shoplifting. Shooting: This event contains videos showing act of shooting someone with a gun. Shoplifting: This event contains videos showing people stealing goods from a shop while posing as a shopper. Assault: This event contains videos showing a sudden or violent physical attack on someone. Note that in these videos the person who is assaulted does not fight back. Fighting: This event contains videos displaying two are more people attacking one another. Arson: This event contains videos showing people deliberately setting fire to property. Explosion: This event contains videos showing destructive event of something blowing apart. This event does not include videos where a person intentionally sets a fire or sets off an explosion. Arrest: This event contains videos showing police arresting individuals. Road Accident: This event contains videos showing traffic accidents involving vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists. Vandalism: This event contains videos showing action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. The term includes property damage, such as graffiti and defacement directed towards any property without permission of the owner. Normal Event: This event contains videos where no crime occurred. These videos include both indoor (such as a shopping mall) and outdoor scenes as well as day and night-time scenes. https://www.crcv.ucf.edu/projects/real-world/dataset_table.png https://www.crcv.ucf.edu/projects/real-world/method.png

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed expect for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) is further information is needed. This collection is composed of archived news articles and court records reporting (n=6,724) on the arrest(s) of law enforcement officers in the United States from 2005-2011. Police crimes are those crimes committed by sworn law enforcement officers given the general powers of arrest at the time the offense was committed. These crimes can occur while the officer is on or off duty and include offenses committed by state, county, municipal, tribal, or special law enforcement agencies.Three distinct but related research questions are addressed in this collection:What is the incidence and prevalence of police officers arrested across the United States? How do law enforcement agencies discipline officers who are arrested?To what degree do police crime arrests correlate with other forms of police misconduct?

Victims of gang-related homicides (total number of homicide victims; number of homicide victims - unknown gang-relation; number of homicide victims - known gang relation; number of gang-related homicide victims; percentage of gang-related homicide victims; rate (per 100,000 population) of gang-related homicide victims), Canada and regions, 1999 to 2023.

This study of violent incidents among middle- and high-school students focused not only on the types and frequency of these incidents, but also on their dynamics -- the locations, the opening moves, the relationship between the disputants, the goals and justifications of the aggressor, the role of third parties, and other factors. For this study, violence was defined as an act carried out with the intention, or perceived intention, of physically injuring another person, and the "opening move" was defined as the action of a respondent, antagonist, or third party that was viewed as beginning the violent incident. Data were obtained from interviews with 70 boys and 40 girls who attended public schools with populations that had high rates of violence. About half of the students came from a middle school in an economically disadvantaged African-American section of a large southern city. The neighborhood the school served, which included a public housing project, had some of the country's highest rates of reported violent crime. The other half of the sample were volunteers from an alternative high school attended by students who had committed serious violations of school rules, largely involving illegal drugs, possession of handguns, or fighting. Many students in this high school, which is located in a large city in the southern part of the Midwest, came from high-crime areas, including public housing communities. The interviews were open-ended, with the students encouraged to speak at length about any violent incidents in school, at home, or in the neighborhood in which they had been involved. The 110 interviews yielded 250 incidents and are presented as text files, Parts 3 and 4. The interview transcriptions were then reduced to a quantitative database with the incident as the unit of analysis (Part 1). Incidents were diagrammed, and events in each sequence were coded and grouped to show the typical patterns and sub-patterns in the interactions. Explanations the students offered for the violent-incident behavior were grouped into two categories: (1) "justifications," in which the young people accepted responsibility for their violent actions but denied that the actions were wrong, and (2) "excuses," in which the young people admitted the act was wrong but denied responsibility. Every case in the incident database had at least one physical indicator of force or violence. The respondent-level file (Part 2) was created from the incident-level file using the AGGREGATE procedure in SPSS. Variables in Part 1 include the sex, grade, and age of the respondent, the sex and estimated age of the antagonist, the relationship between respondent and antagonist, the nature and location of the opening move, the respondent's response to the opening move, persons present during the incident, the respondent's emotions during the incident, the person who ended the fight, punishments imposed due to the incident, whether the respondent was arrested, and the duration of the incident. Additional items cover the number of times during the incident that something was thrown, the respondent was pushed, slapped, or spanked, was kicked, bit, or hit with a fist or with something else, was beaten up, cut, or bruised, was threatened with a knife or gun, or a knife or gun was used on the respondent. Variables in Part 2 include the respondent's age, gender, race, and grade at the time of the interview, the number of incidents per respondent, if the respondent was an armed robber or a victim of an armed robbery, and whether the respondent had something thrown at him/her, was pushed, slapped, or spanked, was kicked, bit, or hit with a fist or with something else, was beaten up, was threatened with a knife or gun, or had a knife or gun used on him/her.

Number and rate (per 100,000 population) of homicide victims, Canada and Census Metropolitan Areas, 1981 to 2023.

In 2022, there were 313,017 cases filed by the NCIC where the race of the reported missing was White. In the same year, 18,928 people were missing whose race was unknown.

What is the NCIC?

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a digital database that stores crime data for the United States, so criminal justice agencies can access it. As a part of the FBI, it helps criminal justice professionals find criminals, missing people, stolen property, and terrorists. The NCIC database is broken down into 21 files. Seven files belong to stolen property and items, and 14 belong to persons, including the National Sex Offender Register, Missing Person, and Identify Theft. It works alongside federal, tribal, state, and local agencies. The NCIC’s goal is to maintain a centralized information system between local branches and offices, so information is easily accessible nationwide.

Missing people in the United States

A person is considered missing when they have disappeared and their location is unknown. A person who is considered missing might have left voluntarily, but that is not always the case. The number of the NCIC unidentified person files in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, and in 2022, there were slightly more NCIC missing person files for males as compared to females. Fortunately, the number of NCIC missing person files has been mostly decreasing since 1998.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The main aim of this research is to study the criminal mobility of ethnic-based organized crime groups. The project examines whether organized crime groups are able to move abroad easily and to reproduce their territorial control in a foreign country, or whether these groups, and/or individual members, start a life of crime only after their arrival in the new territories, potentially as a result of social exclusion, economic strain, culture conflict and labeling. More specifically, the aim is to examine the criminal mobility of ethnic Albanian organized crime groups involved in a range of criminal markets and operating in and around New York City, area and to study the relevance of the importation/alien conspiracy model versus the deprivation model of organized crime in relation to Albanian organized crime. There are several analytical dimensions in this study: (1) reasons for going abroad; (2) the nature of the presence abroad; (3) level of support from ethnic constituencies in the new territories; (4) importance of cultural codes; (5) organizational structure; (6) selection of criminal activities; (7) economic incentives and political infiltration. This study utilizes a mixed-methods approach with a sequential exploratory design, in which qualitative data and documents are collected and analyzed first, followed by quantitative data. Demographic variables in this collection include age, gender, birth place, immigration status, nationality, ethnicity, education, religion, and employment status. Two main data sources were employed: (1) court documents, including indictments and court transcripts related to select organized crime cases (84 court documents on 29 groups, 254 offenders); (2) in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 9 ethnic Albanian offenders currently serving prison sentences in U.S. Federal Prisons for organized crime related activities, and with 79 adult ethnic Albanian immigrants in New York, including common people, undocumented migrants, offenders, and people with good knowledge of Albanian organized crime modus operandi. Sampling for these data were conducted in five phases, the first of which involved researchers examining court documents and identifying members of 29 major ethnic Albanian organized crime groups operating in the New York area between 1975 and 2013 who were or had served sentences in the U.S. Federal Prisons for organized crime related activities. In phase two researchers conducted eight in-depth interviews with law enforcement experts working in New York or New Jersey. Phase three involved interviews with members of the Albanian diaspora and filed observations from an ethnographic study. Researchers utilized snowball and respondent driven (RDS) recruitment methods to create the sample for the diaspora dataset. The self-reported criteria for recruitment to participate in the diaspora interviews were: (1) age 18 or over; (2) of ethnic Albanian origin (foreign-born or 1st/2nd generation); and (3) living in NYC area for at least 1 year. They also visited neighborhoods identified as high concentrations of ethnic Albanian individuals and conducted an ethnographic study to locate the target population. In phase four, data for the cultural advisors able to help with the project data was collected. In the fifth and final phase, researchers gathered data for the second wave of the diaspora data, and conducted interviews with offenders with ethnic Albanian immigrants with knowledge of the organized crime situation in New York City area. Researchers also approached about twenty organized crime figures currently serving a prison sentence, and were able to conduct 9 in-depth interviews.

Context

On April 23, 2014, the Department of Justice, at the behest of President Obama, announced the Clemency Initiative, inviting petitions for commutation of sentence from nonviolent offenders who, among other criteria, likely would have received substantially lower sentences if convicted of the same offenses today. As expected, the announcement resulted in a record number of petitions – including thousands of petitions involving crimes not included in the initiative, such as terrorism, murder, sex crimes, public corruption, and financial fraud.

In the federal system, commutation of sentence and pardon are different forms of executive clemency, which is a broad term that applies to the President’s constitutional power to exercise leniency toward persons who have committed federal crimes.

A commutation of sentence reduces a sentence, either totally or partially, that is then being served, but it does not change the conviction, signify innocence, or remove civil disabilities from the criminal conviction. A commutation may include remission (or release) of the financial obligations that are imposed as part of a sentence, such as payment of a fine or restitution; a remission applies only to the part of the financial obligation that has not already been paid. To be eligible to apply for commutation of sentence, a person must have reported to prison to begin serving his sentence and may not be challenging his conviction in the courts.

A pardon is an expression of the President’s forgiveness and is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. It does, however, remove civil disabilities – such as restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction. A person is not eligible to apply for a presidential pardon until a minimum of five years has elapsed since his release from any form of confinement imposed upon him as part of a sentence for his most recent criminal conviction.

Acknowledgements

The data was compiled and published by the Office of the Pardon Attorney. The Office of the Pardon Attorney receives and reviews petitions for all forms of executive clemency, including pardon, commutation (reduction) of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve, initiates the necessary investigations of clemency requests, and prepares the report and recommendation of the Attorney General to the President.

In 2023, Texas had the highest number of forcible rape cases in the United States, with 15,097 reported rapes. Delaware had the lowest number of reported forcible rape cases at 194. Number vs. rate It is perhaps unsurprising that Texas and California reported the highest number of rapes, as these states have the highest population of states in the U.S. When looking at the rape rate, or the number of rapes per 100,000 of the population, a very different picture is painted: Alaska was the state with the highest rape rate in the country in 2023, with California ranking as 30th in the nation. The prevalence of rape Rape and sexual assault are notorious for being underreported crimes, which means that the prevalence of sex crimes is likely much higher than what is reported. Additionally, more than a third of women worry about being sexually assaulted, and most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knew.