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 data were obtained from one state prison system that was characterized by a diverse and rising prison population. This prison system housed more than 30,000 inmates across 15 institutions (14 men's facilities; 1 women's facility). The data contain information on inmates' placements into different housing units across all 15 state prison complexes, including designated maximum security, restrictive housing units. Inmates placed in restrictive housing were in lockdown the majority of the day, had limited work opportunities, and were closely monitored. These inmates were also escorted in full restraints within the institution. They experienced little recreational time, visitation and phone privileges, and few interactions with other inmates. The data contain information on inmates' housing placements, institutional misconduct, risk factors, demographic characteristics, criminal history, and offense information. These data provide information on every housing placement for each inmate, including the time spent in each placement, and the reasons documented by correctional staff for placing inmates in each housing unit. Demographic information includes inmate sex, race/ethnicity, and age. The collection contains 1 Stata data file "Inmate-Housing-Placements-Data.dta" with 16 variables and 124,942 cases.

The 2019 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities (CCF) was the ninth enumeration of state institutions and the sixth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors. Earlier censuses were completed in 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), 1995 (ICPSR 6953), 2000 (ICPSR 4021), 2005 (ICPSR 24642), and 2012 (ICPSR 37294). The 2019 CCF consisted of two data collection instruments - one for confinement facilities and one for community-based facilities. For each facility, information was provided on facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, race/ethnicity, special populations, and holding authority; number of walkaways occurring over a one-year period; and educational and other special programs offered to prisoners. Additional information was collected from confinement facilities, including physical security level; housing for special populations; capacity; court orders for specific conditions; one-day count of correctional staff by payroll status and sex; one-day count of security staff by sex and race/ethnicity; assaults and incidents caused by prisoners; number of escapes occurring over a one-year period; and work assignments available to prisoners. Late in the data collection to avoid complete nonresponse from facilities, BJS offered the option of providing critical data elements from the two data collection instruments. These elements included facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, and holding authority. Physical security level was an additional critical data element for confinement facilities. The census counted prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some prisoners who are held in the custody of one jurisdiction may be under the authority of a different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a count of prisoners under a correctional authority's jurisdiction, which includes all prisoners over whom a correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where the prisoner is housed. A jurisdictional count is more inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and federal prisoners housed in local jails or other non-correctional facilities.

This project sought to investigate a possible relationship between sentencing guidelines and family structure in the United States. The research team developed three research modules that employed a variety of data sources and approaches to understand family destabilization and community distress, which cannot be observed directly. These three research modules were used to discover causal relationships between male withdrawal from productive spheres of the economy and resulting changes in the community and families. The research modules approached the issue of sentencing guidelines and family structure by studying: (1) the flow of inmates into prison (Module A), (2) the role of and issues related to sentencing reform (Module B), and family disruption in a single state (Module C). Module A utilized the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data for 1984 and 1993 (Parts 1 and 2), the 1984 and 1993 National Correctional Reporting Program (NCRP) data (Parts 3-6), the Urban Institute's 1980 and 1990 Underclass Database (UDB) (Part 7), the 1985 and 1994 National Longitudinal Survey on Youth (NLSY) (Parts 8 and 9), and county population, social, and economic data from the Current Population Survey, County Business Patterns, and United States Vital Statistics (Parts 10-12). The focus of this module was the relationship between family instability, as measured by female-headed families, and three societal characteristics, namely underclass measures in county of residence, individual characteristics, and flows of inmates. Module B examined the effects of statewide incarceration and sentencing changes on marriage markets and family structure. Module B utilized data from the Current Population Survey for 1985 and 1994 (Part 12) and the United States Statistical Abstracts (Part 13), as well as state-level data (Parts 14 and 15) to measure the Darity-Myers sex ratio and expected welfare income. The relationship between these two factors and family structure, sentencing guidelines, and minimum sentences for drug-related crimes was then measured. Module C used data collected from inmates entering the Minnesota prison system in 1997 and 1998 (Part 16), information from the 1990 Census (Part 17), and the Minnesota Crime Survey (Part 18) to assess any connections between incarceration and family structure. Module C focused on a single state with sentencing guidelines with the goal of understanding how sentencing reforms and the impacts of the local community factors affect inmate family structure. The researchers wanted to know if the aspects of locations that lose marriageable males to prison were more important than individual inmate characteristics with respect to the probability that someone will be imprisoned and leave behind dependent children. Variables in Parts 1 and 2 document arrests by race for arson, assault, auto theft, burglary, drugs, homicide, larceny, manslaughter, rape, robbery, sexual assault, and weapons. Variables in Parts 3 and 4 document prison admissions, while variables in Parts 5 and 6 document prison releases. Variables in Part 7 include the number of households on public assistance, education and income levels of residents by race, labor force participation by race, unemployment by race, percentage of population of different races, poverty rate by race, men in the military by race, and marriage pool by race. Variables in Parts 8 and 9 include age, county, education, employment status, family income, marital status, race, residence type, sex, and state. Part 10 provides county population data. Part 11 contains two different state identifiers. Variables in Part 12 describe mortality data and welfare data. Part 13 contains data from the United States Statistical Abstracts, including welfare and poverty variables. Variables in Parts 14 and 15 include number of children, age, education, family type, gender, head of household, marital status, race, religion, and state. Variables in Part 16 cover admission date, admission type, age, county, education, language, length of sentence, marital status, military status, sentence, sex, state, and ZIP code. Part 17 contains demographic data by Minnesota ZIP code, such as age categories, race, divorces, number of children, home ownership, and unemployment. Part 18 includes Minnesota crime data as well as some demographic variables, such as race, education, and poverty ratio.

The purpose of this collection was to measure the extent to which the Prisoner Management Classification (PMC) system in Washington state improved overall operations of prison facilities and reduced safety risks to inmates and staff. Four primary issues were addressed: (1) To what extent the PMC reduces rates of assaults on staff and inmates, (2) To what extent the PMC reduces rates of other serious misconduct, (3) To what extent the PMC increases rates of inmate participation in work or vocational programs, and (4) To what extent the PMC enhances staff job satisfaction, morale, and staff performance. Information is included on outcome variables against which comparisons between the experimental and control groups can be made. For each correctional facility, figures were collected for the number of staff-inmate assaults, number of inmate-inmate assaults, number of suicides and suicide attempts, number of escapes and escape attempts, number of "serious" disciplinary incidents, number of total staff, number of inmates, number of security staff vacancies, rated capacity of the facility, number of staff transfers and reasons, and number of inmates involved in educational, vocational, and work programs. Demographic variables include date of birth, sex, and race. Additional information concerns the family structure of the inmates and conditions surrounding the inmates' lives prior to entering prison.

--- ### Context This dataset contains the complete detail about the Prison and various characteristics of inmates. This will help to understand better about prison system in India. ### Content 1. Details of Jail wise population of prison inmates 1. Details about the list of jails in India at the end of year 2015. 1. Jail category wise population of inmates. 1. Capacity of jails by inmate population. 1. Age group, nationality and gender wise population of inmates. 1. Religion and gender wise population of inmates. 1. Caste and gender wise population of inmates. 1. Education standards of inmates. 1. Domicile of inmates. 1. Incidence of recidivism. 1. Rehabilitation of prisoners. 1. Distribution of sentence periods of convicts in various jails by sex and age-groups. 1. Details of under trial prisoners by the type of IPC (Indian Penal Code) offences. 1. Details of convicts by the type of IPC (Indian Penal Code) offences. 1. Details of SLL (special & local law) Crime headwise distribution of inmates who convicted 1. Details of SLL (special & local law) Crime head wise distribution of inmates under trial 1. Details of educational facilities provided to prisoners. 1. Details of Jail breaks, group clashes and firing in jail (Tranquility). 1. Details of wages per day to convicts. 1. Details of Prison inmates trained under different vocational training. 1. Details of capital punishment (death sentence) and life imprisonment. 1. Details of prison inmates escaped. 1. Details of prison inmates released. 1. Details of Strength of officials 1. Details of Total Budget and Actual Expenditure during the year 2015-16. 1. Details of Budget 1. Details of Expenditure 1. Details of Expenditure on inmates 1. Details of Inmates suffering from mental ilness 1. Details of Period of detention of undertrials 1. Details of Number of women prisoners with children 1. Details of Details of inmates parole during the year 1. Details of Value of goods produced by inmates 1. Details of Number of vehicles available 1. Details of Training of Jail Officers 1. Details of Movements outside jail premises 1. Details of Details of electronic equipment used in prison ### Inspiration There are many questions about Indian prison with this dataset. Some of the interesting questions are 1. Percentage of jails over crowded. Is there any change in percentage over time? 1. How many percentage of inmates re-arrested? 1. Which state/u.t pay more wages to the inmates? 1. Which state/u.t has more capital punishment/life imprisonment inmates? 1. Inmates gender ratio per state ### Acknowledgements National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Govt of India has shared this [dataset](https://data.gov.in/dataset-group-name/prison-statistics) under [Govt. Open Data License - India](https://data.gov.in/government-open-data-license-india). NCRB has also shared prison data on their [website](http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/PSI/PrevPublications.htm). ---

This census provides information on county and municipal jails facilities in the United States and their administration. For all jails, the data include number of prisoners and their reason for being held, age and sex of prisoners, maximum sentence that could be served in the facility, facility capacity and age, types of security available, and operating expenditures. For jails in counties and municipalities with populations of 25,000 or more, data are supplied on quarterly jail population, age of cells, and availability of service facilities and programs for inmates.

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a reliable and accurate method for measuring the effectiveness of offender classification systems to improve the management of correctional facilities. In the early 1980s, the state of Hawaii began classifying its prisoners with a newly developed Federal Bureau of Prisons classification instrument. This study was designed to develop a method to evaluate this form. Two prediction models were used. The first, initial classification, used the sum of four variables to arrive at a security score, which was taken to be predictive of violence. The second, reclassification, used the sum of seven different variables to obtain a custody total, which was then used as a major determinant of reclassification. Two groups of inmates were used: inmates who had committed infractions and inmates with no reported infractions. Research variables include (a) initial classification: offense (severity), expected length of incarceration (sentence), type of prior commitments, and history of violence, and (b) reclassification: percentage of time served, involvement with drugs/alcohol, mental/psychological stability, most serious disciplinary report, frequency of disciplinary reports, responsibility that the inmate demonstrated, and family/community ties. In addition, the collection supplies information on race and sex of inmates, sentence limitation, history of escapes or attempts, previous infractions, entry, reclassification, and termination dates (month and year), and custody level. There are demographic variables for sex and race. The unit of observation is the inmate.

The 1999 Census of Jails is the seventh in a series of data collection efforts aimed at studying the nation's locally administered jails. Previous censuses were conducted in 1970, 1972, 1978, 1983, 1988, and 1993. The 1999 census enumerated 3,365 locally administered confinement facilities that held inmates beyond arraignment and were staffed by municipal or county employees. Among these were 47 privately operated jails under contract for local governments and 42 regional jails that were operated for two or more jail authorities. In addition, the census identified 11 facilities maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons that functioned as jails. The nationwide total of the number of jails in operation on June 30, 1999, was 3,376. For purposes of this data collection, a local jail was defined as a locally operated adult detention facility that receives individuals pending arraignment and holds them awaiting trial, conviction, or sentencing, readmits probation, parole, and bail-bond violators and absconders, temporarily detains juveniles pending transfer to juvenile authorities, holds mentally ill persons pending their movement to appropriate health facilities, holds individuals for the military, for protective custody, for contempt, and for the courts as witnesses, releases convicted inmates to the community upon completion of sentence, transfers inmates to federal, state, or other authorities, houses inmates for federal, state, or other authorities because of crowding of their facilities, relinquishes custody of temporary detainees to juvenile and medical authorities, operates community-based programs with day-reporting, home detention, electronic monitoring, or other types of supervision, and holds inmates sentenced to short terms. Variables include information on jail population by legal status, age and sex of prisoners, maximum sentence, admissions and releases, available services and programs, structure and capacity, facility age and use of space, expenditure, employment, staff information, and health issues, which include statistics on drugs, AIDS, and tuberculosis.

Abstract (en): This data collection provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death and on those whose offense sentences were commuted or vacated. Information is available on basic sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex, race and 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 provided on those inmates removed from death row by yearend 1988 and those inmates who were executed. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Inmates in state prisons under the sentence of death. 2008-11-12 Minor changes have been made to the metadata.2008-10-30 All parts have been moved to restricted access and are available only using the restricted access procedures.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 3 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 3 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.1997-05-30 SAS data definition statements are now available for this collection, and the SPSS data definition statements were updated. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1) Information collected prior to 1972 is in many cases incomplete and reflects vestiges in the reporting process. (2) The inmate identification numbers were assigned by the Bureau of Census and have no purpose outside this dataset.

The National Jail Census was conducted by the United States Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The census was taken of all locally administered county and municipal jails with the authority to hold prisoners for more than 48 hours. Data are presented for 3,338 jails in 45 states. Excluded are Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Information includes jail population by legal status, age and sex of prisoners, maximum sentence, admissions and releases, available services, structure and capacity, expenditure, and employment.

This longitudinal study of juvenile offenders traces the criminal histories of a sample of juveniles, including those who were "dropouts" (juvenile offenders who did not go on to become adult criminal offenders) and those who continued to be arrested, ranging from those with only one subsequent arrest to "persisters" (juveniles who did become career criminal offenders). The data are intended to address the following questions: (1) Are serious juvenile offenders more likely than nonserious juvenile offenders to become adult offenders? (2) Are offenders who begin at a younger age more likely to have more serious criminal careers than those who begin when they are older? (3) As a criminal career progresses, will the offender become more skilled at one type of offense and commit that type of crime more frequently, while decreasing the frequency of other types of crimes? (4) As a criminal career continues, will the offender commit progressively more serious offenses? (5) How well can it be predicted who will become a high-rate offender? Part 1 of this study, Juvenile Case File, contains data on a subsample of 14- and 15-year-olds who were brought to Probation Intake in the New York City Family Court for delinquency offenses. Included are variables for the date and type of arrest, disposition and sentence of the offender, and sex and race of the offender, as well as questions concerning the offender's home environment and highest school grade completed. Part 2, Arrest and Incarceration Event File, includes information on prior delinquency arrests, including the date of arrest, the charge and severity, and the disposition and sentence, as well as similar information on subsequent offenses that occurred up to six years after the original delinquency offense. Included for each incarceration is the status of the offender (juvenile or adult), the date of admission to a facility, and the length of time incarcerated.

The National Jail Census was conducted in early 1978 by the United States Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The census was taken of all locally administered county and municipal jails with the authority to hold prisoners for more than 48 hours. Data are presented for jails in 45 states. Excluded are Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Information includes jail population by legal status, age and sex of prisoners, maximum sentence, admissions and releases, available services, structure and capacity, expenditure, and employment.

Abstract (en): RECIDIVISM OF PRISONERS RELEASED IN 1994 is a database containing information on each of 38,624 sampled prisoners released from prisons in 15 states in 1994 and tracked for three years following their release. The majority of the database consists of information on each released prisoner's entire officially recorded criminal history (before and after the 1994 release). Sources for criminal history information are state and FBI automated RAP ("Records of Arrests and Prosecutions") sheets, which contain records of arrests, adjudications, and sentences. The study is the second major recidivism study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The first study, RECIDIVISM AMONG RELEASED PRISONERS, 1983: UNITED STATES, tracked over 16,000 prisoners released in 11 states in 1983 for three years. These two studies are the closest approximation to "national" recidivism studies in the United States. They are distinguished by their large sample size (over 16,000 released prisoners in the first study, 38,624 in the second), geographic breadth of coverage (11 states in the first study, 15 in the second), length of prospective tracking (three years from date of release in both studies), ability to track the movement of released prisoners across state boundaries (both studies), and multiple measures of recidivism (both studies). Demographic data include race, ethnicity, sex, and date of birth. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Prisoners released during 1994 in the 15 states that the study covered. The 15 states account for about two-thirds of releases in the United States in a given year. Smallest Geographic Unit: state The following 15 state Departments of Corrections participated in the study: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. These departments supplied Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) with information on each person released from prison in the state in 1994 (Note: Illinois releases are for fiscal year 1994 rather than calendar year 1994). These 15 states were chosen as a purposive sample, based on willingness to participate, the state's relative contribution to the overall national prison population, and the state's inclusion in the earlier study of recidivism conducted by BJS in 1983 (see ICPSR 8875). The 15 states supplied BJS with release records on 302,309 prisoners released in 1994, approximately two-thirds of all prisoners released in the nation. Using these records, the researchers drew a representative sample from each state, totaling 38,624 out of the 302,309 released prisoners, stratified by most serious conviction offense. More detailed information regarding sampling procedures can be found in the codebook that accompanies this data collection. 2014-12-05 A minor change is made to the codebook.2012-01-12 For variable POTST, values for the state of New York were adjusted per the principal investigator.2011-03-08 All parts are being moved to restricted access and will be available only using the restricted access procedures.2009-02-09 Missing value codes were edited to correct for rounding and data entry errors.2007-03-02 The principal investigator revised the data so that there are 4,834 cases instead of 4,824 for values that are less than or equal to 90 for variable DCDV.2006-12-01 The principal investigator revised the description for variables RPRSD and RPRSITV in the codebook.2003-08-27 The principal investigator recoded some values in variables DCDV, RPRSD, RPRSITV, and RELTYP.2002-10-04 The principal investigator recoded some values (child victim age) in variable DCDV for 89 releases in the state of Virginia. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Dataset from Central Narcotics Bureau. For more information, visit https://data.gov.sg/datasets/d_9ced8376868d18b9cd53a3a0a806d318/view

By the summer of 1998, the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) had completed three years of operational experience with "restorative justice," a concept that involves compensating victims and establishing community-based reparative boards that determine how offenders can make amends for their crimes. The purpose of this project was to update the benchmark findings from an earlier survey of Vermont residents in 1994, to assess public attitudes about the reforms and changes that had been instituted by the Vermont DOC, and to explore the possibility of expansion of responsibilities of the reparative community boards. This project involved a telephone survey of a new sample of 601 adult residents of Vermont. The interviewing was conducted on March 15-21, 1999. Respondents were asked a series of trend questions to update the 1994 findings. Respondents were also asked questions about two other programs: the diversion program, in which selected first offenders who fulfilled the terms of a community-based sanction could have their records expunged, and the furlough program, in which offenders making the transition from prison to the community were supervised for an interim period. The survey also explored whether Vermonters would like to see the responsibilities of the reparative boards expanded to include community notification and other types of cases. Residents assessed whether crime in general, violent crime, and illegal drug use had increased compared to five years prior, whether more prisons should be built, whether Vermont's jails and prisons were overcrowded, and whether violent offenders were being released before completing their sentences because of overcrowding. They commented on how often offenders in four scenarios should go to prison and how often they believed that these offenders in fact did go to prison. Respondents rated the performance of various segments of the Vermont criminal justice system and, given 15 offense scenarios, were asked whether the offender should spend time in jail or in community service and rehabilitation. In addition, respondents were asked whether anyone in their household had been a victim of a crime within the last three years and, if so, whether it was a violent crime. Demographic data include sex, employment, education, race/ethnicity, and age category of the respondent, and the county and region where the resident lived.

Dataset from Central Narcotics Bureau. For more information, visit https://data.gov.sg/datasets/d_44c6b6dabcde1025724cab86b7d1672e/view

Contains national information on prisoners who were in custody on 30 June each year. The statistics are derived from information collected by the ABS from corrective services agencies in each state and territory. Details are provided on the number of people in correctional institutions (including people on remand), imprisonment rates, most serious offence and sentence length. Information is also presented on prisoner characteristics (age, sex, Indigenous status) and on the type of prisoner (all prisoners, sentenced prisoners, and unsentenced prisoners (remandees).

Dataset from Singapore Department of Statistics. For more information, visit https://data.gov.sg/datasets/d_08433c469bbe2768daf9e2b86217991d/view

Adult correctional services, custodial and community supervision, average counts of adults in provincial and territorial programs, five years of data.

This study was undertaken to examine the ways in which different felony sanctions impact the future behavior of felony offenders. The study sought to determine whether the following made a difference in subsequent criminal behavior: (1) sentences of confinement, (2) the length of sentence (both the sentence imposed and that which was actually served), and (3) sentences of probation combined with jail ("split" sentences), or combined with fines, restitution, or other alternative sanctions. Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 18 judges of the Essex County, New Jersey, courts and by probation staff. Follow-up data were collected from official records provided by probation, jail, prison, and parole case files. Follow-up data were also collected from the following official records: (1) the New Jersey Offender-Based Transaction System Computerized Criminal History, (2) the New Jersey Department of Corrections Offender-Based Correctional Information System, (3) the United States Department of Justice Interstate Identification Index, (4) the National Crime Information Center Wanted Persons File, (5) the New Jersey PROMIS/GAVEL Prosecutors Case Tracking System, and (6) administrative record files of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Variables in the data file include the most serious offense charge, most serious offense of conviction, dimension of conviction, offense type (person, property, social order, fraud, or drug offense), number of prior probations, number of probation revocations, number of prior jail and prison terms, mitigating and aggravating factors affecting the sentence, type of sentence, special conditions of probation, fines and restitutions imposed, minimum and maximum incarceration terms (in months), history of drug offenses, type of drugs used, probation and parole violations, total number of prior arrests and prior convictions, and longest arrest-free period after first arrest. The type of post-sentence offense, dimension, disposition charge, sentence, and date of arrest are provided for arresting events and charge episodes 1 through 108 for any offender. For up to 43 arrest events (for any offender), the date of lockup and date of exit from confinement are provided. The file also includes recommendations made by prosecutors and probation officers, and judges' ratings (on a scale of one to nine) with respect to the likelihood of an offender committing future property crimes, crimes against persons, or any crime. Judges also rated the arrest record length, conviction record length, and social stability of each offender. Retribution points, incapacitation points, and specific deterrence points assigned by the judges complete the file. Demographic variables include the race and sex of each convicted offender, and the age of the offender at first conviction.