iMmnTi INST 0F STAND & TECH

A111D? 2373 CH

NIST

PUBLICATIONS

DATE DUE

wov z 1983 :&££- ULU"

CAYLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A.

Rational Bureau of Standards

Library, E-oi Admin. Bldg.

sep ^ 3,wo NBS TECHNICAL NOTE 535

175031 " UH^i OCT 1 4 1975 QOOO

Compilation and Use of

Criminal Court Data in Relation

to Pre Trial Release of Defendants:

Pilot Study
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS NONPERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH reports National

Bureau oi Standards research and development in physics, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering.

Comprehensive scientific papers give complete details of the work, including laboratory data, experimental

procedures, and theoretical and mathematical analyses. Illustrated with photographs, drawings, and

charts. Published in three sections, available separately: • Physics and Chemistry

Papers of interest primarily to scientists working in these fields. This section covers a broad range of physical and chemical research, with major emphasis on standards of physical measurement, fundamental

constants, and properties of matter. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: Domestic, $9.50; for- eign, $11.75*. • Mathematical Sciences

Studies and compilations designed mainly for the mathematician and theoretical physicist. Topics in mathematical statistics, theory of experiment design,

numerical analysis, theoretical physics and chemistry, logical design and programming of computers

and computer systems. Short numerical tables. Issued quarterly. Annual subscription: Domestic,

$5.00; foreign, $6.25*. • Engineering and Instrumentation

Reporting results of interest chiefly to the engineer

and the applied scientist. This section includes many

of the new developments in instrumentation resulting

from the Bureau's work in physical measurement,

data processing, and development of test methods.

It will also cover some of the work in acoustics,

applied mechanics, building research, and cryogenic

engineering. Issued quarterly. Annual subscription:

Domestic, $5.00; foreign, $6.25*.

TECHNICAL NEWS BULLETIN

The best single source of information concerning the Bureau's research, developmental, cooperative and

publication activities, this monthly publication is designed for the industry-oriented individual whose

daily work involves intimate contact with science and

technology

for engineers, chemists, physicists, re- search managers, product-development managers, and

company executives. Annual subscription: Domestic,

$3.00; foreign, $4.00*.

• Difference in price is due to extra coat of foreign mailing.

Applied Mathematics Series. Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies. Building Science Series. Research results, test methods, and performance criteria of building materials, components, systems, and structures. Handbooks. Recommended codes of engineering

and industrial practice (including safety codes) de- veloped in cooperation with interested industries,

professional organizations, and regulatory bodies. Special Publications. Proceedings of NBS conferences, bibliographies, annual reports, wall charts,

pamphlets, etc. Monographs. Major contributions to the technical

literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's

scientific and technical activities. National Standard Reference Data Series.

NSRDS provides quantitive data on the physical

and chemical properties of materials, compiled from

the world's literature and critically evaluated.

Product Standards. Provide requirements for sizes, types, quality and methods for testing various industrial products. These standards are developed cooperatively with interested Government and industry groups

and provide the basis for common understanding of product characteristics for both buyers and sellers. Their use is voluntary.

Technical Notes. This series consists of communications and reports (covering both other agency and

NBS-sponsored work) of limited or transitory interest. Federal Information Processing Standards Publications. This series is the official publication within

the Federal Government for information on standards

adopted and promulgated under the Public Law

89-306, and Bureau of the Budget Circular A-86

entitled, Standardization of Data Elements and Codes

in Data Systems.

CLEARINGHOUSE

The Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and

Technical Information, operated by NBS, supplies

unclassified information related to Government-generated science and technology in defense, space, atomic energy, and other national programs. For

further information on Clearinghouse services, write:

Clearinghouse

U.S. Department of Commerce

Springfield, Virginia 22151

Order NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402
AL BUREAU OF STANBAftES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

NBS TECHNICAL NOTE 535

ISSUED AUGUST 1970

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note 535, 242 pages (Aug. 1970)

CODEN: NBTNA

Compilation and Use of Criminal Court Data

in Relation to Pre-Trial Release of Defendants'

Pilot Study

J. W. Locke, R. Penn, J. Rick, E. Bunten, and G. Hare

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington,' D.C. 20234

'Sponsor- National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice. The fact that the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice furnished financial support to the activity de- scribed in this publication does not necessarily indicate the concurrence of the Institute

in the statements or conclusions contained therein.

/ w \* 3

NBS Technical Notes are designed to supplement the Bureau's regular publications program. They provide a means for making available scientific data that are of transient or limited interest. Technical Notes may be

listed or referred to in the open literature.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 20402.

(Order by SD Catalog No. CI 3.46:535). Price $1.75.
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Comparison of Responses to Personal Information

Questions in Bail Agency Files and Pre -Sentence

Reports 28

Table 2. Factors Used to Distinguish Ricidivist from Non<- Recidivist Populations 36

Table 3. Typical Figures on Court Actions (1965) 46

Table 4. Aggregation of Criminal Activities 86

Table 5. Data Categories Available 91

Table 6. Matrix of Number of Persons Allegedly Committing

Crimes While on Pre-Trial Release vs. Primary Charge

for Which on Pre-Trial Release 97

Table 7. Detailed Data Breakdown for Block (1) x (1) of The

Matrix in Table 6 98

Table 8. Detention Period for Those Assessed Money Bail or Personal Bond at Any Time Prior to Trial 100

Table 9. Times to Commit Crimes on Bail vs. Primary Original

Charge and Bail Condition 101

Table 10. Summary Data 122

Table 11. Distribution of Most Serious Charges in Master File .... 128

Table 12. Pre-Trial Release Conditions Summary 130

Table 13. Comparison of Original Presentment Charges with

Re-arrest Charges 135

Table 14. Grouped Indices 160

Table 15. Grouped Index 161

IV
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

Table 16. Re- arrests per Man-Days Exposure for Periods

Referenced to Presentment 163

Table 17. Re-arrests per Man-Days Exposure for Periods

Referenced to Trial 164

Table 18. Frequency of Re- arrest by Type of Crime 168

Table 19. Comparison of Convictions for Initial and

Re- arrest Cases 170

Table 20. Bail Changes from Initial to Re-arrest Cases 172

Table 21. Analysis of Initial Cases in Recidivist Sample by

Proposed Preventive Detention Standards 174

Table 22. Analysis of Recidivist Cases with Initial "Violent"

Charge 175

Table 23. Prior Criminal Records 178

Table 24. Personal Data on Recidivists 181

Table 25. Process Through the Courts 184

Table 26. Robbery Recidivists (Prior Criminal Records) 187

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. District of Columbia Criminal Justice Flow Chart 45

Figure 2. Crime Profile in the District of Columbia (First

Half of 1968) 119

Figure 3. Distribution of Defendants' Time Periods of PreTrial Release 154

Figure 3A. Distribution of Defendants ' Time Periods of PreTrial Release -- Felonies 155

v
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Page

Figure 4. Variation in Number on Pre-Trial Release and

Pre-Appeal Release with Time Before and After

Trial 156

Figure 4A. Variation in Number on Pre-Trial Release and

Pre-Appeal Release with Time Before and After

Trial -- Felonies 157

Figure 5. Comparison of Pre-Trial Release Length Distributions

for Different Weeks in Sample 158

vi
Compilation and Use of Criminal Court Data

in Relation to Pre- Trial Release

of Defendants

•Pilot Study

J. W. Locke, R. Perm, J- Rick,

E. Bunten and G. Hare

Abstract

A number of Pre- Trial Release studies which have been conducted

during the past several years show that various measures of criminal

activity while on release vary from 7.9 percent (reindictment for

those indicted on felony charges) to 70 percent (re- arrest of those

originally arrested on a robbery charge) . Little actual sentence

data were available for or presented in these studies, and no personal

data on the defendants or facts about the crimes themselves were shown.

This document describes a pilot study of a very thorough analysis

of criminal cases, including both felonies and misdemeanors, in a four

week sample of cases in the District of Columbia during the first

half of 1968, The method of data collection is described, together

with attendant problems. Possible techniques of data presentation

are shown along with criteria and relevant factors pertinent in

quantifying "dangerousness . " The potential for developing "dangerousness"

prediction methods as a basis for decisions on pre-trial release is

analyzed, with the conclusion that much work needs to be done before

an effective prediction device based on a "dangerousness" criterion can be

formulated.

Summary data for 712 defendants in a sample of 4 weeks taken from

the first half of 1968 are presented. Comparisons are made to show the

re- arrest rates for defendants initially charged with particular classes

of crime. Personal characteristics are examined to determine if any

are significant predictors of recidivism. A recidivism index is

formulated to give the rate of re-arrest per man-day of exposure.

Robbery cases are examined in more detail.

Key Words: Bail, Criminal Court Data, Dangerousness, Data Collection

Problems and Procedures, District of Columbia, Prediction

Research, Recidivism, Pre-trial Release, Statistical

Relationships, Criminal Justice System, Judicial System,

Preventive Detention.
CHAPTER T

SummarySeveral prior studies of criminal activity during pre-trial release

have arrived at figures ranging from 7.0 percent reindictments for

persons indicted on felony charges, to 70 percent re- arrest of persons

charged with robbery. Subjective assertions have been offered contending

that the high end of the range is more nearly correct and typical; other

assertions have claimed the same for the low end. The study reported

here was charged with discovering what light could be thrown on the

subject by a thorough analysis of all written court records.

Raw data relating to all 712 defendants who entered the District

of Columbia Criminal Justice System during four sample weeks in 1968

were collected, evaluated, and analyzed. From this sample, 11 percent of

those released charged with misdemeanors or felonies were subsequently

re- arrested on a second charge during the release period ti Of those

charged with "crimes of violence" essentially as defined in the re2/ cent legislative proposal (Reference 112)— and released, 17 percent

were re-arrested. Of those charged with "dangerous crimes ," 25 percent

were re-arrested while released on pre-trial release. However, only 7 percent of those initially charged with a felony were re- arrested for

a second felony, only 5 percent of those initially charged with a violent offense were re- arrested for another violent offense, and only

5 percent of those initially arrested for a dangerous offense were

re-arrested for a dangerous offense. (It must be recognized that these

latter percentages are based on a very small number of cases)

.

— Unless otherwise stated, all arrest and re- arrest charges refer

to criminal charges including both misdemeanors and felonies.

Although the adjective "pre-trial" will often be included, "presentence" would be more accurate, since the release periods in

question can include time after trial but before final sentencing

(including appeal if one is made), and the bail originally established

often carries over to this period.

2/ United States Congress, "A Bill to Amend the Bail Reform Act of 1966

to Authorize Consideration of Danger to the Community in Setting

Conditions of Release, to Provide for Pre-trial Detention of

Dangerous Persons, and for Other Purposes." S-2600, HR 12806,

91st Congress, First Session.

2
In one respect these figures of rearrest while on pre- trail

release presumably underestimate (to a degree not determinable from

our data) the extent of crime committed while on bail, since not

all crimes are reported and since the majority of reported crimes

(during our study period) did not lead to arrests. On the other

hand, not all re-arrests correspond to guilt. Therefore, this

study's definition of recidivism - namely re-arrest while on pre-trial

release - is a quite imperfect proxy for the commission of crime

during such release.

Dangerousness prediction devices developed in the past (and

described in Chapter III) give insight into the problems of

prediction, but these devices offer little hope in the near

future for a precise statistical tool to be applied to aid

preventive detention decisions. A primary reason for this, of

course, is that suspects are not apprehended in the majority of

criminal cases, so that data about these cases never enter the

system.

The ultimate decision to allow preventive detention or not

is primarily a policy decision, which must depend on the informed

judgment of people knowledgeable in the judicial process and responsive

to both the short-term and longer-range wants and needs of society.

The data in this document may be considered essentially as a summary of the

facts available, to be used as an objective basis upon which to

superimpose these policy considerations. Once the fundamental

policy decisions are made, predictive devices using these data

may be helpful in "tuning" specific applications to particular

situations

The Criminal Justice System, as sketched in its D. C.

setting in Chapter IV, is highly structured and complex; a system in which judgment plays a significant role. The

procedure for and problems in collecting data on such a system's operations are correspondingly difficult; Chapter V's

discussion of this aspect of the study may be of particular
interest to those about to begin analysis in the System. For

those who wish to consider the ways in which data might be

analyzed in relation to predicting the dangerousness of potential pre-trial releasees , Chapter VII presents what should be

a useful introduction. Chapter VIII contains the meat of

the study , namely summaries of our data from a variety of

viewpoints plus the limited analysis performed during the

short time available for such work. It is expected that

these data will provide a basis for later analyses designed

in a more deliberate and sophisticated way.

These data from the District of Columbia were for weeks

1, 7, 22, and 24 in calendar year 1968. The first half of

1968 was chosen as the latest period available for which all

or nearly all of the court cases would be completed. The

District of Columbia was chosen because it is an integrated

court system under Federal jurisdiction, it had been applying

the Bail Reform Act of 1966 extensively (compared with other

jurisdictions), and it was convenient to the analytical staff.

Use of the raw data in this report as a basis for determining the extent of crime committed while on bail must be tempered by the

limitations inherent in a study of this nature. Four limitations are:

(1) Data show that during the six months considered in this

study, the police made arrests in only 29 percent of the

offenses reported to them. In addition, some experts (Ref, 125) have

suggested that only about half of all serious crimes committed

are reported to the police. Lf these considerations apply

to the locale and period studied, one could infer that the

police made arrests in fewer than 15 percent of the crimes

committed. (There is a bias here because a much greater percent

of crime goes unreported in some categories than in others. For

example, the fraction of. prostitution which
goes unreported is much greater than that for murder.) The

corresponding rate for those crimes committed by pre-trial

releasees might be higher or lower than this estimate for

criminal activity in general, but in any case, there is no

factual basis for directly equating re-arrest (during pretrial release) with crime committed (while on pre-trial

release)

.

(2) This study involves 712 defendants, of whom 654

were charged by the prosecutor and 426 were released prior

to trial. Complete records indicated that 176 defendants

were never released, and that 10 others were probably not

released. Thus a total of 186 or 29 percent of the 654

were not released, and this study cannot provide information

on the probability that they would have been re-arrested if

released prior to trial. Their failure to win release may

reflect, to some unknown extent, judges' estimates of their

greater potential dangerousness (independent of their

likelihood of remaining available for trial) . To "the degree

that these estimates are accurate and do affect release

decisions, the recidivism rates observed underestimate

those which would result if "dangerousness" considerations

in actual practice had played no de facto role in current

pre-trial release decisions.

(3) The scope of the study permitted only a limited

examination of whether or not the released defendants were

subsequently re-arrested in other jurisdictions. A brief

review of information from the FBI Crime Career records examined during the course of this study appears to indicate

that approximately 30 percent of the offenses in the record

occur in geographic jurisdictions other than the primary

location. I_f this average figure can be applied to the

re-arrest rate of all the groups studied, this would

increase the re -arrest rate of the entire group released from
11.0 to 14.3 percent, of those charged with crimes of violence from

17.0 to 22 percent and of those charged with dangerous crimes from

25 percent to 33 percent. The reader is reminded again of the

further increases which are possible because of the two previously

stated limitations.

(4) The data base of the study is small, making it difficult to

draw reliable conclusions. We have applied standard statistical

procedures throughout to estimate these uncertainties, and to distinguish

those figures or observations which are merely indicative from those

with a firmer basis. For example, disregarding the possibilities for

systematic bias noted above, the observed recidivism rate of 11 percent

cited above can be regarded with considerable confidence as indicating

a recidivism probability between 8 and 14 percent for a person chosen at

random from our sample or from the statistical "universe" it represents.

Similarly, we can state rather confidently that -the recidivism

probability for the felony category (171 observed) is between 11 and 23

percent, for the violent category (171 observed) between 10 and 24 percent

and for the dangerous category (251 observed) between 15 and 35 percent.

Our data are based upon records maintained by a variety of sources

in the Criminal Justice System, namely, the D. C. Police Department,

the Office of the U. S. Attorney (prosecutor), the courts, the bail agency,

and the jail. The data collection form developed was designed to

follow the flow of a case through the court system, from first action

by the prosecutor to sentencing.

In the selected four weeks, 910 defendants were originally listed

on the rolls of cases; our analysis showed that only 712 of those

defendants actually entered the court system by being charged with

felony or misdemeanor offenses during those four weeks. Of these 712

defendants, 426 were released prior to trial, and 47 of those persons

(11.0 percent) were subsequently re-arrested on a second charge or

charges, while still on release.
Extensive data were collected on each of these defendants

and cases; some 50,000 items of information were established

and made accessible for quantitative study by being entered

in the memory of a time-s"hared computer system. These data

provide the basis for our analyses of factors related to different facets of the pre-trial release question.

Illustrative analyses were conducted to explore the

correlations between various types of offenses and each of

a number of socio-economic characteristics of defendants

.

Analyses of re- arrested defendants were made for three complementary pairs of classes of criminal activity: felony versus misdemeanor;

violent versus non-violent; and dangerous versus non-dangerous.

Robberies in the sample were analyzed in even greater detail.

We also developed an index of recidivism based on number of

re-arrests per unit of time on pre-trial release.

Some of the more interesting observations from our sample

follow. The reader is urgently reminded that the results

quoted in the following paragraphs are for a limited data

base collected from the first half of 1968.

(1) In this sample of 712 defendants, we were able to

trace thoroughly 426 who received some form of pre-trial

release and for whom we conducted analysis of re-arrests. A

total of 176 were never released, 58 were disposed of before

presentment, 22 were "nolled" at presentment, and data were

insufficient for findings on 30 other defendants. (Seep. 121.)

(2) Of these 426 persons on pre-trial release (extended

to include pre-sentence and pre-appeal releases) , 47 were rearrested, giving a recidivist rate of 11.0 percent. (Seep. 121.)

(3) About two percent (13) of the 712 defendants

entered the system twice in separate incidents during the sample

weeks. Of these 13, 11 were not on pre-trial release at the

time of their second involvement. This gives some indication

of the number of people who are re- introduced into the system

after their initial cases have been cleared. (Seep. 121.)
(4) At presentment or initial hearing (initial pretrial release determination) , the sample contained 217

felony defendants (31 percent) , 437 misdemeanor defendants

(61 percent) , and 58 defendants who were "no papered" (8

percent) or otherwise disposed of before presentment. A

total of 654 (92 percent) were eligible for pre-trial release

consideration and formed the basis of our analysis. (Seep. 122.)

(5) For the 217 felony defendants eligible, our records

indicate that the following kinds of releases were initially

set: 52 percent on money bond, 10 percent on personal bond,

23 percent on personal recognizance, and 15 percent unknown

or denied (there were 13 homicide felony defendants who could

be detained as capital offenses) . (See p. 122.)

(6) For the 126 felony defendants actually released and

for whom we examined release conditions, 26 percent were

on money bond, 18 percent on personal bond, 54 percent on

personal recognizance, and 2 percent unknown. (See^p. 130.)

(7) Comparisons were made to show differences between

felony defendants in general and two sub -categories of felony

defendants defined in proposed legislation: (a) Those

accused of crimes classified as dangerous -- including robbery,

burglary, arson, rape, and narcotics, and (b) those charged

with offenses termed violent -- including all the "dangerous"

categories plus homicide, kidnapping, and assault with dangerous weapons. Of the felony defendants (147) released prior

to trial, 72 percent were in the violent category, 46 percent

in the dangerous category. (See- p. 131.)

(8) Seventeen percent of the 147 felony defendants, 17

percent of the 106 "violent" defendants, and 25 percent of the

68 "dangerous" defendants were re-arrested while on pre-trial

release. (iSee pp. 134 and 136.)

(9) Felony defendants were re-arrested for misdemeanors

(71) about as often as for felonies (7%) ; whereas misdemeanants

were re-arrested for misdemeanors (6%) about four times as
often as for felonies (1.5%). Violent offenders were re-arrested

twice as often for non-violent offenses (10%) as for violent offenses

(5%). Dangerous offenders were re-arrested for non-dangerous

offenses (16%) almost 2-1/2 times more frequently than for dangerous

obelises (6%). (The data base in the latter two categories, however,

is very small.) (See pp. 134 and 136.)

Personal Characteristics

(10) For the people in the sample, representative averages

of personal factors analyzed were: median age - 26.5 years; mean

education level - 10.2 years; median years resident in community -

18; percent employed - 56; living with parents or relatives - 60

percent; and defendants indicating they had previous record - 38 percent.

(See p. 151.)

(11) No single personal characteristic, except possibly employment,

appeared as an outstanding indicator of recidivism, although felony

defendants (excluding those charged with robbery) who were recidivists

were generally older than felony defendants who were not recidivists.

(Combinations of characteristics await further testing.) (See p. 138.)

Recidivist Index

(12) A recidivist index was defined; its numerical value for

the sample was approximately one re-arrest per 1,000 defendant -days

on pre-trial release. For the complete sample, this index appears to

be relatively constant throughout the time-period when defendants are on pre-trial release. However, a very rudimentary calculation based

on an adult population of 522,000 (est. for 1968) in the District

of Columbia, and using the average number of persons formally charged

per day (654 * 28) , shows that there would be one arrest for every

22,000 adult days of exposure. (See p. 160.)
(13) Based on our limited data, the recidivist index

showed

(a) An increased propensity to be re-arrested

when released more than 280 days (Seep. 165.);

(b) an increased propensity of persons classified as dangerous under the proposed legislation to be re-arrested in the period from

24 to 8 weeks prior to trial; and

(c) a somewhat greater propensity to be rearrested while awaiting sentence or appeal

after trial than when on pre-trial release.

Recidivist Cases

(14) In order to increase the size of the recidivist

sample for examining characteristics of initial and re-arrest

offenses, records were reviewed to determine which defendants

were on pre-trial release at the time they committed the offense

which placed them in the sample. The total recidivist sample

thus arrived at included 99 names and 128 cases. (Seep. 166.)

(15) There are known to be convictions in both the

initial case and the re-arrest case for 33 percent of the total

(128) cases. An additional 20 percent had cases pending or

had missing records. (Seep. 170.)

(16) For all initial felony cases (53), the re-arrest

was for a felony 43 percent of the time and a misdemeanor 57

percent of the time. For all initial misdemeanor cases (68),

the re-arrest was for a felony 24 percent of the time and a misdemeanor 76 percent of the time. (Seep. 167.)

Robberies

(17) There were 40 robbery defendants in the sample.

Of these, 16 showed no prior adult criminal record and 5

showed no prior felony arrests; records were not available

for 7. Twelve showed at least one prior felony arrest, but

only four showed any felony convictions. (See pp. 176 and 177.)

10
(18) Compared to other categories analyzed, robbery

lefendants appeared to be: (a) younger; (b) less educated;

c) less frequently employed and more likely to have a prior

riminal record. (See p. 180.)

(19) The average time to trial in 36 of the 40 cases

tfas 200 days; records on 4 other cases were incomplete. Eight

of the 12 who never received any pre-trial release were convicted. Thirteen of the 23 who were released were convicted.

One fled the jurisdiction. (Seep. 183.)

The reader is particularly cautioned against casual use

of the averages reported in this Summary. Apart from the

sample limitations, the richness of the narrative supporting

material in the court records and the judgmental decisions of

persons in the administration of justice are not adequately

conveyed without an interpretive summary to accompany each

result. The reader is urged to probe deeply in the body of

the report to assure proper interpretation and use of the

numerical results presented here.

For illustration: One might deduce from statements 7 and 8 above that if the "dangerous" criterion (as defined

in this report) had been applied to the sample defendants,

then 52 fewer releases and 17 fewer recidivists could have

resulted. Thus, the total number of recidivists might have

been reduced by about one-third (47 decreased to 30), a significant reduction. Yet because recidivism in this study denotes

only re- arrest for criminal offenses — a released defendant

as a suspect for a later crime -- the above analysis does not

provide direct information on how many fewer crimes would

actually have been committed, how many fewer subsequent convictions would have been obtained, or how many fewer releases

relatively riskless for the community would have been permitted.

The proposed legislation (S^2600, HR 12806) also provides for a detention

hearing, at which some of the 52 defendants might have won release.

11
It should be noted, in addition, that application of the

proposed legislation may release some defendants currently

being detained because they cannot meet the money bond

imposed. This may be particularly true in those cases in which

the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor and cannot meet

the bond set. (This occurred in 67 percent of the 187 jail

cases which we have in the record.)

The data collected cannot alone settle all of the difficult

policy questions which must be resolved. We hope the data

and methods presented in this document are useful aids in

clarifying and resolving such issues. Additional questions

can be asked of the data, and other hypotheses tested -- within the time frame and resources available it was possible

to explore only a few of the plausible combinations.

The observations and recommendations presented in Chapter IX are

our immediate reactions to some of the additional needs we see. However,

these are but small steps in a long difficult process of establishing

effective prediction procedures.

12
CHAPTER II

Introduction

Crime ranks high among the important social problems of today.

It has been recognized for some time that the development of improved

approaches to this problem poses a requirement not previously met,

for identifying and responding to the Nation's needs for adequate

data from the Criminal Justice System. Such information is

necessary, in particular, to provide a factual framework within

which to appraise the likely effectiveness and desirability of

proposed innovations in the system.

Of particular concern in recent months has been crime committed

by persons while on pre-trial rlease for alleged criminal behavior.

It is not at all clear whether data exist in the Criminal Justice

System which, with appropriate methods, would permit on a statistical

basis the prediction of an individual's likelihood to commit crime

while released. This pilot study was commissioned to assemble and

analyze a sample of the available data to determine if a full scale

data collection and analysis effort would be worthwhile, and to

ascertain the extent of recidivism of those defendants in the sample.

13
Historical Background

From the founding of this country, the right to pre-trial release

for all persons charged with other than a capital offense has been

presumed. The definition of capital offense, however, has changed over

the years from a rather inclusive list of crimes in the eighteenth

century to "crimes resulting in a death" at the current time. Likewise,

the practical reality of the right to pre-trial release was often questioned, since the imposition of high money bail often has the effect

of preventive detention (Reference 89 in Appendix A)

Until 1966, money bail was the standard form of pre-trial release.

The Bail Reform Act of 1966 encouraged the employment of various terms

of release other than money bail in Federal jurisdictions (primarily release

on recognizance). Legally, the amount of money assessed should relate

only to the judge's estimate of the defendant's likelihood of returning

for trial. The courts in the District of Columbia, as the only major

metropolitan courts under Federal jurisdiction responsible for dealing

with criminal activity, were most directly affected, although many other

courts have begun limited release-on- recognizance (R.O.R.) programs.

The current anti- crime crusade has turned to the concept of preventive

detention based upon the prediction of a defendant's danger to society,

as one means of reducing the level of crime. Two fundamental questions

arise: (1) Is it possible to obtain data to support a rigorous prediction

method, and if so, what should the method be? (2) Will preventive

detention significantly reduce crime even if a good prediction device

is developed?

The need for data has been recognized for some time. Perhaps the

most comprehensive review of this need was conducted by the Bureau of

the Census in late 1967 and early 1968 (Reference 90) . This review,

conducted by three panels dealing with the respective areas of law

enforcement, the courts, and corrections, concluded:

14
"A thread that runs through the reports, the debates,

the public statements is simply that there are not enough

data, or there are no data, or the data which exist are either incomplete, the wrong type of data, out of date, or inadequate for one reason or another."

A number of studies have since been conducted concerning crime committed

while on pre-trial release. These studies, described in Reference 1,

have shown variations in the percent of offenders alleged to have

committed crime while on pre-trial release which range from 7 percent

(for indictments of persons indicted for felonies) to 70 percent (for

arrests of persons indicted for robbery) . In reviewing these data,

the Judicial Council Committee to Study the Operation of the Bail Reform

Act in the District of Columbia noted in its report of May 1969 (Reference 89)

:

"Data which shows the precise extent of crime on bail

is not available. Neither private research organizations

nor government have undertaken the necessary work. No one has assembled the financial resources, the computerized

analysis and the professional direction which are necessary

for a comprehensive or fully adequate study."

It is not clear, however, that the desired data are available or can be

collected from the Criminal Justice System or that even if they are currently available, they will prove meaningful in view of the low

apprehension rate.

With this as background, the National Institute of Law Enforcement

and Criminal Justice, the research arm of the Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration in the Department of Justice, felt the need to institute

a pilot project to explore the problems in acquiring a much broader data

base as well as the potential of such an information bank. The Technical

Analysis Division of the National Bureau of Standards was selected to

undertake the initial data gathering and computer analyses necessary to

provide a basis for discussion involving the number and types of crimes

that were being committed by persons released pending trial. It was emphasized from the outset that the study should not try either to support

or to counter the advisability of the notion of preventive detention, but

rather should assemble any data existing within the Criminal Justice System

which would have a bearing on the subject. The study was authorized under

grants NI 019 (FY 1969) and NI 70-012 (FY 1970) of the National Institute

of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.

15
Purpose of the Study

The study is an exploratory or pilot study of Criminal Justice

System records to determine what can be learned about crime allegedly

committed by persons granted pre-trial release. One purpose of the

study was to assemble the pertinent court data to ascertain what

problems would be encountered in collecting such data, to determine the

extent and value of the data for formulating pre-trial release programs,

to recommend whether a full scale data collection program should be

undertaken, and to offer suggestions . for the implementation of a court

information system in the future.

A second purpose of the study was to render clearer and more

objective the concept of "dangerousness" as applied to persons on pretrial release. "Dangerousness" can be viewed as involving two elements:

the "probability" that a person on pre-trial release might commit a crime

of some type, and the seriousness of that type. The probability as estimated might

well depend on the category of the crime under which the person is released;

the seriousness attributed to a class of crimes might be based on the lengths

of sentences imposed on those convicted of such crimes.

A third purpose of the study effort was to define an approach to

developing a method of "dangerousness" prediction for use in reaching

a decision for or against pre-trial release in individual cases. A fourth purpose was to assemble in one location a basic set of

criminal records relevant to a wide variety of possible analyses.

The object was to gather as much information as possible from the

Criminal Justice System so as to avoid pre-jLimiting the set of; factors

which might be tested for use in a predictive mechanism . Contact was established

with many people who were intimately associated with the problem in the

Department of Justice and the Courts, and in study groups which had

previously analyzed portions of the problem. Appendix B lists many of the

people contacted during the course of our work.

16
Approach to Data Collection

The work program included collection of all information available

in the Criminal Justice System on all those persons who entered the

System during four selected weeks in the first half of 1968. The

first half of 1968 was selected so that proceedings connected with the

particular charges would, in most instances, have been completed by the

time of the study. The four weeks were not selected randomly, because

of the additional complexity which this would have added to the data

collection problem, but were selected to obtain a spread across the months

and with differing time periods within a month. One week was selected

at the beginning of a month, two were in the middle, and one at the end

of a month. There was deliberate avoidance of the abnormal period (see

Figure 2, p. 119) of civil disorder which followed the assassination of

Dr. Martin Luther King (April 1968), and that which coincided with the

closing of "Resurrection City" (late June of 1968)

.

All established data sources which might yield information about individual

cases progressing through the Criminal Justice System were identified and

were subsequently used to obtain information on those persons entering

the system (first appearing before a judicial officer with respect to

a given charge) during the selected weeks. The data were assembled on

forms which were especially designed for this purpose. The data

collection was carried out by advanced law students from Georgetown

University, in the District of Columbia. After the entry of the

information on the data collection forms, these forms received a screening to establish the completeness and internal consistency of the

recorded material. The forms were then transcribed to another format

more suitable for keypunching, and punch-card computer input was prepared from them. It was the intent of the data collection effort

that only data already recorded should be collected. No effort was made

to secure data not already existing in recorded form in the Criminal

Justice System.

When it was discovered that an individual was already on pre-trial

release for some crime allegedly committed prior to the charge being

studied, or had allegedly committed a subsequent crime while on pre-trial

17
release for the charge being studied, these prior and subsequent

cases were also documented. It was recognized that crimes charged

both before (retrospective) and after (prospective) the incident

(master case) which caused a person to enter into the sample had to

be tabulated separately, because the data bases of those free on pre-trial release who could commit crime before and after the master

case would be different. From the data gathered, a table was to be

constructed indicating the probability that a person facing a charge

in a given category (corresponding to a row of the table) would

while on pre-trial release be arrested for another crime in the same or perhaps in some other category (corresponding to a column)

Two additional analyses were to be performed. One was to indicate

the apparent seriousness with which various categories of crime were

treated, by examining sentences handed down. The other was to deal

with the number of man- days available for the commission of crime during

pre-trial release; without this normalizing factor, the number of mandays actually exhibiting re-arrests could not be viewed in

proper perspective.

Completeness and accuracy in the resultant data base were key

considerations of the study. The condition of records in many files

made it impossible to achieve these goals adequately by mere transcribing,

and it was found essential to maintain a process of intense review

and re-check. This difficulty led to strains on the limits of time

and funding planned for the study; the original time frame had to be

extended; the sample size originally contemplated (five or six weeks)

had to be reduced to four weeks; and the analysis of apparent seriousness

as defined by sentences tfas reluctantly dropped from the study.

The balance of this document explains in detail the data collection

and analyses which were undertaken.

18
CHAPTER III

Prediction of Criminal Behavior

Collection and anal/sis of data concerning criminal behavior began

as early as 1831 with Quetelet's publication of his study relating

criminal activity to education, age, and sex of the criminal, and to

climate (as discussed in Reference 66). Within the last forty years,

research has concentrated on relating criminal activity to behavioral

patterns in the individual. These analyses, and their associated data

tabulations, have been of great analytic value and some prescriptive value.

The Nature of Prediction

One goal of this present study has been to identify correlations

among factors in the data collected, so that patterns of association

could be found. The procedures are precisely those used in any

statistical study in which projections are made into the future; patterns

of combinations that have been found to exist repeatedly in the past are assumed

to remain applicable under certain future conditions

.

The objective of this portion of the study is to attempt to

identify indicators of potential dangerousness in arrested defendants,

and to discover whether a mechanism to improve predictions of

dangerousness can be developed. Some requirements in this process

are therefore:

(a) a definition of a dangerous event, and the specific ways

in which that definition is to be interpreted in terms of the data

at hand;

(b) selection of the independent variables relating to the

individual and to the nature and the circumstances of the alleged

offenses, all of which bear upon dangerousness; and

(c) the guidelines for drawing inferences from the analysis of

the correlations among the factors involved.

A more extensive discussion of the nature of prediction in crime

can be found in D. M. Gottfredson, Assessment and Prediction Methods in

Crime and Delinquency , (pp. 171-187, in Reference 86).

19
Current Pre-Trial Release Operations—

So that this analysis might benefit from an understanding of how

judgments on pre-trial release are currently made, the study team

examined the operations in three cities: New York City, Baltimore,

and the District of Columbia.

In each of the cities , information was sought on the factors

described above. They were operationally defined as follows:

(a) What categories of offenders are eligible for consideration

in the pre-trial release judgment, and what is known about

them?

(b) What is the intent of the pre-trial release program?

(c) What is the nature of the pre-trial release system in use?

(d) What information does the pre-trial release agency obtain

on persons before a determination is made, and which information is judged to be most relevant to the determination?

Populations with which Pre-Trial Release Agencies are Concerned . In

New York City, all persons accused of felonies or misdemeanors are interviewed prior to arraignment, except for those (1) charged with homicide;

(2) charged with inflicting a possibly fatal injury; (3) for whom a bench warrant is outstanding or who are being held for extradition; and

(4) who are financially able to post bail and engage a private attorney.

In Baltimore, by contrast, the persons interviewed by the Pre-Trial

Release Division must have appeared in municipal court and had bail set

according to the bail schedule. At this point, the Pre-Trial Release

Division must be contacted by a defense attorney, the defendant, the

1/ Information in this section is based on interviews with directors of

three current pre-trial release programs: Mr. Bruce Beaudin of the

D. C. Bail Agency; Mr. Jack Highsmith of the New York City Release

on Recognizance Program; and Mr. Richard Mots ay of the Baltimore

City Pre-Trial Release Division. Their cooperation is greatly

appreciated.

20
defendant's family, or some other interested party. Defendants charged

with the following offenses are not interviewed, unless a writ of habeas

corpus is filed: (1) certain cases of murder; (2) certain cases of rape;

(3) extradition, kidnapping, abduction; (4) certain cases of arson; (5)

selling narcotics ; and (6) assault on police officers . The Pre-Trial

Release Division in Baltimore deals only with defendants charged with

felonies

.

The District of Columbia agency, like that in New York, deals

with defendants accused of committing either felonies or misdemeanors.

Another similarity in the two programs is that the defendants are interviewed prior to their first court appearance. In Washington, however, defendants financially able to post their own bail and to hire an attorney are not excluded from consideration. As in both New York and

Baltimore, persons charged with capital offenses are not interviewed.

U.3 D. C. agency differs from the other two agencies in that it does

consider persons under fugitive warrant.

The General Intent of the Three Programs . In New York City and the

District of Columbia, the major concern of the pre-trial release agencies

is whether or not the defendant will appear for trial. In both agencies,

a defendant is recommended for either a non-money bail release or no

release. Neither program recommends what amount of bond should be set,

and neither program considers the nature of the current offense once

eligibility for bail has been determined. Rather, both attempt to assess the defendant's stability in the community as indicated by his

length of residence, contact with family, employment record, and criminal

record.

The expressed intent of the Baltimore City agency is different. A

defendant is considered an apparent good risk for release if he can be

expected to show for trial and if he will not present a risk to the

community. This program takes into consideration the current offense

report and the seriousness of the offense. In certain cases, the program

also makes recommendations concerning the amount of bond which should be

set.

21
Differences in Manner of Operation

(a) Personnel --In New York and Washington, students and part-time

personnel make up at least part of the interviewing staff, and

these employees receive professional staff supervision. The

Baltimore program has a full-time staff; the agency places a great deal of emphasis on hiring persons who have criminological experience.

(b) Follow-up -- All three programs notify released defendants of

their trial dates. The New York program has no further contact

with its clients , unless there is some subsequent violation or

a bail review. The Washington program has varying levels of

contact, ranging from personal telephone calls to weekly checkins. This program, however, is unable to follow-up on all

violations of bail conditions. The Baltimore program prescribes

a rigid follow-up program, based on weekly telephone calls.

Any defendant who fails to call on time is then called by

agency personnel, and any violation of conditions results in

an immediate arrest warrant and revocation of the release.

(c) Size of the Operations -- Because it deals with felony offenses,

and then only on request, Baltimore has the smallest program.

The agency interviews approximately 3,000 persons annually.

The New York City agency interviews approximately 70,000 persons

and the D. C. agency approximately 20,000 persons each year.

(d) Information Gathered -- The information obtained and the interview formats are similar in Baltimore and Washington, and these

interview formats are almost identical to earlier formats used

in the New York City project. Presently, however, New York

employs a highly condensed format. The information gathered by

all three agencies has many similarities.

Predictive Factors Currently Used . Recommendations and decisions to

release a defendant prior to his trial are usually based on information

concerning the defendant's stability in the community or his family

relationships. The three agencies interviewed in the course of this study

22
have each selected certain parts (factors) of this information to be

entered on rating sheets, used to summarize the information with a numerical score. These are the factors which agency personnel assume

to have the greatest relevance to behavior on pre-trial release.

The rating sheets currently used in the three cities are shown in

the following pages. These rating sheets show differential weightings

of factors. The rationale behind these rating sheets appears to be that

the factors considered are, in some way, related to the defendant's

stability, and that stability is positively related to the defendant's

likelihood of appearing for trial. So far there has been no attempt

to achieve a statistical validation of this hypothesis.

An in-depth review of the information collected by the D. C. Bail

Agency for persons in the sample population used in this study revealed

that many of the entries in these forms were unverified reports by

the defendants. To obtain an indication of the amount of bias that might

be introduced by such self -reports , that information was cross-checked

with the information developed in the Pre-Sentence Reports of the D. C.

U. S. Probation Office and the Bail Agency.

The comparison is not a clear-cut one for the following reasons:

(a) there is some self-offered information in all the files;

(b) Pre- Sentence Reports contain much verified information,

gathered from interviews with spouses or other family members

,

contacts with present and former employers, reports of

physical health, contacts with Selective Service Boards,

F. B. I. and police reports of prior criminal activity, and

records of juvenile offenses ; and

(c) the checking of Pre- Sentence Reports was limited by time and

resources available, to those for a number of the people in

the sample who were later convicted of felonies.

A third possible check was with the files of the Office of Offender

Rehabilitation, This was abandoned when search of the 229 cases in a one-week sample yielded only three entries in the Offender Rehabilitation

files

.

23
Int Ver

NEW YORK CITY

OFFICE OF PROBATION

RATING SHEET

To be recommended, defendant needs:

1. A New York area address where he can be reached

AND

2. A total of five points from the following categories:

PRIOR RECORD

2 2 No convictions.

One misdemeanor conviction.

-1 -1 Two misdemeanor or one felony conviction.

-2 -2 Tnree or more misdemeanor or two or more felony convictions.

FAMILY TIES (In New York area)

3 3 Lives in established family home AND visits other family members.

(Immediate family only)

2 2 Lives in established family home. (Immediate Family)

1 1 Visits others of immediate family.

EMPLOYMENT OR SCHOOL

3 3 Present job one year or more, steadily

2 2 Present job 4 months OR present and prior 6 months.

1 1 Has present job which is still available.

OR Unemployed 3 months or less and 9 months or more steady

prior job.

OR Unemployment Compensation.

OR Welfare.

3 3 Presently in school, attending regularly.

2 2 Out of school less than 6 months but employed, or in training.

1 1 Out of school 3 months or less, unemployed and not in training.

RESIDENCE (In New York Area Steadily)

3 3 One year at present residence.

2 2 One year at present or last prior residence OR 6 months at

present residence.

1 1 Six months at present and last prior residence OR in

New York City 5 years or more.

DISCRETION

+1 +1 Positive, over 65j attending hospital, appeared on some previous case. -1 Negative - intoxicated - intention to leave jurisdiction.

TOTAL INTERVIEW POINTS

R NR

40-43-167 Rev.

TOTAL INTERVIEW POINTS

NR

24
BALTIMORE PRE-TRIAL RELEASE RATING' SHEET :

To be recommended j a defendant needs:

1. A Baltimore area address where he can be reached AND

2. A total of five points from the following:

Int.

3

21

Ver.

321

RESIDENCE (In "Baltimore area; NOT on and off)

Present residence 2 years OR present and prior 3 years.

Present residence 6. months OR present and prior 1 year.

Present residence *J months OR present and prior 6 months.

-1

-2

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3

-H -H

-5 -5

etc

TIME IN BALTIMORE AREA

5 years or more.

FAMILY TIES (In Baltimore Area)

Lives with family.

Lives with non-family friend AND has contact with other

members of his family.

Lives with non-family friend OR has contact with other

members of his family.

EMPLOYMENT OR SUBSTITUTES

Present job over 5 years where employer will -take back.

Present job over 1 year where employer will take back.

Present job over 5 months where employer will take back.

Student in GOOD standing with the school.

Worked less than 6 months at his job but employer can give

satisfactory recommendation.

Laid off his job for reasons other than personal or ability

to carry out job.

(a) Present job l

\ months or less OR present and prior job

6 months. OR (b) Current 'job less than a month where

employer will take back OR (c) Unemployed 3 months or

less with 9 months or more single prior job from which

not fired for disciplinary reasons, (d) Receiving unemployment compensation3 welfare, etc. (e) Full time

student, (f) In poor health.

CHARACTER

Prior negligent no show.

Definite knowledge of drug addiction or alcoholism.

PRIOR RECORD

Note: Use chart below for single offenses and for combination

of offenses. For reasoning and offensive weights, see Explanatory Memo.

CODE: One adult felony=7 units if five years ago and no previous

record within the 5 year period.

One adult felony=10 units if within a five year period

from present charge.

One adult misdemeanor=2 units if within a five year period

from the date of present charge.

One adult misdemeanor=l unit if five years ago and no previous record with the 5 year period.

12 3^56 78 10 11 12 13

-O

lh 15 16 17 18 19 20

-3

±± etc. -4

25
WASHINGTON, D.C. BAIL AGENCY RATING SHEET

To be recommended a defendant needs:

1. A verified Washington area address where he can be reached.

AND

2. A total of 4 verified points from the the following:

(circle number of points verified and total at bottom of page)

Points TIME IN WASHINGTON AREA

1 5 years or more. RESIDENCE (In Washington area; NOT on and off)

3 Present address 1 year OR Present and prior addresses 1 1/2 years.

2 Present address 6 months OR present and prior addresses 1 year.

1 Present address 4 months OR present and prior addresses 6 months.

FAMILY TIES

4 Lives with family AND has contact with other family member(s).

3 Lives with family.

2 Lives with non-family friend whom he gives as a reference AND has

contact with family member(s).

1 Lives with non-family friend whom he gives as a reference OR lives

alone and has contact with family member(s).

EMPLOYMENT OR SUBSTITUTES

4 Present job 1 year or more where employer will take back.

3 Present job 1 year or more.

2 Present job 4 months where employer will take back OR present

and prior jobs 6 months where present employer will take back.

1 (a) Present job 4 months OR present and prior job 6 months.

OR (b) Current job where employer will take back.

OR (c) Unemployed 3 months or less with 9 months or more single

prior job from which not fired for disciplinary reasons. OR (d) Receiving unemployment compensation, welfare, etc. OR (e) Full time student.

OR (f) In Poor Health, (under a doctor's care, physically impaired,

etc.)

TOTAL NUMBER OF POSITIVE POINTS VERIFIED

. CHARACTER

-1 Prior negligent no show while on bond.

-3 Definite knowledge of present drug addiction.

-2 Definite knowledge of past drug use OR present alcoholism.

-5 On bond on another pending charge.

PRIOR CONVICTIONS

-1 Code: One adult felony = 7 units

-2 One adult misdemeanor = 2 units

-3 One juvenile substantial "felony" charge = 4 units

-1 Circle total record units.

-4 Units 12 3 4 5 61 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

-1 1 -2 -3 -4

TOTAL NUMBER OF NEGATIVE POINTS

TOTAL NUMBER OF POINTS (Positive less negative).

26
Table 1 contains a summary of the comparison of the respective

responses to personal questions in Bail Agency files and in Pre-Sentence

Reports. The statements compared were those in the Pre-Trial Release

Study Data Form (Appendix C, pp. 220,

felons (44) were isolated from those of all other offenders in two

weeks (total data available when this comparison was made) of the sample

population. Of those 44, 14 had no Bail Agency records available, and

one had no Pre-Sentence Report on file. The information on seven

forms was not checked, although the files were available. Therefore, of

the 29 cases for which information was available in both sources, 22 were tabulated, as shown in Table 1.

In the more general categories of information, the Bail Agency

files coincide fairly well with the Pre-Sentence Reports. However, both

the depth and the probable validity of Bail Agency information in all

categories indicates that it should be used only for preliminary corre- lational analysis. This information should be used only for very

broad classification.

Bail Agency information was usually more superficial than that in

Pre-Sentence Reports, and complex marital and familial relationships were not well represented therein. It appears that the Bail Agency records

present defendants in a somewhat more favorable light than the pre-sentence

reports that were available for comparison. However, it is not clear

from the small amount of data available to us, whether this bias resulted

from overstatements made by the defendant or the hurried nature of the interview.

Predictive Factors Considered in Probation and Parole Studies

Efforts to evaluate and improve probation and parole programs have

led to the identification of certain factors as relevant in predicting

the success or failure of offenders on probation or parole. As data

concerning the success or failure of persons granted these types of

release became available, attempts were made to determine which individual

characteristics were related to success or failure after release. Thus,

researchers have tried to identify groups of offenders who exhibited a

certain behavior after release, e.g., those who were re-arrested or

those who maintained a stable job and home life. They tried to determine

which characteristics were most often typical of one group-

27
Table l.

Comparison of Responses to P-ersonal Information

Questions in Bail Agency Files and Pre-sentence

Reports

Statement

No.

with

same

info,

on

B.

A.

form §

pre-sent.

report

No.

with

different

info,

on

B.

A.

form

§

pre-sent.

report

co

1

O

C E

"5 lH

•H*<

o • Z CQ

g

o' +-> m s-. c o

•H &, O U

c

•H <D * f

• o

O (-. 2 Q.

g

e

53 *j

CO

4->

I/) X ^ -1 h a — ~ o o M C

• -a O -H Z X)

Race

' 22 Sex 22 Birth Date 20 2 Place of Birth 21 1 Wash. Met. Area Resident 22 How Long 20 2 Family Ties in Wash. Met. Area 20 1 1 Lives with Spouse 17 2 3 Lives with Relatives 13 4 5

" 1 Married 21 1 Status 12 2 13 How Long Married 3 4 2 13 Support 1 14 3 13 dumber of Children 15 6 2 Number of Children/Age Group •H ' 5 6 6 Children by 10 3 3 6 Support Children a 3' 5 6 Children Live with 8 4 4 5 Employed 21 • 1 How Long 18 2 2 Wages/Week 1 1 5 12 Type of Work 8 2 12 Type of Prior Employment 10 4 6 1 How Long Employed 8 2 10 1 1 Student Now 19 4 Highest Grade Completed 9 9 3 On Drugs Now 18 1 3 Ever on Drugs 18 1 3 How Long Ago 2 11 12 Alcoholic 13 1 4 2 Ever Hospitalized for Mental Illness 9 2 4 7 When 1 20 How Long 1 20 Where Hospitalized 1 20 Ever on Probation, Parole,

Conditional Release 18 4 Revoked 2 4 17 6 Why 7 2 13 Now on PB., PA., C. R. 4 16 2 Prior Bond Release 7 15 What Year 1 6 14 Where 1 6 14 Charge 1 6 14 Appeared in Court 1 6 6 On Bond Release Now 5 14 Charge 2 14 13 Record or No Record 14 7 1 Year 7 7 8 Charge 8 6 8

N =22

28
and atypical of members of a complementary group. They searched for

characteristics that would have evident potential for determining who should

(or should not) be granted certain types of release. An examination of

these studies can identify certain techniques and problem areas which

are encountered in attempting to define dangerousness of individuals when

involved in probation, parole, or pre-trial release situations.

There are some very significant differences among parole, probation,

and pre-trial release situations:

(1) Studies concerned with the behavior of persons on probation

or parole deal with individuals who have been found legally

guilty of criminal acts, while the pre-trial release study

is concerned with defendants who are only alleged to have

committed a crime. This difference has two major effects:

(a) Probation and parole studies contain more complete

information about the nature of the offense, and

this information can be accepted as fact. Pre-trial

release studies, on the other hand, contain only the

official police report of the offpn.se and . in some

cases, the defendant's account of the offense.

Also, there are legal complications surrounding the

kinds of information a defendant may be asked to con- tribute prior to his trial.

(b) When probation or parole is being considered, there

is a relatively long interval of time between an initial consideration of release and the actual

decision to grant the release. Therefore, the decisionmakers have much time in which to gather information

about the individual under consideration. Especially

in the case of parole, there is information available

about the individual's general adjustment --to institutional life at least- -and there are reports from staff

personnel who have had the opportunity to deal with--

29
and to know -- the individual. In the case of pre-trial

release, there is a relatively short time interval

between the initial consideration of the individual and

the decision for release. In many instances the amount

of actual contact with the individual amounts to no more

than 10-20 minutes.

(2) The criteria which probation and parole programs use to evaluate

the success or failure of individuals released to the community

differ greatly from the criteria which most pre-trial release

programs consider. In their assessments, probation and parole

programs are concerned with determining the degree of rehabilitation exhibited by persons who have been released. These

studies often involve long-term assessments which may continue

for years. Pre-trial release programs, on the other hand, are concerned only with short-term assessment, and cannot concern

themselves with a need for rehabilitation.

Bearing in mind that probation, parole, and pre-trial release are quite different processes, we can still consider those aspects in which

they are alike, and ask how studies in the first two areas may be able

to shed some light on the techniques and problems which they have in

common with predicting behavior in the context of pre-trial release

programs. The main reference point to consider when examining probation,

parole, and pre-trial release programs is that all three are interested

in the likelihood of the offenders' (defendants') subsequent criminal

involvement (arrest or conviction). In the case of pre-trial release,

the main concern has usually (up to this time) been with the probability

of the occurrence of a particular criminal act -- flight to avoid

prosecution. Probation and parole studies have been concerned with all

offense categories. Recent interest in the definition- -and ascription-

of dangerousness as a pre-condition to the granting (or denial) of pretrial release makes probation and parole studies even more relevant to

the pre-trial release situation.

Procedure . Many evaluation studies of probation and parole programs have

30
been conducted. A variety of data have been collected, analyzed, and

classified. Analyses have been made to detect correlations between

various data categories and the types of behaviors to which they have

appeared directly relevant. Factors for which high correlation coefficients

have been ascribed have been included in experience tables --tabular

presentations of data designed to reflect the relationships (co- relationships) found between the most relevant factors and the behavior in question.

Experience tables are applied to sample cases (other than those used in

the construction of the tables) , and the factors in the tables are weighted and grouped into alternative configurations which are used for

prediction. Tables used for prediction (prediction tables) are the result.

These studies have most often used one of two methods for the refinement of experience tables into prediction tables: (1) selection of all

factors which have a high correlation with the behavioral -predictioncriterion, and assignment of equal weight to each factor; or (2) selection

of those factors having the highest correlations, and assignments of

relative weights to each one, depending on its independence from other

factors and its relative correlation with the behavior to be predicted.

In recent years, another general method has frequently been employed:

development of predictive equations into which current and constantly

updated probabilities may be inserted.

Many past studies intended to develop predictive instruments might

be better described as attempts to develop experience tables. Once a tentative prediction device has been developed, it must be tested on samples from some population other than the one on which it was developed.

If this is not done, its validity is questionable. Yet, experience tables

are not without value; they present observed frequencies of factors or characteristics in their relationship to some specified behavior. They

are an aid in improving the collection of base data about probation and

parole programs, as well as changes in the offender population.

Abstracts of Studies Reviewed . To understand the methods used in current

predictive studies and the types of information obtained in these efforts,

we examined several studies which clearly demonstrated the factors chosen

31
and which present varying approaches to the problem. To exhibit what

types of factors have been most frequently used in experience tables,

the factors from these studies are listed in Table 2 on page 36. The

studies examined during the course of this project are summarized below.

(1) H. Gough, E. A. Wenk, and Z. D. Rozynko. "Parole Outcome as Predicted from the CPI, the MMPI, and a Base Expectancy Table,"

1965 (Reference 55) . This study was based on the rationale

that use of a base expectancy table (experience table) to

predict parole outcome ignores the current status of the

individual. Therefore, an attempt was made to combine the

base expectancy table (which was known to differentiate parole

violators from non- violators) with scales from two personality

inventories (which also differentiated the two groups).

Multiple regression equations were derived in order to

provide more accurate predictions. The authors used: (a) The

California Youth Authority Base Expectancy Table (an index

constructed in 1959 by Beverly and then refined in California)

(b) The Socialization (So) and Self-Control (Sc) Scales of the

California Psychological Inventory (CPI) ; (c) The K-Corrected

Hypomania (Ma) Scale of the Minnesota Multiphastic Personality

Inventory (MMPI). Personality inventories such as the MMPI

and the CPI are questionnaires which have been standardized

on a number of samples of "normal" and "abnormal" individuals.

Such questionnaires ask the individual to record his customary

conduct or attitudes when faced with a variety of situations.

Typical question forms are: "I often feel that . . . ;" .or "I would generally rather . . . than ..." Items on these

inventories are standardized according to the average of the

responses from the population at large. Certain configurations

of responses have been found to differentiate certain groups

from the total population.

The six regression equations developed in the study were

found to differentiate violators from non-violators with more

validity than the Base Expectancy Table used alone. The ,rbest"

32
equation- -the Base Expectancy Table plus the CPI Scaleswas significantly better than chance- -although it was concluded that the Base Expectancy Table was the best

predictor of the three,

The study showed that when the best prediction method was

used, the prediction was correct 63% of the time; yet, if one merely

assumed that all parolees would be successful, this prediction

would be correct 56% of the time.

(2) F. J. Carney. "Predicting Recidivism in a Medium Security

Institutiony 1967 (Reference 25) . The author of this study

found seven factors which significantly discriminated [isolated

from the population at large) persons who had returned to a Federal or State prison, a jail, or a house of correction for

thirty days or more within four years of their release from a particular security correctional institution. The institution in

which this study was conducted screens its inmates carefully, so that only those with highest expectation of rehabilitation and

those having good institutional adjustment are released. In

this sample, 76% of those released were on parole. The best

joint predictors of recidivism were: (a) age at present

commitment; and (b) prior penal commitment. Of those who were

thirty or older at present commitment, having had no prior

penal commitment, only 17% were recidivists. Of those who were

twenty-nine or younger, having had prior commitments, 71% were

recidivists.

Analysis was made of recidivism rates by type of original

offense. The average recidivism rate for all offenses was 54.4%.

The lowest rate, 26.8%, was for sex offenses against minors;

property offenses, excluding forgery, had the highest rate of

recidivism, 66.3%. Approximately 60% of those defined as recidivists were back in custody within one year of their release.

(3) H. Manheim and L. Watkins. Prediction Methods in Relation lo

Borstal Training, 1955 (Reference 72) . This study was concerned

33
with the success or failure of boys released from a juvenile

correctional institution (Borstal) in Great Britain. Numerous

factors were examined for significant relation to further

criminal involvement after release. A weighting system was devised for the significant factors, so that each boy could

be assigned a numeric score. Using this scoring system, it

was found that the success or failure of the boys with

extremely high or extremely low scores could be predicted

90% of the time. The success or failure of boys with highaverage or low-average scores could be predicted 671 of the

time. Those factors found to have a significant association

with recidivism in Borstal boys were: age of commitment to

Borstal; intelligence test scores; family crime record;

number of siblings in the family; population of home town;

type of crime; broken or unbroken home; crowdedness of home;

religion; length of stay at address; truancy or non- truancy

from school; school reports; physical condition; and occupation before and after Borstal training.

(4) "Simulation as a Basis of Social Agents' Decisions (SIMBAD),"

January- February 1968 issue of The American Behavioral Scientist

(Reference 2) . This study was concerned with the juvenile

probation system. The goal of the project, which is currently

in process, is to devise a way to provide probation decisionmakers with real-time access to computer-calculated probability

estimates of success for juvenile offenders who are at certain

decision points in the disposition or treatment process. This

decision- aids system was based on mathematical models of the

probation process. The models and the data used to generate SIMBAD

have been developed from a great number of studies dealing with

actual success and failure rates of juvenile offenders. Once it

is operational, the system will constantly be improved and updated;

decision-makers will input current data which will increase the

databank for probability estimates. Twenty potential predictor

variables were selected to demonstrate SIMBAD.

34
(5) C. Blackler. "Primary Recidivism in Adult Men: Difference

Between Men on First and Second Prison Sentence," 1968 (Reference

12) . This was a pilot study which endeavored to explain the

finding that only about one- third of all men who were on their

first sentence in a correctional institution became involved

in further criminal activity, whereas the recidivism rate

for those on second or third sentence was much higher. The

study was an attempt to identify those who would become primary

recidivists from among all those on first sentence. The

guiding hypothesis was: "one of the characteristics of confirmed

recidivists is the extent to which they are isolated from social

contact." The factors selected for analysis were categorized

as follows: family background and relationships; education,

employment, and service record; intelligence and personality;

medical and psychiatric history; criminal record; and prison

record. These factors were analyzed for a group of men with

only one sentence, and a group with at least two sentences.

There was a follow-up examination which showed that the factors

which differentiated the two groups also identified people

in the first group who later became members of the second.

(6) S. and E. Glueck. Predicting Delinquency and Crime , 1967

(Reference 51) . This study presents a series of tables which

differentiate (describe) offenders, both male and female, with

respect to background and personal characteristics . Because

the tables were not checked thoroughly by follow-up studies

,

the authors refer to them as "Experience Tables." These tables

deal with behavior on straight probation; suspended sentence,

and probation with suspended sentence. They also deal with

adjustment to the reformatory, adjustment to prison, to jail

and houses of correction, during parole, after completion

of first reformatory sentence; and delinquency in the Armed Forces

Comparison of Studies . In Table 2, the relevant factors drawn from these

six studies are compiled under eleven subheadings. As far as possible, the

35
Table 2. Factors Used to Distinguish Recidivist from

Non-Recidivist Populations.

a

Studies

b c d e £ g h

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

' Sex

l

+ Race + County of Commitment - Nativity of Offender's Parents - Nativity of Offender + Age +

NATURE OF OFFENSE

Crimes Against Property vs. Crimes Against Persons +P

Offense Category ^ + Seriousness of Offense

1

- Number of Companions Present at Offense +P

Nature of Offenses Comprising Previous Convictions +P

OFFENDER'S AGE AT FIRST CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT

Age at First Incarceration I

- Age at First Arrest - Age at First Conviction L - Age at Onset of Anti-social Behavior -

PRIOR CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT

Court of Most Recent Commitment : Juvenile or Adult - Admission Status (First Commitment, Return, Etc.) - Interval at Risk After Last Sentence +P

Prior Record +P

Prior Penal Commitments

1

H +P

Number of Previous Arrests _ - Prior Convictions . l

+P

Previous "Treatments" (Penalties Other Than Probation, ISSf/Etc.) r - Commitment to Approved School - Convictions During School Career - Crime While in Military - Previously Bound Over or Conditionally Discharged +P

Time Spent in Prison on Remand and/or as Civil Prisoner -

NATURE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Referral Source

1

- Intake Disposition - Whether Contested or Not + Whether Detained or Not 1 + Number of Days Detained + Time Between Referral and Court Trial + Whether Attorney Present or Not + Court Disposition + Placement + Final Disposition + Length of Commitment r +.

+ = Factors normally available in this study.

- = Factors normally unavailable in this study

+P = Factors partially available in this study.

1/ Suspended Sentence. (Continued next page)

36
Table 2. (Continued) Studies

3. jb f -'d se E ,h

ASSESSMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADJUSTMENT

Institutional Conduct JM -

Personality Inventory Evaluation (CPI, MMPI, Maudsley Personality Inventory) c

=3 Behavioral Disorders (Drugs, Alcohol, Etc.)

ft

+] Recorded Psychiatric/Psychological History +P

Indication of. Mental Disease or Distortion^

Intelligenee P-rEMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DATA

Stability of Job Record ill 11- Occupational Status +P

Summary of Service on Discharge From Military

Industrial Skill of Offender *i: +P

Economic Responsibility of Offender

Work Habits of Offender

Age Begun to Work

LIVING

Who Live

ACCOMMODATIONS

With at Time

OF

of

OFFENDER

Arrest

r

P" + Where Goes After Discharge: Home or Other WT - Rating of Home Conditions to Which Returns r -

SCHOOL CAREER OF OFFENDER

Incidence of School Truancy 1

Grade Attained in School +P

School Retardation -

CHILDHOOD OF OFFENDER

Number of Children in Offender's Parental Family - Adequacy of Childhood Home - Economic Status of Childhood Home

1

- Bad Heredity - Education of Offender's Parents -r Happiness of Childhood as Recalled - Parental Composition of Home at School-Leaving Age •+ Marital Status of Parents or Guardians -r

SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS: FAMILY, SPOUSE, FRIENDS

' Stability of Marriage +P

Effectiveness of Contact with Close Relatives * Effectiveness of Contact with Other Relatives and Friends ~ Neighborhood Influences - Prison Experience in Family -

aGOUGH, WENK, AND ROZYNKO (1965) (55)

b . CARREY (1967) (25)

C . MANNHEIM AND WILKINS (1955) (72)

d. "S1MBAD", AM. BEHAV. SCI. (1968)' (2)

BLAGKLER (1968) (12)

GLUECK, ADULT MALE (1959) (51)

GLUECK, ADULT FEMALE (1959) (51)

NBS-BRS FACTORS (1968) DATA IN THIS STUDY.

37
factors are listed just as they appeared in the original source. Factors used in each of the six studies are shown in columns "a"

through "g" (corresponding respectively to those studies described)

Column "h" compares the factors with the type of data that is typically

available in the District of Columbia at the time that pre-trial

release is considered. The plus sign (+) indicates that the factor

is usually available; the minus sign (-) indicates that the factor is

not available; and the sign (+P) indicates that although the exact

factor is probably not available, there is some information closely

related to it, or that the factor is included on the Bail Agency

interview form, but the data have been found missing or invalid most

of the time.

An examination of the table illustrates the lack of comparability

among the six studies. Many factors were defined differently in each

study; each study emphasized certain factors, while completely

ignoring others. Thus, although there seems to be some agreement on what

in general are the significant predictors of criminal involvement,

different studies accord different weights to specific factors.

Examination of the table shows, also, that there are two general

areas covered by all the previous research in which no factors are available to the current study. These are: offender's age at first

criminal involvement, and childhood of offender. The only areas in which

data available to the current study compare favorably to those used

in the past are demographic data and the nature of the judicial

proceedings concerning the current offense.

Approaches to the Development of Pre-Trial Release Prediction Methods

There are several routes which could be taken in attempting to

develop an instrument for predicting "success or failure" while on

pre-trial release. Obviously, any research effort must be predicated

on a clear understanding of what constitutes success or failure.

There must be a thorough understanding of the actual workings of the

judicial system, in order to permit operational and valid definitions

38
of the behavior to be predicted. Pre-trial release is only one part

of the criminal justice system, and its position in that system will

determine what measures are available and relevant for the development

of valid probability estimates. Thus, any development of a predictive

measurement instrument will require the cooperation of those in charge

of data collection, as well as of judges, police officials, and

juvenile authorities. These are people who can help develop hypotheses

about the behavior in question; and these are the people best able

to fill in missing data.

Another point which must be considered in attempting to predict

criminal performance while on pre-trial release, is that the population

in question is relatively small. If we consider the commission of violent

or dangerous crimes while on pre-trial release, the population to be

analyzed is even smaller. It becomes increasingly more difficult to

identify relatively rare events. Expanding the data available on these

relatively rare events would require considerable expenditures in time

and dollars.

We see two alternatives: (1) exhaustive data collection and analysis

of the factors currently available; and (2) collection and analysis of

other data, which have been found to be significantly related to criminal

activity by other studies.

The comparison of Bail Agency data available in this sample with the

information available in Pre- Sentence Reports shows that the Bail Agency

data would be reliable enough for verv general categorizations. For

more discriminating analyses, that information form should be changed,

and the interviewing procedures would have to be more extensive. Analysis

of data currently available in the present data base might point out

certain broad groups with a high probability of committing crime during

pre-trial release. These groups could then be singled out for more

extensive analyses.

Another (and probably essential) phase in developing the prediction

instrument is to collect data on factors not now included. For

example, a defendant's juvenile record is not shown. This gap should

be filled, since past studies show that many crimes are committed by —' For further recommendations related to what follows, see Chapter IX.

39
persons between the ages of 15 and 18, and that these early criminal

histories are useful predictors of adult criminal activity.

As regards new types of information potentially relevant to

predicting criminal behavior, one might hypothesize that criminal

activity is related to situational adjustment as well as to past

behaviors or characteristics. Use of a psychological questionnaire

(such as the CPI or MMPI) could test adjustment to current

environmental situations and could give indications of the typical way the

person might react to stress. This approach could be applied to a sample of the population which is processed through D. C. Bail Agency,

with appropriate follow-up and statistical analysis of the results.

This would present no substantial disruption of the existing interviewing

process

A final, and more inclusive approach to the definition of a predictive

instrument, is that which is best exemplified by the SIMBAD project. This

approach, however, would require the collection of much more extensive

data than are currently available. If the development of such

a system is carried through to implementation, the potential for "successful"

prediction of success qt failure seems great*

Limitations . Data collected in current pre-trial release programs appear

to be inadequate for the type of in-depth studies needed to develop

and validate a high quality prediction device. Even if an adequate

past-data base could be secured, the present procedures for collecting

information do not appear to be adequate. The information now being

collected is intended to give some measure of the defendant's likelihood

of appearing for trial. Assuming that the same factors are relevant

to the defendant's likelihood of committing crime while on pre-trial

release does not seem to be valid; such prediction may require quite

different hypotheses on the identities and relative "weights" of the

important factors. The one pre-trial release program visited in this

study which attempted to predict a defendant's "dangerousness" used

subjective judgment, rather than statistical data, to reach a conclusion.

40
Thus, we conclude that developing an accurate predictive

instrument requires acquiring a sufficient data base and also more

adequate testing of the predictability of criminal behavior from

specified factors. The information- related activities of the

Criminal Justice System would require expansion, and the continuing

cooperation of that system in further analyses would be prerequisite

to progress in developing a reliable prediction mechanism.

41
CHAPTER IV

The District of Columbia Criminal Justice System

A detailed description of the processing of serious criminal cases in

the District of Columbia is presented by Subin in Reference 107 . Although

this reference is dated 1966, it remains substantially applicable to this

day. A very brief summary is presented in the following paragraphs to

acquaint the reader with the system.

Cases enter the D. C. Criminal Justice System in three ways:

through the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions; through the

U. S. Magistrate (formerly known as the U. S. Commissioner); and through

original actions of the Grand Jury.

The present District of Columbia Court of General Sessions (referred

to hereafter as the Court of General Sessions) is an Article I Court of

Record consisting of a Civil Division and a Criminal Division. The

Criminal Division is composed of three branches: the United States Branch,

the District of Columbia Branch, and the Traffic Branch. The criminal

jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions, with which we are exclusively

concerned, is set out in 11 D. C. Code Section 963, which reads as follows

(Reference 31): Sec. 11-963. Criminal jurisdiction; commitment.

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this section

or other law, the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions

has original jurisdiction, concurrently with the United States

District Court for the District of Columbia, of:

(1) Offenses committed in the District for which the

punishment is by fine or by imprisonment for one year or

less; and

(2) Offenses against municipal ordinances or regulations

in force in the District.

(b) The Court of General Sessions does not have jurisdiction

of the offenses of libel, conspiracy or violation of the postal

or pension laws of the United States.

42
(c) In all cases, whether cognizable in the Court of General

Sessions or in the District Court, the Court of General Sessions

has jurisdiction to make preliminary examination and conmit

offenders or grant bail in bailable cases, either for trial or

for further examination.

By each of the three branches, new filings in 1968 break down as follows:

United States Branch 17,440

District of Columbia Branch 15,350

Traffic Branch 30,767

This study is concerned with filings that enter the United States Branch, i.e.,

all serious criminal cases, including misdemeanors, and all felonies. Misi demeanor cases are processed by the Court of General Sessions, while felony

cases, are bound over to the Grand Jury.

The U. S. Magistrate acts as a committing magistrate for felony cases under the U. S. Code. He issues warrants of search and arrest, sets

pre-trial release conditions, appoints counsel and holds preliminary

hearings. In felony cases where probable cause is found, the Magistrate binds

the defendant over to the Grand Jury. The Magistrate may drop cases prior

to preliminary hearing, or he may refer them to the Court of General

Sessions if he finds probable cause that a misdemeanor has been committed.

The Magistrate handled approximately 1100 new filings in 1968.

The Grand Jury receives all felony cases bound over by the U. S.

Magistrate and the U. S. Branch of the Court of General Sessions. It may

also act on a motion to indict in any felony case after its own investigation. This happens frequently when one of a number of defendants charged

with a felony in a given case reaches the Grand Jury through the normal

process and the Grand Jury immediately indicts the other defendants

associated with the same case. As will be noted in more detail later in

this report, this option means that some of the "Grand Jury originals" are not truly originals, since the cases in a multi -defendant situation will

normally all be progressing through the Court of General Sessions when the

indictments are made . For this reason, a count of really new filings is not

apt to be accurate without careful review of all the data.

43
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has

original jurisdiction, civil and criminal, both over purely federal cases,

which would be cognizable in other federal district courts, and over local

matters, which elsewhere would be within the jurisdiction of the state

courts. For criminal cases, it has exclusive jurisdiction of all felonies

committed within the District, except where the accused is under 18 and

jurisdiction is retained by the Juvenile Court (Reference 31) . The

majority of cases presently before the Court fall within the local jurisdiction category, i.e., common law type offenses of homicide, robbery,

assault, burglary, sex offenses, larceny, embezzlement, fraud and auto

theft, which would normally be handled by the State Court System in any

other city.

Appeals from the Court of General Sessions are normally heard by

the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hears all appeals from the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia and from the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

A simplified flow chart of the Criminal Court process is shown in

Figure 1. The United States Attorney (hereafter called prosecutor) is

responsible for prosecution of all cases, no matter which channel they

take. Typical figures on the cases and their dispositions are shown in

Table 3. These percentages are based on a variety of sources for 1965,

and are presented here only to give the uninitiated an appreciation of

the order of magnitude of the actions along the different paths in

Figure 1.

44
Citizens

Complaints

Figure 1

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CRIMINAL JUSTICE FLOW CHART

U. S.

Attorney

I

Warrant

Arrest

Police

Screening

®

COURT OF

GENERAL

Appeals

Courts

tr

Guilty ^

Acquittal

<

| ® MAGISTRATE

Presentment

Preliminary

Hearing

Presentmenl

D

t<2>

Preliminary

Hearing

District

Court

Trial

4- Grand

Jury

U. s T ^

piSTRICT, P0U1T

1

Originals

I

' — I «• mm mm mm mm mm mm *» mm mm mm turn mm mm mm

(M)

(F)

(D)

misdemeanor cases,

felony cases. dropped cases

45
Table 3.

Typical Figures on Court Actions (1965)

GENERAL

4% of Citizens' Complaints Result in Warrants for Arrest

5% of All Arrests are Warrants

COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS

111 of Screenings are "No Papered"

75% of Screenings are Misdemeanors

141 of Screenings are Felonies

57% of Misdemeanants Demand Jury Trial

Non Jury Jury

Percent of Cases Nolled, Dismissed, etc. 36 48

Percent of Cases Tried and Not Guilty 8 3

Percent of Cases Plead Guilty 38 41 1/

Percent of Cases Tried and Guilty 18 8

Total 100 100

MAGISTRATE

101 of All Arrests go to Magistrate

23% of These are Dismissed on no Probable Cause

23% of These go to Court of General Sessions as Misdemeanors

54% of These go to the Grand Jury

GRAND JURY

60% of All Grand Jury Cases from Court of General Sessions

28% of All Grand Jury Cases from Magistrate

12% of All Grand Jury Cases are Originals

70% of All Grand Jury Cases Result in Indictment

16% of All Grand Jury Cases Referred to Court of General Sessions

14% of All Grand Jury Cases Ignored or Dismissed

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

64% of All Indictments Result in Guilty Verdicts

24% Appealed These Verdicts to Court of Appeals

\J Jury trial often demanded; then waived on day of trial and plea entered.

46
CHAPTER V

Data Collection

This chapter describes the data obtained from the Criminal Justice

System and the sequence in which they were collected. The procedures

at each step in the sequence are briefly reviewed and problems encoun- tered are noted. Throughout the study, emphasis was placed on thoroughness in data collection procedures. Whenever necessary,

resources were diverted from other segments of the study to help overcome particularly difficult problems that arose during the collection

of data. Even with all this attention, many pieces of information that

were supposed to be contained in the original records were missing and

could be neither located nor reconstructed. These gaps could degrade or

inhibit some very special analyses that may prove desirable, but are not

believed to affect' the overall thrust of the present study. Further

investigation of this point seems indicated.

We decided to select our sample from among all defendants

entering the D. C. Criminal Justice System over a six-month

time span. It was necessary that court actions initiated during such

a period be completed, so that the results would be available for

incorporation in the data base. The latest time period meeting this

condition, and hence the one a priori most likely to resemble the

present and short term future, was the first half of 1968. Accordingly,

a master list was drawn up to show every defendant initially brought

into the system during this time span, i. e., January through June of

1968. This list was drawn from the three sources which record the entry

of persons into the system following arrest; These are the Criminal

docket books in the Criminal Clerk's Office of the Court of General

Sessions; the Magistrate's (Commissioner's) Docket books in the United

States District Court for the District of Columbia; and the Grand Jury

Original Indictments indicatedon the Indictment List for 1968. The

compilation of this "master list" took approximately five man-weeks of

our limited resources, but without it we would not have been able to

define our smaller four-week subsample §£factively

47
This list was assembled as a guide in selecting an appropriate sample

and as a basis for relating the sample to the six-month period. On the

basis of results from a short trial period of data collection, it was decided that four weeks would be selected from among the six months and

that the information gathering effort would be confined to the resulting

sample of approximately 900 defendants. From this point on, the data collection

team worked on one week's records at a time, following the master list for

that week, and filling out data collection forms for each defendant on the

list.

The Data Collection Form

The construction of a data collection form was guided by a single

principle: to gather as much pertinent information as possible about each

defendant in the sample. A first look at the court records suggested that

the rich complexity there could only be captured in a narrative form, and

initial efforts in this direction produced three successively improved versions

of an essentially narrative data collection form. After five weeks, however,

it became evident that the enormity and complexity of the records required

a balancing between completeness and our limitations on time and resources;

Form NBS 4 (hereafter called "the Form") was generated. Its twelve pages,

shown in Appendix C, represent a compromise between the desire to gather an enormous amount of material and the need to bring as much as possible of this

material into a form permitting computer-aided analysis. In particular,

the extrinsic comments of the prosecutor offering trial guidance and the

narrative description of the facts in the case were not recorded, although

these descriptions were used to interpret actual entries on the Form when

applicable.

The Form served both as a check list to ensure that the appropriate

sources were consulted and as a data collection instrument. The headings

on the left hand sides of the pages on the Form indicate the primary source

of the data (e.g. POLICE ACTION, PRESENTMENT, GRAND JURY, etc.). The

numbers above each category of the Form indicate the column entries on an

80 column IBM key punch card (e.g. 3-7, 53-56, etc.). The numbers to the

left of the categories (e.g. 01, 02, 03, etc.) indicate the card number

for the data file. Approximately 25 cards were available for use in each

case. A separate card (card 31) has since been set up to include information

48
from cards 01 and 02 which was felt desirable for analysis. These

cards, called control ca"rds, ensure proper identification. Cards 01

and 02 are omitted from all data tabulations because they contain

case numbers, etc., which could directly link data to specific

individuals. We obtained some data on the condition that such direct

associations would not be made. Thus, all data are listed by TAD Case

Number, so that a case by case analysis can be conducted without

reference to specific cases or individuals. The associations between

names and case numbers are confidential; they are not "deliverables"

of this study (or any subsequent one based on our data)

Armed with the Forms and the master list for a given week, the data

collection team proceeded to various locations within the court system

to obtain the information necessary to complete the Forms. Note that

there are duplicate sets of information in some areas, notably

supplementary bail data (Page 8 of the Form) and bail data obtained

at each location (Card 07, page 3; Card 11, page 5; Card 14, page 6; and

Card 15, page 8). Such duplications provided valuable cross-checks,

as will be seen.

Criminal Clerk's Office - Court of General Sessions

The Criminal Clerk's Office is the central administrative office

of the Court of General Sessions. This court handles all misdemeanor

charges from start to finish, and initiates a great many of the felony

charges that eventually pass over to the United States District Court

for final disposition. It was the first information station visited

by the data collection team.

Collection Procedure . The first record pulled in this office was the

Information (or Complaint, if the charge was a felony). This "Paper,"

as it is called, contains the formal charge of an offense, numbered in

chronological sequence by the Clerk's Office. It is a legal-sized

document, folded twice upon itself to create several blank pages for

record keeping— . There are very few blanks to be filled in on this

— This procedure was changed in September, 1969, so that now all papers

are contained in a pre-numbered case folder.

49
document and a great deal of the information appears in narrative form.

If more space is needed for an especially lengthy case, extra sheets

are added. Several other documents from other sources containing

additional information are usually folded within this document. These

include copies of both the Bail Agency recommendation form and the

Court's release order form, occasional warrant affidavits, defense

motions and memoranda, mental observation reports, and letters from

institutions such as Bonabond—' and the D. C. Jail regarding conditional

release.

From the paper itself comes the following information:

-Sex, offender's name and aliases, whether the offense is a misdemeanor or felony, the General Sessions docket number, the

defendant's address, the date of offense and warrant charges. If

the case is eventually sent to Grand Jury, the Grand Jury case number is written across the front of the paper. (See page 1 of the

FormO

-Presentment information for page 3 of the Form, including the name of the prosecutor who prepared the case, and whether the

charges differ from the warrant/arrest charges.

-Presentment and misdemeanor trial/preliminary hearing data,

entered on page 4 of the Form.

-All of the sentence and presentence bail information, entered

on the top half of page 5 of the Form.' -All bail information (entered on page 8 of the Form) when

applicable, including the Prosecutor and Bail Agency bail recommen- dation information, which is entered on the top four lines on page 8. -All bail information (entered on page 9 of the Form) when

applicable.

From the Bail Agency form comes the recommendation information (page

8 of the Form) as well as verification of other personal information,

including addresses and aliases. The Court Release Order Form indicates

terms of presentence release, penalties set for violation of these terms,

— Bonabond is a private, non-profit organization designed to assist and

supervise defendants on release. It is operated primarily by ex- convicts .

50
the date of the order and the judge who signed the release order. The

warrant affidavits supply additional personal information for the front

page of the NBS Form, and for the entire second page. They also indicate

whethei the formal charge (entered on page 3 of the Form) is changed,

by specifying what the original arrest charge was. From defense motions comes a detailed statement of facts as the

defense sees them. Occasionally, this means additional information for

page 2, and often it clarifies the defendant's criminal history vis-a-vis

the charge in question.

Mental observation letters sometimes provide some insight into the

defendant's frame of mind (entered on page 2 of the Form); custodial

letters will do the same and will frequently point out condition violations

(for entry on page 8) or corroborate those already noted in the court

paper narrative. Other attachments may serve the same purpose.

Once this information had been transferred to the Form, the data

collector went to the U. S. Marshal's list and to the bond clerk's

private list, to determine which of the defendants had posted stationhouse

bail prior to court appearance; this information is entered on page 1 of the

Form.

The misdemeanor papers at this stage trace a clear line from arraignment to conviction and sentence, and the felony papers adequately dispose

of the presentment, bond setting and preliminary hearing prior to Grand

Jury referral. At this stage, the collector could generally pull the

correctly numbered court paper from the file drawer, and transfer the

information he needed to the Form. Very few of these papers were missing

or misfiled, and most of those that were could be located (through the

checkout card) either in the continued file in another part of the Clerk's

Office (these are papers being held in limbo because the defendant has

presumably 'skipped town"), or in the offices of various other court

personnel, such as judges. Out of the entire sample, there were only 35

files actually and inexplicably missing, and only one of those located

failed to note a final disposition of the charge.

51
Problems

Problems worthy of specific mention at this point were:

a. Reading the Papers - The Court Papers are, as mentioned, partlyprinted question blanks and partly blank paper to be filled with narrative.

However, all of the information on the paper is in longhand; this cost

the data collectors several days of familiarization with the 25 or so different handwriting styles of judges and other court personnel that

needed recording, and it plagued the interpretation of Attorneys' names

and certain dispositions up to the very end of the collection effort.

This impedance could not be avoided, since most of the pre-trial release

information and all of the continuance, motion, trial and sentencing information

occur on these papers in the form of longhand narrative.

b. Completion of the Papers - The quality of some elements of the

Papers as completed was very uneven; certain pieces of information hardly

ever appeared on the Paper and many others could be expected to be absent

from one case or another. For example, defense attorney names were often

missing from the Paper, and on those Papers which provided blanks to

indicate how the lawyer was being paid, there was very often no such entry.

Problems were encountered with those occasional situations in which a misdemeanant was not sentenced on the day of his conviction. Pre-sentence

bail was frequently not specified yea or nay, and the collector was forced

either to conclude that the status quo had prevailed, or to leave the top

of page 5 of the Form blank. In the same vein, it was frequently difficult

to ascertain whether the defendant was being released after a money bond had

been set at presentment. The Paper provides no blank in which to indicate

detention or release; rather, the reader is forced to rely upon the presence

of one of two stamps on the paper. One reads "Committed", and is initialed

to indicate that commitment has taken place; the other is placed

diagonally across the upper front left corner of the paper, and consists of

a bondsman's name and a date. All possible arrangements of these two stamps

appeared in the papers. "Committed" stamps appeared without any initials,

or in conjunction with a "Bondsman" stamp dated the -same day

as the commitment stamp; bondsman stamps appeared which were

S2
dated several days to weeks' later than the initial court appearance, and

without any commitment stamp on the paper to indicate where the defendant

had been in the meanwhile; sometimes neither stamp appeared on the paper.

Fortunately, since most of these problems were decipherable with careful review

of the record, few— case histories were incomplete because of this problem.

Information occasionally missing from the Papers included defendant's

address, penalties set for violating conditions of pre-trial release, misdemeanor pleas and jury demands (which on many of the Papers require only

a simple check-off) , and (very rarely) the name of the judge responsible

for some particular decision in the process.

c. Missing Enclosures - Frequently, a particular Court Paper would

fail to contain all of the enclosures outlined above, and the missing

information could not always be reconstructed from other sources. Often, for

example, the Bail Agency Recommendation Form will be missing. Of itself,

this is not particularly serious, but if the form does not appear in the

Bail Agency files either, which happens on occasion, then the information

is simply absent. If the charge is a felony, however, the form may be

present among the District Court Records.

Similarly, the release order forms were often missing. This gap, like

that for the Bail Agency Recommendation, is not of itself serious, as the

release information is always noted on the Court Paper itself. But on occasion,

the dates on these release orders varied by a few days from the date

on the Court Paper, and a few times the name of the judge signing

the order was not the name on the Court Paper. Since our presumption

has been that the order is more likely to be accurate, the absence of such

a document from the file prevents verifying the data on the Court papers.

d. Quality of Entries - Because long-hand insertion of information

in the narrative section of the Court Paper is laborious, and because

there are great time pressures, many of the entries merely recorded an

event without explaining^ts- surrounding circumstances. One

judge, for example, told us that when one of his defendants failed to show

for a scheduled Court appearance, he would not even issue a bench warrant

1/ "Few" in this chapter means somewhere between 1 and 5 cases,

53
on the man, since he knew the U. S. Marshals were too busy to serve it.

What would show on the Paper, therefore, would be a continuance. Yet

these continuances would look on the Paper like any otiiers -- and only

rarely would any of them show a reason. Similarly, two judges' names

would occasionally appear under the same date, presumably for the same decision --or the same date would appear two or three times with the same or different judges' names, with only an indication that the case had

been continued under each heading. From our discoveries of judge name

discrepancies on the release order form, from comments

made by court personnel, such as those of the judge just noted, and from our own independent observations of courtroom procedures, it became very clear

that the Court Paper entries were not entirely accurate or complete. In

general, these Papers often fail to communicate the exercises of judge's and

attorney's discretion which can well be the operative factor in particular

actions

Prosecutor's Office-Court of General Sessions

All police arrests [with the exception of arrests taken to the U.S.

Commissioner (now Magistrate) ] are first processed through the Office of

the United States Attorney on the ground floor of the Court of General

Sessions. After interviewing the police officer and other witnesses,

the prosecutor decides whether to "paper" the charge or not. If he does,

formal Court Papers are filled out and sent to the Criminal Clerk's Office

for a docket number and referral to Assignment Court. If the prosecutor

does not think the case will stand up, he "no papers" it, i.e., drops the

charge on the spot. This initial screening process generates several

recorded items of information about the defendant.

Collection Procedure. Once the data collector had filled out as much

of the Form as possible in the Criminal Clerk's Office, he then carried

his master list and batch of Forms to the U. S. Attorney's Office, where

he transferred to the Forms the information found in the prosecutor's

files. Theoretically, each defendant whose case record began in the

Criminal Clerk's Office should also have a file in the prosecutor's office.

This file will always contain the prosecutor's backup sheet (or worksheet).

54
This sheet is a letter size piece of paper folded once upon itself, and

substantially covered by blanks to be filled in. It is initiated when the

prosecutor decides to paper the charges.

In addition, there are two other documents: the police report Form

No. 163 filled in by the arresting police officer, and the Police Department

Criminal Record on the defendant in question. Form No. 163 appears with

fair regularity, the Criminal Record irregularly.

From the prosecutor's backup sheet comes the following information

for the Form: name and aliases, and occasional detailed reference to

current bail status for page 1; occasional information on details of

alleged crime for page 2; formal charges, and actual bail set for page 3;

continuance, plea, and disposition information for page 4; and the

prosecutor's bail recommendation and reason therefore, for page 8 (these

reasons often refer to the defendant's prior or current involvement

with the criminal courts)

,

From the Police Department report From No. 163 come: color, sex,

date of birth, name and aliases, age, address, date, time and place of

offense and arrest, arrest charges for page 1; a police description of the

facts of the case for page 2; the name of the Assistant U. S. Attorney

who screened the case, and his decisions as to formal charges and changes

from the original police arrest charges, for page 3.

From the Police Department Criminal Record come ; date of birth,

place of birth, Federal Bureau of Investigation Number where available in

police or jail records, Police Department Identification Number and District

of Columbia Department of Corrections Number, for page 1. In addition, this

criminal record provides a valuable overview of the defendant's criminal

history, with specific reference to crimes overlapping the one on the master

list.

Problems

Problems worthy of mention at this source include:

a. Availability of Records -- Since the documents in this office

provide most of the history of the criminal act itself, they are extremely

important. In misdemeanor cases they are the only source for these data;

55
in felony cases there are usually more data available in the files of the

prosecutor in District Court. Unfortunately, the data collection team

simply could not locate these records for a few of the misdemeanor

defendants in the sample.

The files are kept alphabetically, under two different headings:

jury and non-jury cases. This corresponds to the defense's opportunity

to request either a jury or non-jury trial. It proved rarely possible,

however, to predict which alternative of the option would be exercised in

a given case, so the collection team regularly searched both files. There

were a number of misfilings, and the difficulty of the search was

compounded in the middle of the collection effort by the transfer of all

these records from the 1st to the 3rd floor of the Court Building. It

was also discovered at the very end of the collection effort that a few

of the 1968 files were in the active 1969 files.

The major cause of our inability to locate files at this source,

however, appears to be the lack of cross- indexing relative to co-defendants'

names. When more than one defendant is arrested in connection with a

s>£ngle criminal act, as is often the case, the prosecutor puts all of the

names on a single backup sheet, and files the sheet under the first name

in the list. But he fills out separate Court Papers on each defendant,

and these are in no way cross-referenced to the backup sheets in the

Criminal Clerk's Office, where each appears as a separate number. If

the data collector did not have a number for the name under which the

prosecutor's sheet was filed, he was not likely to find that sheet. Or,

another collector may have found it in connection with the first name on it,

and not realized that his teammate needed the data for another of the names. Careful rechecking of the Criminal Clerk's Docket Book for possible companion

names eliminated some instances of this problem, but only for those group

defendants who were numbered consecutively in the Docket Book.

In addition to this problem, it was discovered by accident that in

a few cases the prosecutor's sheet was filed under an alias rather th£n

the name on the Court Papers. A second search for the missing records under

the alias names was not very fruitful, however, and it is not clear at this

point how many files are really lost under an alias.

56
b. Incomplete Information -- As is clear from the indication given

above, when the Police Report Form No. 163 was not in the files, as happened more than a few times, most of page 1 and all of page 2 of the

NBS Form could not be completed (except where a warrant affidavit in the

Criminal Clerk's Office had already permitted filling in page 2 and some of

page 1). Police Criminal Records were usually not in the files.

Even when all three documents were in the file, however, their

degree of completion was very uneven. The prosecutor's backup sheet was usually completed, but the prosecutor's bail recommendation section often

failed to specify reasons for his recommendation, even though standardized

reasons were there to check off. While many of the sheets indicated

across their faces' that they were referrals from the Grand Jury,

several were found in which this was not specified.

Generally speaking, the police report seemed to reflect initial rather

than in-depth investigation; it was aimed at establishing the occurrence

of and parties involved in" a criminal act, as a basis for initial court

decisions. It is the principal statement given to the judge just before

he sets bail for the first time. Except for FBI number and Department of

Corrections number, the police records regularly contained their designated

information items.

Criminal Clerk's Office - United States District Court for the

District of Columbia

This office has essentially the same function as its counterpart in

the Court of General Sessions; it serves as records correlator and

controller for all cases coming to the District Court from the Grand

Jury, and via the Grand Jury from the U. S. Magistrate and the Court

of General Sessions. Docket numbers on each new case are assigned here,

and as the cases generate additional information, it is recorded and

stored here in a number of different forms. The data collection team

came to this point when the case on their master list had been referred

57
to the District Court, or had started there through the U. S. Magistrate's

Office or the Grand Jury.

Throughout the District Court System, with one exception, the

records are kept in dual form. There is no single document upon which

all activity can be noted, as in General Sessions, and there are many

more documents. All of the documents are kept in a pink colored folder,

known as the "pink jacket", and all of the actual decisions and dispositions

in a case are chronologically recorded in the Criminal Docket Book.

Further, a summary of activity is noted on the cover of the pink jacket.

The exception to this dual record system is the Magistrate's Office,

where very detailed information is entered on printed docket sheets

and kept in the Magistrate's Docket Books.

Since all of these Docket Books and files are kept in numerical

order, the Clerk's Office maintains an additional alphabetical file of

defendants' names cross-referenced to their respective numbers.

Collection Procedure. It was decided at the beginning of the collection

effort to rely as heavily as possible on the pink jackets for information.

The large amount of paper contained in these jackets meant more time and

effort on data collection, but the increase in accuracy was thought to

be worth the increase in time. Several spot comparisons had indicated

discrepancies between docket books and pink jackets, and a somewhat fuller

picture of the case is contained in the pink jackets. It was presumed

that the pink jacket documents, being signed as they were by the court

personnel directly involved with them, would be more accurate and complete

than the docket book transcriptions done at second hand by personnel

in the Clerk's Office.

On the other hand, very little discrepancy between Grand Jury

files and Grand Jury Docket Book was observed; nonetheless, a trip to the files themselves was considered necessary in each case for

which it became necessary to see Grand Jury information.

58
The information in the Magistrate's docket book was extraordinarily detailed and complete, from initial presentment through Grand

Jury referral.

Pink jackets normally include the following documents: General

Sessions papers or Magistrate's docket sheet, indictment, arraignment,

trial synopses, bail agency recommendation forms, release orders, attorney

appointments, defense motions and disposition sheets', the judgment and

committment papers, mental health determinations, appeal notices, ben<~h

warrants, and assorted other papers providing little additional data

significant to this study.

Grand Jury files normally contain the Court of General Sessions or Magistrate's papers; a sheet which indicates that the Grand Jury has

ignored a given case, with or without referral back to the Court of

General Sessions; and finally, a paper indicating when a prosecutor

dismissed the charges.

Some cases are dropped at the Grand Jury stage; they have no pink

jacket. From the Grand Jury record file, the data collector recorded

the following: the charges against defendant before the Grand Jury, their

disposition, whether by ignoramus or dismissal, with or without referral,

and the date of disposition.

In cases where the Grand Jury indicts, or where the defendant waives indictment and pleads guilty to an Information, there is a pink jacket. Essentially,

i it provides the following information: Grand Jury and arraignment data

for the bottom half of page 5 of the Form; felony trial data for page 6;

and appeal data for the top of page 7, including any bail conditions.

Because the documents within a pink jacket vary according to the way

the case initially enters the District Court, the amount of data available

will vary. The information just enumerated is available for those cases

which have been referred over to District Court from General Sessions,

and also for those originating in the Grand Jury.

For cases originating in the Magistrate's Office, these data as well

as other information such as name, address, Magistrate's docket number,

59
date of offense and arrest, warrant-arrest charges for page 1 of the Form;

the facts in the case for page 2, formal charges, their relation to arrest

charges, and the presentment data for page 3, and presentment and

preliminary hearing data for page 4 had to be obtained.

Problems,. The following problems were the most troublesome:

a. Finding the Pink Jacket -- This problem was extremely timeconsuming. The files were still being subjected to a great deal of handling,

and without a borrow slip in place in the files, a given jacket is practically

impossible to find. Even when they found some indication of who was holding the file, the data collection team could never be sure they would

find the file where the card said it was. Approximately 10 of the cases

were still awaiting some final disposition, such as sentencing or appeal,

as of December 31, 1969.

b. Enclosures Missing -- Occasionally, one or more documents was

missing from the pink jackets. In a few cases, no formal copy of the

indictment was in the file, or no Magistrate's sheet appeared where it

should have. This latter problem was remedied by consulting the Magistrate's

Docket Books in his office at the other end of the Courthouse. Missing

data could be obtained from the draft indictment that would always appear

in the jacket, from the docket book, arid from the indictment master list.

c. Information not Specified -- None of the bail information is

clearly summarized; most of it has to be taken from typed comments on

one document or another— a few of them mutually inconsistent, or inconsistent with other information already on the data form. An arraignment

sheet would, show the defendant "remanded", to jail when everything else in the

file pointed to his release on personal recognizance. Presentence bail

information might appear at the end of a trial synopsis, or in a plea

transcript. Sometimes, bail information appeared on the tail end of the

arraignment page, and sometimes it did not. Since the collection team

knew that the bail could change at any of these junctures, they were

forced to read the pink jackets more slowly, so as not to miss any clues.

60
d. Physical Nature of Records -- A great deal of time was needed

due to the dispersed nature of the data at this stage. Reading the

jackets was a slow process of culling important factors from unimportant,

while having only vague notions of where the information would appear in

the file. If the Magistrate's sheet was missing, another stop had to

be made; if the jacket was not in the files, a search in several other

places, on several other floors of the Courthouse, had to be made.

U. S. Attorney's Office - U. S. District Court for the

District of Columbia

As with its counterpart in General Sessions, the U. S. Attorney's

Office in District Court keeps records that are primarily a source of

data on the facts of the crime itself, and only secondarily valuable as information on the criminal process which begins with arrest. The files

usually offer a little more information on the defendant than is available

in General Sessions.

The D. A. files are located on the 3rd floor of the Courthouse. They

are filed by year and District Court Criminal Clerk's Docket number.

There appears to be no set content to the file -- it is a collection of

assorted documents and evidence that forms the prosecutor's workpapers

for plea bargaining and presumably trial. Frequently, it will contain a police report Form No. 163, or its equivalent. Other than these forms,

however, the only papers which appear regularly are the various notes

and memoranda on facts or processing of the case inserted by the prosecutor

in charge. These notes are often the clearest explanation of how the case

in question relates to a prior or subsequent case. Collection Procedure. The prosecutor's files account for the information

from police report Form No. 163 if it is in the files. If the police

report is written on plain paper instead of the Form No. 163, it usually

provides information only on the facts for page 2 of the Form; any personal

and police charge (page 1) information it provides is haphazard at best.

Statements from witnesses usually add facts for page 2 only, though an

occasional age or birthplace may appear. Police Department Criminal

Records appear very rarely.

61
If the Form already had General Sessions' or Magistrate's docket

information on it, this stop did not prove particularly productive. But

if the Form was being filled out for a case originating in the Grand

Jury, this file was likely to be fully transferred to pages 1 and 2 of

the Form, since it was the only source of such information.

This file had an additional value which does not often show up

specifically on the Form; it was the best place to find explanations for

strange -looking time gaps in a defendant's case history, and to connect

the chronology of two or more related cases involving the same defendant.

Hospitalizations, prosecutions in other jurisdictions, jail sentences and

jail escapes all appear more frequently in these files than in any others

in the system. Such data were not entered on our Forms, but their

inspection lent more confidence to the accuracy of those data which were. Problems

No specific problems arose at this point. If files were missing

or incomplete, the loss would be significant only for cases for which the same information was not provided elsewhere, as for instance a Grand Jury

original or a General Sessions case on which the prosecutor's files had

not been located, or a case in which the facts needed some further

explanation.

Clerk's Office - United States Court of Appeals

All cases appealed from the District Court go to the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Since the disposition of

this court may change the final judgment of the trial court, tne case is

considered pending for our purposes until that disposition is reached.

(Fifteen of the 23 appeal cases were still pending.) Then, depending on

the disposition reached, the case may extend even further. While the

appeal is being taken, the defendant may be released on bail.

Cases in the Court of Appeals are indexed numerically, and the numbers

are cross-referenced to an alphabetical list of names in the Clerk's

Office. For each number is kept a Docket sheet, similar to the one kept

on trial cases in the Criminal Clerk's Office of the District Court.

Under this same number are filed two sets of papers -- the record and

62
the Clerk's file. The former consists of the essential documents from

the pink jacket on the previous trial plus a typed transcript of the trial

proceedings. The Clerk's file is a collection of the papers generated

during administration of the appeal. It includes such information as attorney appointments and notifications of hearing dates . The record is

augmented, as the appeal progresses, by bail information and final Court

of Appeals decisions. Appellate briefs are kept separately from both

files.

Collection Procedure . As in the District Court, the decision was made

to take information from the files themselves rather than the docket

sheet. From this record came all of the appeal data on page 7 of the

Form, and all pre-appeal bail data on page 9.

Problems . The following problems are noteworthy:

a. Pre-appeal Bail -- There was not a great deal of information to be

gathered at this point, and the principal problem was finding specific

mention of any pre-appeal bail being set. In some cases it appeared; in

others it did not. If the defendant's lawyer is ready to note his appeal

as soon as the sentence is in at trial, the notice and request for appeal

bail appear in the pink jacket, followed by any review of the setting of

appeal bail motions that may be required, and sometimes even a full court

review of the appeal bail setting. If the lawyer is not ready, the

information will be harder to find; in the extreme, we occasionally read

in the press of a notice of appeal coming in the form of a complaining

letter from the defendant's jail residence, in which case the question of

bail would not arise for weeks, or months, until a new lawyer was appointed

to handle the appeal. If the appeal bail papers were not visible in the files,

it was often difficult to establish all of the bail information, and guesses

had to be hazarded on the basis of cryptic notations, or the fact that all of

the defendant's letters showed a Jail postmark.

b. Determining if a case is on appeal -- There is no single method of

determining whether a given case in the District Court is on appeal.

If the appeal has already been taken, processed, and decided, the pink

jacket in the District Court will so reflect; it will appear no different

63
on its face, but the documents inside will include additional appellate

materials. A copy of the Criminal Clerk's Docket sheet will be in the

file, with appellate discrepancy information noted on it;

In cases where the appeal has not yet been decided, however, the

District Court files may show several different signs of the pending appeal

-- and none of them clear. There may be no jacket in the file, and no indicator card showing where it could be; in such cases a check at the Court

of Appeals is indicated, since this is one of the few places which requires

the actual pink jacket. In some cases there will be material filed in

place of the pink jacket, indicating some appellate activity in the case;

in these cases it is clearer that the case is on appeal. In no case is

there a specifically clear indication that the case is on appeal.

In the Clerk's Office of the Court of Appeals, the data collector

had to find the new appellate number corresponding to his pink jacket

number. If lucky, he would have already found appellate activity

clues in the District Court pink jacket files, with some reference to

the appellate number. But in many instances there was no number even

though there were appellate documents; in the cases where pink jackets

were simply missing there was no number. The Criminal Clerk's Docket

book does not carry these numbers either. The data collector had then to

take the defendant's name to the Court of Appeals alphabetical file to

cross reference to the correct appellant number. Even this search has

to be double checked in the actual records, however, since the name in

the appellate alphabetical file might not refer to the same person who

stood trial under the collector's pink jacket number. The worst instance

of this name problem occurred in one case in which the defendant's name

matched another name in the Court of Appeals files right down to the middle

initial, and the trial charges and trial lawyer were the same in both

cases. Only careful reading caught the discrepancy.

Bail Agency

The interviews of the District of Columbia Bail Agency are aimed at

determing which defendants are eligible for pre-trial release under

64
any of the conditions set forth in the Bail Reform Act of 1966. The

interview questions and answers are recorded on a manila folder; when

the defendant's data are analyzed and compiled and a recommendation for

or against some kind of pre-trial release is made, the recommendation

form also goes into the folder.

Operating Procedures. Since these records are almost the sole source of

personal information about the defendant available to the court system,

they are extremely important to our study. From the manila folder comes

the following information: employment, education, marital status, length

of time living in community, family relationship, and past record.

ProblemsThe following problems were typically encountered:

a. Finding the files -- This was the most time-consuming part of the

collection at the Bail Agency, since there are three files to search for

the record on a given defendant. The inactive master file is alphabetical,

consisting of carbon copies of all recommendation forms prepared by the

Agency. Two active files are maintained in the same manner, one for the

District Court and one for the Court of General Sessions. All of these

alphabetical files relate to a Bail Agency number which appears nowhere

else in the System, and it is under these numbers that the actual files

are kept. Since the alphabetical files are the only key to the numerical

records, the name problem once again asserted itself. Not much difficulty

arose because of aliases, but spellings became a problem. It was usually

safe to assume that if the defendant's name did not appear in its proper

alphabetical place in the files, the file was missing or the defendant had

not been interviewed for some reason. But occasionally the name would

be found misfiled alphabetically, or filed under a different spelling.

These discoveries lengthened the search process by forcing the data

collection team to make extra searches for such aberrations when a file

65
did not appear under the normal spelling. Even after the extra

search, most of the missing files failed to appear.

b. File Contents --As with all other records in the system,

the manila interview folders were not consistently complete. Blank

spaces might appear anywhere on the form. It is known that the

interviews are conducted very quickly in rather noisy circumstances, and

no fixed meaning can apparently be attributed to a blank; there was no positive indication in the record of whether the associated question

had actually been asked. Lack of explanation for the blank means loss

of information which is rarely recoverable elsewhere in the system.

c. Verification -- Certain items on these forms were of great

value as indicators of other overlapping criminal charges. Due to the

source of data (personal interviews), however, the entries often appear

to reflect misundexstandingS' by interviewed defendants rather than

the facts. For instance, defendants occasionally stated they were

on bond release of some sort, when they were actually on parole or

probation. For the purposes of this study, the distinction is important,

so any such statements could be taken only as indicators of fact, not

as verified fact. (Verification is normally limited to address and

possible employment data, and other entries are almost never checked.)

D. C. Jail

Defendants awaiting trial reside at the D. C. Jail if they

are not out on pre-trial release. Their confinement to and release

from the Jail generate a central record bank of interest, since a defendant cannot be on pre-trial release if in Jail.

Operating Procedure. Collection at the Jail produces the data on the

bottom half of page 7 of the Form, entitled "Detention History," and

serves collaterally to verify detention dates in other parts of the questionnaire. The information about each defendant is kept on letter-sized cards,

filed under a separate set of Jail numbers, which appear as the DCDC

(District of Columbia Department of Corrections) number on page 1 of

the data Form. These central files contain brief, docket type

synopses of each criminal charge which resulted in confinement in the

Jail. (Thus, charges which are dropped before initial hearings, and

cases in which the defendant gets out on personal recognizance will not be

66
recorded here.) The thrust of the synopsis is to record the in and out

history of the defendant at the Jail, and it is particularly informative

about sentence and parole times and dates. The card's information about

the time the defendant is on pre-trial release is, in general, less

complete and accurate.

In order to enter the central file, the collector had to locate

the DCDC Number in a separate alphabetic file. This file also

provides a listing of pertinent dates, the FBI Number for each person,

and the date of birth. If a name did not appear in the alphabetical

file, the collector checked a third source - the active, or chronological

file. Once the number was obtained, the collector could go to the

central files, to obtain the FBI Numbers.

Problems

Typical problems encountered are

a. Finding the Jail Number --In searching the alphabetical

files for a defendant's name card, the collector was faced with the

problem, in perhaps five percent of the cases, that different people

bear the same name, sometimes even down to the middle initial. The only additional

verification possible (other than the name) that a given card belonged

to the defendant in question was the date of birth stamped on the card.

If the collector knew the age, or date of birth, he had additional help

here. Otherwise, he had to assume lie had the correct card. If there was

an entry date stamped on the card corresponding approximately to the

defendant's date of arrest (if known to the collector), the assumption

seemed safer. Once the card which was believed to be correct was found,

however, the problems still did not cease, for occasionally a card would

fail to show the FBI number, and frequently one or more aliases turned

up at this point (which meant a repetition of the entire search process

under new names)

b. Names in the File -- The name problem was considerably in

evidence here, for in addition to the aliases there was a large problem

with spellings. When a defendant's name did not turn up, the collector

67
frequently could find it under a different spelling. "Reed" spelled as "Reid" produced the desired result in one case. Many names appeared

under such variations, or with different first names or middle initials.

These problems became so time-consuming that they eventually cut into

the amount of effort that could be put into reading the central files;

a conservative estimate for finding all possible Jail numbers on a week of defendants is 10 man-days. After reviewing the full records

for a week's sample, it was decided that the information obtained from

the central file was only substantiating what was already known from

other sources about the dates of a defendant's entries to and exits from

the prison. The dates tended to differ consistently by one or two days

from dates recorded elsewhere in the System, and this was attributed to

transfer and recording delays. Therefore, it was decided to bypass

possible information in the central file. In any event, later examination

of the police records showed overlapping cases more clearly and quickly.

FBI Crime Career Files

In order to obtain a record of criminal activity outside -of the

District of Columbia police jurisdiction, the collection team requested

and was given access to the FBI Crime Career records for as many of the

master list defendants as the Uniform Report had records and the collectors

had FBI numbers. This figure came out to less than half of the master

list defendants, but for those on which records were obtained the results

were useful.

Collection Procedure. The following problems relate to the FBI Crime

Career Data:

a. Dates -- Dates were consistently off by a few days to several

weeks, due to variations in the reporting practices of local jurisdictions, but the FBI sheets did contain new information about over- lapping alleged criminal activity in the neighboring jurisdictions such

as Arlington, Va. , and Prince Georges County, Md., and occasionally

showed a master sample defendant being arrested in New York, Baltimore,

68
or Boston. In one case it also turned up a District of Columbia murder

charge that the collectors had not found. Generally, however, the sheets

served to verify already known data.

b. Completeness -- The crime career records did not contain files

for about 30 percent of FBI numbers submitted. This is undoubtedly a result of the lag time in up-dating the crime career record. The latest

date of entry in each file varies, so that there is no uniform last entry.

These data, then, cannot be considered complete, but are useful in

obtaining general indications of the geographic mobility of the criminal.

Metropolitan Police Department Criminal Records

Police records on individuals go back as far as 1900. They contain

offense charges, witnesses, and dispositions by date, but only in

serial fashion- No attempt is made to relate one entry to the next,

though, in fact, they often are related (as, for instance, a burglary

cl arge in one entry reduced in the next entry to unlawful entry and

petty larceny (for plea purposes)), The only way for the collector to

relate cases was to match up identical witnesses and make sure the

dates for the different offenses corresponded in some meaningful fashion.

In this respect, the police records are not very different from the Index

in General Sessions and the card file in the U. S. Attorney's Office in

District Court; at best they summarize the two files. But because they

are prepared by a third party who is paying more careful attention to

names and trying to relate them to a unified identification number for

each person, the police record occasionally reveals an offense that the

collector missed in his earlier search, either from his own error or the

inadequacies of the file.

Collection Procedure. The names and birth dates of all defendants contained

in the sample were listed by the collectors and forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Department. Special permission had to be obtained from

Mayor-Commissioner Walter Washington to obtain these records, but the

additional accuracy in determining arrests while on bail and continuances

69
seemed to merit the effort. Once received, the records were filed by case,

and the (privileged) data were obtained.

Problems . The principal problems with these data were:

a. Completeness -- The Police reporting system was considerably improved

by a change made in 1968. It is now much more complete than it was in early

1968, when most of our cases occurred. At that time, since its disposition

blanks were not regularly filled in, its chief value lay in its description

of the record of all charges lodged against an individual. V/hen. the dispositions were filled in, they were frequently inaccurate in some particular

and occasionally completely wrong. (Unfortunately, few of our cases carried

forward into the improved period.)

b. Readability -- The Police records were very difficult to read in

many instances. Reading was further lengthened by the presence of entries

concerning violations of the D. C. Code, including drunkeness, etc., which

were not proper consideration in analyses of the criminal record.

Overlapping Cases and Recidivism

Once a search had been completed for data on each defendant on the master

list, a second major search had to be made of the data sources to find any

and all cases which overlapped the one collected. This was necessary because no list exists of offenses while on pre-trial release. Every case found in

this second search was documented on a separate additional form attached to

that for the related master list case. These cases were collected even if

they seemed associated with the civil disorder in April or the closing of

Resurrection City in June. In this fashion, the data collectors accumulated

records of those crimes allegedly committed while on release, and crimes for

which the defendant was already on bail when the master list crime was

allegedly committed. Any cases which in turn overlapped these prospective

and retrospective cases were also identified and a form was completed so long

as the time of involvement in any of these cases overlapped the time of

involvement in the master list case. Overlap was defined to mean that the defendant was either on some form

of release (excluding post-sentence probation or work- release) when he

allegedly committed the master list crime, or on similar release for the

alleged crime on the master list when he allegedly committed the subsequent

crime. Thus, neither probation nor work release (as a sentence)

70
were included. If the defendant completed sentencing and commitment

without further violation, he. was not picked up on our overlap check.

This means that many kinds of release-violations were not tabulated -- among them probation and parole violations. It also means that a defendant

who served his time and committed a new offense the day after his release

would not be considered a recidivist in this study.

The starting points for finding overlaps are in the Criminal Clerk's

Office of the Court of General Sessions, in a set of books called Monthly

Indexes; and in the U. S. Attorney's Office at the District Court, in an alphabetical card file. A check in both places was required for each

defendant in the sample.

Index • Court of General Sessions. The Monthly Index is kept in the

Criminal Clerk's Office. It is "monthly" only as to current cases,

and it becomes an alphabetized list of all defendants to receive

docket numbers from the office in a given year. Besides names, it records

docket numbers, dates of arraignment or presentment, dispositions, and

sentences. Since it is alphabetical, the data collector can find a defendant's name and see at a glance (sometimes a rather long glance) any

other docket numbers for the defendant in the same year, and the dates

of involvement. By comparing these starting times against the time span

from start to finish of his master list case, the collector could determine

which of the other cases in the Index might involve bail violations, and

follow-up those docket numbers in the information file.

The Index is kept on a yearly basis, and, in the Court of General

Sessions, the collectors checked both the 1967 and 1968 books for overlap.

The 1967 book was checked because many of the master list cases started

in the first weeks of January and February, and cases starting late

in 1967 could be expected to carry over into some 1968 activity by

the same defendants. The 1969 books were not checked unless specifically

indicated in the 1968 Index, because very few cases (misdemeanors) on

the master list ran into 1969.

71
The problem of names, aliases and middle initials did not abate

here, and the importance of this particular search heightened the resultant

frustrations. Alternate spellings of names were particularly

troublesome; they meant double and triple checking for possible variations.

Occasionally, the Index information would conflict with other information

in the System. In one instance, the Index turned up a case not recorded

in the Criminal Docket Book; in another it showed a sentence, judge, and

sentencing date which fell one month later than the date recorded in

the Docket Book as a nolle prosequi on the same case docket number.

Alphabetical Card File -- U. S. Attorney's Office. The same check was

made in the U. S. Attorney's Office at the District Court, in an alphabetical card file kept on all defendants who receive a complaint number, or come in via the Grand Jury. These cards extend back into the 1950 's; for purposes of the study, we took dates back as far as 1966 and forward

into 1970. These broader date ranges were deemed necessary to catch all

possible overlaps on the much longer felony trial and appeal process.

The name, alias and middle initial problem was present, but was less

serious than for the Court of General Sessions.

A new 3x5 card is associated with the defendant for each new case

number received in the District Court System. Some of these cards turn out

to be records of complaints dropped after further investigation, and these

cases were not identified as subsequent or prior criminal activity. Most

of the cards, however, contain Grand Jury and Criminal Docket numbers,

along with dates and charges, and the collector could determine the numbers

with which to enter the files.

Relating the Cases. Once the data collector had a list of possible

numbers beside each case in the master file, he began checking them to see which cases represented overlap and which did not. If the suspect

case was earlier than the master case, it would overlap if the offense

date of the master list case occurred during some period of release

during the earlier case, but prior to sentence and/or final commitment.

If the suspect case was later than the master list case, it would

72
overlap if its offense date fell within one of the periods of release in

the master case, but prior to final sentence and/or commitment. The

same process was repeated on the prior and subsequent cases, to see if

they in turn were overlapped, and the process continued until no further

overlaps were found.

This determination was straightforward most of the time, but

inconsistencies often came to light. On occasion, for example, a master

list form would indicate that a man was detained at the time which a later case showed him allegedly committing a new crime. Or, the form for

the earlier crime should show the defendant to have been in Jail when he was allegedly committing the master list crime. Inconsistency between

the two or more forms on an individual was not uncommon even after these

major questions had been resolved, especially in situations in which two cases overlapped extensively. The major reason for this lingering problem

was the frequent failure of the records on one case even to recognize

the existence of the other case or cases; the result was that one case

would show a man out on pre-trial release even though a later case showed

him confined on an entirely different set of release terms. By looking

at both cases, the true picture can almost always be obtained. In a few

(1 - 5) cases, however, the conflict could be resolved only by choosing

the interpretation of the records which seemed most likely on the basis of

other cross-checking experience. There is no single, comprehensive list

of all those who violate their pre-trial release terms, though the data

collection team never lost hope that such a miracle would appear buried

in a dusty file cabinet.

Dropouts and Other Discoveries. As the search for overlapping cases

continued, several new types of cases came into view:

a. barlier Starters -- Certain cases showed huge time gaps from

date of offense to date of misdemeanor arraignment or felony original

indictment. Close examination revealed that most of these were actually

cases that had started at some time prior to the initial date shown on

the master list form, and were not really part of the four week sample.

73
The search for overlaps would reveal a previous case, not in the sample,

which was really the start of the case shown on the master list; in such

instances the earlier case and the master list case were dropped from the

sample, since the master list case did not reflect an original prosecution

in the sample period.

These kinds of cases developed in several predictable ways:

1. The original charging of the crime would be carried along for

1/

some time, and then nonprossed— by the prosecutor or dismissed by a judge. Then the same day, the next day, or perhaps several days later, a new charge would be brought against the defendant under a new number.

Since the Index shows neither date of offense nor complaining witness, this

continuity could be recognized only by an examination of the actual court

papers. On the Index and Criminal Docket Book there remain two distinct

charges, which are in fact both from the same event. The reasons for this

nolle prosequi -recharge syndrome, which occurred in approximately 25 cases,

are many: in some cases the witnesses do not show up one day, but do the

next; in some, new evidence appears; and in some cases the prosecutor is

nol-prossing one charge while accepting a guilty plea to another.

2. The original case is referred to the Grand Jury, where either

the prosecutor dismisses or the Grand Jury ignores the case. In both

instances, the case can be referred to the Court of General Sessions for

a decision to prosecute for a misdemeanor or not. If the decision is made

to prosecute, the case (and its subsequent record) receives a new number

which will in no way indicate its derivative nature in the Index; only

a check of the papers will verify it. This verification is made by

comparing offense dates, victims, and witnesses on the new and old

charges; if they match, it is a referral --if they do not match, it is

not.

The referral can also come from a case originally brought before the

U. S. Magistrate for the District Court and then sent to the Court of

General Sessions. In such a case, the only clue to identifying the

situation is the date gap that should appear on the master list form.

1/ Sometimes referred to as Nolled.

74
b. Grand Jury Originals and Reindictments -- Another kind of referral

problem occurs with the Grand Jury "originals", which are cases supposedly

arising for the first time in the Grand Jury. Any such original which

occurred in one of our sample weeks was ostensibly a new case in the

system, but the research at this stage of data collection revealed that

most of the so-called originals were not original at all for our purposes.

The first kind to appear clearly nonoriginal were the reindictments.

Several of our District Court felony cases were first assumed to be originals,

and the data collectors began filling in forms on them. Vague references to

other criminal numbers began to appear; Grand Jury numbers began showing up,

for instance, in a type of case (the "original") which is never numbered.

The Criminal Docket Book was no help, since we had taken our list of Grand

Jury originals from it in the first place. Careful checking of all the

records finally revealed a note scribbled on a paper somewhere that the

master list case was actually the reindictment of a case that had been

dismissed earlier. As such, it was dropped from the sample because it did

not originate in a sample week. All originals were then reexamined in

light of this discovery, and several of them were dropped from the sample

because of it.

A second kind of spurious original occurred many times, especially in

relation to certain cases, arising during the period of the April Riots of

1968, which reached the Grand Jury during the latter weeks of the sample.

These were situations in which a group of persons had been simultaneously

involved in a single incident, and had been arrested separately. Often

the processing of one person would move faster than that of the others,

and he would get to the Grand Jury before the rest of the group. In sucli

cases, the others would then be added to the first man's indictment as originals, even though they each had numbered court papers in the Court of

General Sessions, and often even a Grand Jury number. These cases were not

treated as originals in our study, and, if the initial court date was not

in a sample week, as was usually the case, then the case was dropped from

the sample.

75
A third class of "originals" was also dropped from the sample. These

were the cases, very infrequent, in which charges had been dropped by the

prosecutor at the Court of General Sessions, or the Magistrate in

District Court, before they were even papered, and then carried over to

the Grand Jury for another try by the police officer on the case. The

few cases taken in this way to the Grand Jury are called originals, hut

were cast out of the sample because the initial date of entry into the

system was not within one of the four sample weeks.

c. Continuation Cases -- Several situations occurred in which what

appeared at first to be a later case turned out to be only a continuation

of the master list case in one of the ways described above. Such continuations were collected, but not counted as separate cases, despite their

different numbers. Grand Jury referrals and Jftisdemeahor pleas'which were

reductions of previous felonies accounted for a large proportion of these cases.

d. Miscellaneous -- A few other cases, aside from those already

listed, were dropped because they did not represent true entries into

the sample. The most frequent of these were cases in which a master list

charge was initially drawn against the defendant for an offense committed

six months to a year earlier. While the overlap check disclosed what appeared

to be a prior case, examination of the offense dates revealed that the

prior case offense date actually followed the master list offense date by

a few days or months, but the defendant was not yet on bail for the master

list offense when he committed the second offense. Thus, even though

the second offense looked like recidivism, it was not, because it was not

committed while on bail for another offense, nor was the defendant on

pre-trial release for it at the time of the master list crime. Such

problems were not frequent, but there were enough of them to require a great deal of time for rechecking when all of the questionnaires were

turned in. None of these determinations were simple, and they were all

the more confusing in the field.. As a result, many forms were filled

in on cases that need not have been recorded, while several meriting

inclusion were initially omitted. Most of the rechecking was concentrated upon the proper interpretation of these forms, with omissions

and additions where necessary.

76
Observations from the Data Collection Experience

This protracted effort to assemble maximally complete and reliable

data on a single form, led to the following observations:

Records vs. Dockets. Accuracy demands that information be taken from

the records themselves whenever possible. Given the volume of paper

generated in a felony trial and the number of entries typical of a misdemeanor trial, data collection from this source was bound to require

more time. Again and again, however, discrepancies between the records

and the dockets indicated the wisdom of the more time consuming choice.

Record Filing Systems. Each element of the Criminal Justice System uses

its own individual numbers for record keeping. In many instances, an

alphabetical file is all they have in common. This means that a data

collector must make at least one alphabetical search at each station,

and normally two since there are usually both active and passive files.

Names being the only key to the number systems, any variations in name

will require spending still more time in determining which of the various

possible names truly represents the desired file. The data search for any

one defendant can be multiplied many times over if complicated by aliases

and shifting middle initials; each time a possible name turns up a number,

the file under that number has to be checked to see if it belongs to the case in question. Different spellings of the same name cause similar

problems. Perhaps the most exasperating case is that of the defendant

with an extremely common name and no middle initial, since such names

have been found with middle initials in one alphabetical file and without

them in another. It then becomes necessary to search all of the names,

with or without a middle initial, which might belong to the defendant in

question. Sometimes the number of possible names may be cut down by

correlating their appearances with an adjacent column of dates, but this

is not always possible. (Fortunately it was, in the case in which one defendant's name appeared in 124 different forms in one of the alphabetical

files.) Totalled over a sample of 900 names, these alphabetical searches

represented an enormous expenditure of time and manpower. Some common

77
identification system-, such as is represented by Social Security

numbers, drivers' license numbers, etc., is desperately needed to

reduce the high cost of analysis which the current system now imposes.

Interdependence and Inconsistency of Records. There is no single dossier

to tell the whole story of a defendant's passage through the Criminal

Justice System; different kinds of data reside. in different buildings,

generated and controlled by different administrators. The whole story

then is an amalgam of these various parts, and since each treats the

defendant from its own point of view alone, the various parts must be

examined carefully to eliminate the inconsistencies that develop from

one set of records to the next. The record for one defendant, for

instance, indicated that he was released on personal recognizance a day

or so after his arrest; then suddenly for no apparent reason the

arraignment papers show him "remanded" to D. C. Jail. Bond conditions

can and do change at arraignment, but there was no mention of such a change on the papers, only an informal comment. The questions raised

had to be resolved, requiring extra time. Similar inconsistencies in

dates, sections of the city, middle names, addresses, lawyers' names,

and other details had to be reconciled. Vital information such as the

date of the arrest or presentment is occasionally missing, and as a result, overlapping criminal activity cannot be identified easily, if

at all. Cases occurred in which two entirely different criminal cases

were seen to arise from a single incident, but this could only be

determined after the second set of files added the necessary history.

Frequently, different sources of information suggested inconsistencies

until the records from yet another source filled in the gap, like a missing piece of a puzzle. In all of these cases, only careful perusal of

all the records yielded the fully accurate story for a given defendant

in a specific case.

Accuracy of Data. Accuracy was our goal and guiding principle, for two reasons. First, the data to be counted from the Form needed to be as

7«
exact as possible, simply for counting purposes. But a second reason

lies behind the first, and is more important. The court records in their

entirety are only the tangible traces of a largely discretionary system

for dealing with serious misconduct; the only part of the discretion to

surface is what shows in the records. Time and again throughout the data

collection process, the collectors came into contact with prosecutors

and defense lawyers, policemen, probation officers, and judges. Occasionally,

they sat in on court proceedings in order to get a better understanding

of how the court records were generated. From each of these contacts they

came away feeling that the discretionary operations of the system were not

really shown by the data Form. They felt, however, that the rigorously accurate,

collection of data was the only mechanism that could begin to represent

what was really happening.

The data collection process itself was a constant balancing of mass

production, time, and accuracy. Inter-related records and constant need

for check-backs ruled out any serious consideration of adopting an

"optimal" purely serial order of collection; the primacy of accuracy again

and again added more time to the process. Less time spent would have

meant intolerable errors in the data base.

Bail Histories. Many of the decision points in the Criminal Justice

System are recorded upon specific documents; if one wants to see what

happened at indictment or arraignment he need only flip the pages of

the file until that page comes upj the answer will appear. Determining

bail histories was not so simple, since bail is a decision subject to

much revision during the time a defendant is in the Court System. Some

of its turning points appear on specific documents, e.g. the Bail Agency

Recommendation and Court Release Orders, but most of them do not. Changes

in bail status are not consistently noted in the court records. They have been

found on arraignment sheets, trial synopses, random bench warrants,

review motions, and even on the outer cover of the District Court pink

jacket. In the Court of General Sessions, it was frequently difficult

to ascertain from the Court Paper exactly when a defendant was freed

79
on bail. In no one place, in no one document, is there an accurate history

of a defendant's custody and/or release on bail. Even more elusive is

the bail history which spreads over two or more overlapping cases. Reconstruction of bail history from the records in the Court System

was extremely laborious, with bits of data often missing. Courtordered reductions appeared on the records without any evidence of a prompting motion, other than a statement that the order was being

granted pursuant to defendant's motion. Orders for bond forfeiture by

the bondsman appeared without any evidence of flight by the defendant,

and were cancelled within a day. Bench warrants and attachments appeared

in the files without any corresponding notation on the court papers,

and occasionally without final disposition. Virtually never did the

papers in one case make reference to the defendant's bond status in

another case, and only rarely did they revise their own bail information

to conform to that in the concurrent case. Instances occurred in

which the Bail Agency interview form stated that the defendant was on bail

in another case, but painstaking rechecks turned up no bail, and sometimes not

§ven any othesprcase. Occasionally, the defendant would be found to be

detained in another jurisdiction. This discovery was normally based on

information in the prosecutor's file or in FBI or Metropolitan Police

Department records . Court papers, however, often registered only an outstanding bench warrant. Sometimes reasons were given for "no shows*'

other times they were not. Enforcement sanctions were seldom imposed,

or, if they were, s-eldom recorded.

As much of this information as . is available in the records has been

recorded on the Data Collection Form, and has been verified using as many

other sources as possible. The results are believed to be the best bail

history that has yet been assembled from the existing records. Since

our emphasis has been on verified data, there may be a tendency to

underestimate the actual recidivist rate.

80
Chapter VI

Data Processing Procedure

Appendix C contains a copy of the data collection form which was completed for each sample case analyzed and for thos« special

cases concerning crimes allegedly committed by persons on pre-trial

release. After the information had been assembled by the individual

data collector, it was screened for continuity and completeness by the

senior data collector. Entries were checked to determine whether

blank spaces were the result of omissions on the part of the data

collector or were gaps among the data files of the various

offices consulted. After the forms had passed this it;- screening, they

were individually reviewed by the project leader. Based on a careful

appraisal of the files, the project leader returned to the data collector

for additional information or explanation those which did not appear to

provide a continuous and logical picture.

Following tli is second screening by the project leader, the contents

of the data forms were transcribed to key-punch coding sheets. This

transcription was necessary because the form was too complex to permit

keypunch operators to work directly from it. During this process, the

analyst transcribing the data further cross-checked them yet again. This third

screening provided an improvement in the quality of the data that more than

off-set the possibilities for error in the transcribing operation.

The coding sheets were then keypunched, and the resulting deck of

punched cards was verified. ("Verification" of key-punched information

is essentially a simulated re-punching of the data coupled with an operation to determine that each punch stroke agrees with that in the

original punching.) After keypunching, the data deck was then sorted to

arrange all of the cases in numerical order. Because of the necessity to

protect the identities of the individuals who make up the sample,

cards 01 and 02 were combined to generate a card number 31 which did

not contain either case identification numbers or individual names.

81
Each individual within the sample is referred to in the data base by

a number known only to those who prepared the coded forms.

A three- stage edit routine was subsequently used to ensure that the

information on the cards conformed to the types of information which

could properly appear in the individual fields. The initial edit routine

checked to see that the alphabetic or numeric information appearing in

each portion ("field") of each card was of the appropriate type. The

second edit routine checked to see that the requisite number of cards

was present in each file and that no duplicate cards were present.

These two initial checks were conducted on the computer at

the National Bureau of Standards.

After completion of these checks, a duplicate deck of cards was prepared and delivered to a commercial time- share computer system for

running on their computers. (Because very little time remained in which

to carry out our exploratory analyses, this time -sharing mode was selected for the remaining calculations to secure more rapid service than

could be expected from the batch mode operations of the computer

installation at the Bureau.) In tabulating the individual items which

appeared in the data base, a third edit routine was used in the time-share

computer system which checked to be certain that only absolutely legitimate

characters appeared in each field.

Tabulation routines have been prepared which will summarize the

data §n each individual characteristic as it appears on the form. In

addition, cross tabulations can be prepared for selected items contained

in the data base. For examining crimes committed by persons on bail,

a special computer program was developed to aggregate the status of

individuals for each day (first, second, etc.) following their date of

presentment or initial entry in the Criminal Justice System. The results

of this program describe a dynamic picture of the exposure of the community

to individuals free on pre-trial release, as a function of the time after

their entry into the System. The data initially extracted from the

82
data base refer to all individuals who have been involved in the

system and their status. Additional analyses can be made of the

situation with respect to those in any particular category, by use

of certain control cards in the program arrangement, and the development

of special computer programs to execute still other types of inquiries

is both feasible and practical. Thus, further uses of the data base

are limited only by the degree of imagination and innovation applied

to this problem area.

83
Chapter VII

Potential Ways of Using the Data

Complete interpretation and analysis of the great volume

and variety of data obtained clearly was not possible within the time

frame for this pilot study, particularly in light of the data's imperfect

representation (noted earlier) of the discretionary elements in the

System' b operations. Some approaches to the . meaningful summarization

and presentation of this material are described in the first section of

this Chapter. (Some of these ideas, which appear particularly relevant

to the question of pre-trial release or which demonstrate the scope

of the data base, have been implemented to a degree, as shown in

Chapter VIII.) All the dat^ re-indexed as required to preserve confidentiality, now reside in the memory of a time -shared computer so that additional

analyses can conveniently be performed as needed. Interpretation of

these data must be guided by sound statistical principles, especially

if the interpretation may influence attempts to estimate or predict

future events. The second section of this Chapter addresses that topic

briefly in layman's language. But data presentation and interpretation

alone do not provide a sufficient basis for addressing the problem of

pre-trial release. The third section of this Chapter considers another

of the tasks required— to define the ways irr wjlich. dangerousness may- be

defined. Unfortunately, the data sample is not large enough to permit

adequate exploration of this question.

Data Presentation

Criminal activity was recorded in terms as specific as possible -- consistent with courtroom records. The finely classified categories which

resulted were consolidated to increase the number of cases in each

resultant category. The proper level of aggregation for a particular

analysis depends upon the potential use of that analysis and on the amount

of data available in each category. Some natural choices for the consolidated categories are described in the following paragraphs, along with

some ideas on how such data can be intelligibly and meaningfully presented.

84
Crime Categories. The primary mechanism for classifying criminal activity

was the coding scheme used by the Criminal Clerk's Office of the District

of Columbia Court of General Sessions. These three-digit numbers and

their referents are shown in the left hand column of Table 4. The

categories relate to various sections of the Criminal Code for the

District of Columbia. Charges in jurisdictions other than the Court

of General Sessions are usually defined as violations to the Criminal

Code, which we have converted to the three-digit code numbers for ease

of manipulation.

The first level of consolidation, shown in the middle column of

Table 4, is taken from the Uniform Offense Classification (Draft 4)

(Ref. 58) of the FBI. This level of aggregation would be ideal if the

data in each class were sufficient to permit drawing inferences.

The second level of consolidation combines the various FBI categories

into four general classifications:

1. Crimes against Person: 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14

2. Crimes against Property: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28

3. Morals, Decency Crimes: 35, 36, 37, 39, and 40

4. Public Order Crimes: 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53.

Recently proposed legislation to amend the Bail Reform Act of 1966

(Reference 112) presents another possible aggregation of these data. This

particular aggregation was developed to assist in describing the danger

ousness of certain defendants. These classifications, showing the Court

of General Sessions code numbers, are:

1. Dangerous Crime: Robbery (975, 905 only with attendant use

of force); Burglary (952, 987, 988); Rape (972, 954, 919);

Arson (903, 904 only on premises used as dwelling or for

business), and Sale of Narcotics or Depressant Drugs.

2. Crime of Violence: All above categories (without the listed

limitations) plus: Homicide (965, 966); Kidnapping (956);

Assault with a dangerous weapon (911, 912, 913, 914, and 964).

3. Obstruction of Justice (967 only with threats or intimidation

of witnesses)

85
Table 4.

Aggregation of Criminal Activities

3 Digit Level of Detail

As Used by the Criminal Clerk's Office of

the District of Columbia Court of General

Sessions

038-^ Negligent Homicide

963 = Manslaughter

965 = First Degree Murder

966 = Second Degree Murder

956 = Kidnapping

067 = Attempt Rape

906 = Assault with Intent (WI) to Rape

972 = Rape

915 = Attempted Robbery

975 = Robbery

905 = Assault with Intent to Rob

003 = Simple Assault

907 = Assault with Intent to Poison

908 = Assault with any Offense

909 = Assault with Mayhem

910 = Assault of Police Officer (APO)

911 = APO Dangerous Weapon

912 = Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW)

913 = ADW Gun

914 = ADW Knife

964 = Mayhem

901 = Abortion

902 = Abortion Death

2 Digit Level of Detail

Taken from the Uniform Offens

Classification (Draft 4) of

the F.B.I. (See Ref. 84)

09 Homicide

10 Kidnapping

11 Sexual Assault

12 Robbery

13 Assault

14 Abortion

Note: All above categories are included as Crimes Against Person -1 in the

1 Digit Level of Detail represented by the Technical Analysis Division (TAT

Consolidation in Four Categories.

±1 Identifiers beginning with ZERO represent misdemeanors, identifiers beginning

with 9 represent felonies.

86

1
Table 4. (Cont'd)

3 Digit Level of Detail 2 Digit Level of Detail

903 = Arson

904 = Arson Own Property

055 = Threats Bodily Harm

056 = Threats Menacing Man

917 = Blackmail

942 = Extortion

961 = Libel

006 = Attempt Housebreaking

054 = Taking Property, No Right

057 = Unlawful Entry

069 = Attempted Burglary

072 = Attempt Burglary I 952 = Housebreaking (HBK)

987 = Burglary 1 988 = Burglary II 004 = Attempted Larceny

033

034

035

036

037

058

957

958

959

960

983

Larceny

Larceny Shoplifting

Larceny After Trust

Larceny U. S. Government

Larceny Interstate Shipment

Unpaid Board Bill

Grand Larceny (GL)

Larceny After Trust

Larceny U. S. Government

Larceny Interstate Shipment

Theft from Mails

005 = Attempt Unauthorized Use of Vehicle (UUV)

982 = Unauthorized Use of an Automobile (UUA)

984 = Stolen Car Transport

949 = Forgery

008 = Bad Check

026 = False Advertising

027 = False Impersonation Inspector

028 = False Pretense

943 = False Impersonation Before Court

944 = False Impersonation Public Officer

945 = False Impersonation Police

946 = False Pretense (100 dollars)

939 = Embezzlement FeLony

940 = Embezzlement D. C. Property

941 = Embezzlement by Mortgager

051 = Receiving Embezzled Property

052 = Receiving Stolen Goods

064 = Bringing Stolen Property .into D. C. 973 = Received Embezzled Property

974 = Received Stolen Property

20 Arson

21 Extortion

22 Burglary

23 Larceny

24 Stolen Vehicles

25 Forgery

26 Fraud

27 Embezzlement

28 Stolen Property

Note : All above categories are included as Crimes Against Property -2 in the 1 Digit

Level of Detail represented by the TAD Consolidation in Four Categories.
Table 4. CCont'dl

3 Digit Level of Detail 2 Digit Level of Detail

013 = Sales Possession Narcotics

014 = Exempt Narcotic Forms

015 = Exempt Narcotics

016 = Exempt Narcotics 2nd Offense

017 = Uniform Narcotics Act (UNA) Records

018 = Obtain Narcotics by Fraud

019 = Narcotic Vagrancy

020 = Dangerous Drugs

021 = Dangerous Drug Act Inventories

022 = Dangerous Drug and Inspection Records

063 = Possession Implements of Crime 2/

921 = Possession Narcotics 2nd Offense

922 = Exempt Narcotic Form 2nd Offense

923 = UNA Records 2nd Offense

924 = Narcotic Records 2nd Offense

925 = UNA Inspection 2nd Offense

926 = Obtaining Narcotics by Fraud 2nd Offense

930 = Harrison Narcotic Act

931 = Harrison Narcotic Act 2nd Offense

932 = Marihuana Act

933 = Possession Marihuana

934 = Forge Narcotic Prescription

950 = Fornication

953 = Incest

954 = Indecent Act (Miller Act)

977 = Seduction

978 = Seduction by Teacher

979 = Sodomy

919 = Carnal Knowledge

065 = Indecent Exposure

032 = Indecent Publication

042 = Possession Obscene Picture

030 = Gambling Pools

039 = Permanent Gambling Table Setup

040 = Permanent Sale Lottery Tickets

041 = Possession Numbers Slips

951 = Gaming Tables

962 = Lottery Promotion

976 = Sale Lottery Tickets

981 = Three Card Monte

024 = Disorderly House

049 = Presence in Illegal Establishment

053 = Soliciting for Lewd Purposes

062 = Attempted Procuring

968 = Pandering

971 = Procuring

050 = Soliciting Prostitution

35 Dangerous Drugs

36 Sex Offense

37 Obscene

39 Gambling

40 Commercial Sex

Note: All above categories are included' as Morals, Decency Crimes -3 in the 1 Digit

Level of Detail represented by the TAD Consolidation in Four Categories.

2/ Most of the tijne, narcotics paraphernalia. Occasionally, burglary tools,
Table 4. (Cont'd)

3 Digit Level of Detail 2 Digit Level of Detail

029 = Fugitive from Justice 49 Flight -Escape

300 = Contempt 50 Obstruct Justice

967 = Obstructing Justice

969 = Perjury

066 = Attempt Bribery 51 Bribery

918 = Bribery

! X)0 9 = Carrying Deadly Weapon (CDW) 52 Weapon Offense

010 = CDW Gun

011 = CDW Knife

044 = Possession of Prohibited Weapon (PPW)

045 = PPW Others

(046 = PPW Gun

047 = PPW Knife

048 = PPW Others

( 071 = unlawful Possession of a Pistol

920 = CDW After Felony Conviction

947 = Federal Firearms Act

,948 = National Firearms Act

'970 = PPW After Convicted Felony

002 = Affray 53 Public Peace

023 = Destruction of Property

070 = Riot Act

j 073 = Disorderly and Disruption

074 = Unlawful Assembly

'075 = Unlawful Public Gathering

007 = Attempted Crime Unlisted

i

\i>

i

Note: All above categories are included as Public Order Crimes -4 in the 1 Digit

Level of Detail represented by the IAD Consolidation in Four Categories.

89:
Should these categories come into general use in the Criminal Justice

System, it may be necessary to alter the numbering system in the Court

of General Sessions to depict the refinements described.

Data Categories

Data were collected on the Form shown in Appendix C.

Table 5 shows the categories in which data are accumulated. The listing

generally follows the order on the data collection form.

Output Categories . The data can be assembled and analyzed in a wide

variety of ways. The type of presentation will depend upon the intended

purpose

90
SUMMARY DATA

Number of persons

Number of cases Race

Negro

Caucasian

Sex

Male

Female

Date of birth

Place of birth

Crime on bail cases total

Type of bail set Money bond

Personal recognizance

Work release

Personal bond

Unknown

INITIAL DATA

Age

Date of offense

Date of arrest

Arrest charges (e.g.)

Simple assault

CDW

Narcotics Misdemeanor

Destruction of property

Prostitution

jm

Rpbbery

BurglaryTable 5 Data Categories Available

NATURE OF THE CRIME

Location of crime

Private residence

Other enclosed space

Open space

Auto, etc. Time of crime

Nature of victim

Stranger

Acquaintance

Relative

Organization

Society

Age of victim

Sex of victim

Male

Female

Race of victim

Negro

Caucasian

Loss to victim

Death

Hospitalization

Minor injury

Psychological trauma

Property loss

Injury and los c Other

Value of loss

Property recovered

Yes

No

Nature of offender

With others

Alone

Purpose of crime

Harm

Gratification

Economic gain

Use of property

Other

Nature of force

Physical against person

Forced entry

Threat

None

Weapons

§un

Knife

Blunt instrument

Gun and knife

None

Other

91

INITIAL SCREENING

Name of Prosecutor

Charges

Change

Same as police

No paper

Paper

Presentment

Court of General

Sessions

Magistrate

Date

Judge

Defense Attorney

Attorney type

Retained

Criminal Justice Act

Legal Aid

None

Type bail set Money bond

Personal recognizance

Work Release

Personal bond

Security

Unsecured

101

Surety

Amount of Bond ($)

Under 500

500 to 1000

1001 to 3000

5000

7500

10000

above 10000

Penalty Set

Other conditions

Supervised

Third party

Other

Detained

Bail met
Table 5 (continued)

COURT ACTION Jail Term

Fine

Presentment Charges - Felonies Misdemeanor Trial Judge

Abortion Presentence Bail (Misd) Date

Arson Presentence Bail (Misd) Judge

Assault with Intent Crime Bail

Assault with Deadly Weapon Same as previously

Attempted Robbery Withdrawn

Narcotics Change

Embezzlement Grand Jury Actions

Murder, 2nd degree Date

Forgery Charges

Gambling Individuals with 4 Charges

Rape

ii it 3 " Receiving Stolen Property

II II O II Robbery Pleas

Unauthorized Use of Vehicle Not Guilty

Burglary Guilty

Other Nolo Contendere

Presentment Charges - Misdemeanor Jury Trial Demanded

Simple Assault Disposition

Attempted Larceny Guilty

Attempted UUA Nolle

Attempted housebreaking Held for trial

Attempted Crime (other) Held for exam

Carrying Deadly Weapon Held for Public Hearing

Narcotics Other

Destruction of property Sentenced

Disreputable house Fine

False pretenses Misdemeanor Trial or Public Hearing

Fugitive Judge listed

Gambling Defense Lawyer Name

Petit larceny Same as Presentment

Larceny Other Legal Aid

Possession of Prohibited Weapon Criminal Justice Act

Prostitution and Sex Indictment

Receiving Stolen Property Ignored with referral

Taking Property Dismissed with referral

Threat Ignored

Unauthorized Entry Dismissed

Possession of Implements of Crime Arraignment Data

Attempted Bribe Plea

Attempted Burglary Not Guilty

Riot Guilty

Court Action Bail Change

Jury Action Yes

Charge Actions No

Guilty Felony Trial

Not Guilty Insanity Dates

Not guilty Judges

Nolle Prosequi Defense Attorney

Dismissed for want of Prosecution Same as Presentment

To Grand Jury- Criminal Justice Act

Held for exam Retained

Other

92
Table 5 (continued)

Plea

Not Guilty

GuiltyGuilty Lesser Charge

Court Trial

Jury Trial

Disposition

Not Guilty

Guilty

Dismissed With Prejudice

Not Guilty Insanity

Sentence Time

Imposition of Sentence Suspended

Fine

Felony Sentence

Date

Judge

Presentence Bail

Withdrawn

Same as Previous

Appeals

Judge

Defense Attorney

Disposition

Preappeal bail

Withdrawn

BAIL ACTIONS

Prosecutor Bail Recommendation

Bail Agency Yes

No

Money Bond Yes

No

Amount Recommended

Less than 1000

1000 to 3000

5000

10,000

over 10,000

Personal Bond Yes

No

Amount

Bail Agency Recommendation

None

Personal Recognizance

Conditions

3rd Party Custody

Other

Supervised release

None

Number of Actions

Individual

Number of Actions

Individuals with 5 bail actions

Individuals with 4 bail actions

Individuals with 3 bail actions

Individuals with 2 bail actions

Individuals with 1 bail actions

Revisions

Violations

No Show

New Offense

Other

Judge

Bench Warrant Issued

Bench Warrant Served

Bench Warrant Other

Detained

Released

Bail Status

Reinstated

Same

Charge

Withdrawn

Met Bail Yes

No

New Bail

Money Bail

Personal Recognizance

Personal Bond

Conditions

Work Release

Other

Third Party Custody

Supervised Release

Dollar Amount

Penalty Enforced

Yes

No

93
Table 5 (continued)

)ETENTION SUMMARY

3 detention periods

2 detention periods

1 detention period

leason for Release

Bail net

Case Disposed

leason for 2nd and subsequent

detentions

Offense

Violation

Withdrawal

JAIL AGENCY DATA

File available

No record

File missing

interviewed

Refused interview

/ashington Area Resident

Yes

No

.ength of Residence

; amily Ties in Washington

Yes

No

,ives with Spouse

Yes

No

,ives alone

jives with

Parents

Relatives

Friend Opposite Sex

Friend Same Sex

larried

Civil

Common Lav; No

Jtatus with Spouse

Together

Living Separately

Separated

Divorced

Length of Marriage Data

Support Wife

Yes

No

Number of Children

0-5 years

o - 10 years

11-15 years

16 - 21 years

Support Children

Yes

No

Children by Spouse

Children by Friend

Children live with

Mother

Father

Parents

Grandparents

Other

Presently Employed

Presently Unemployed

Length of Employment Data

Salary ($ per week)

- 30

31 - 60

61 - 90

91 - 125

over 125

Type of Work

White Collar

Blue Collar

Skilled

Unskilled

Previous Employment

White Collar

Blue Collar

Laborer

No Prior

Skilled

Unskilled

Student Now

Yes

No

94
Table 5 (continued)

Highest Grade Completed

1

-

3

- 4

- 5

- 6

- 7

- 8

- 9

- 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - On Drugs Now

Yes

No

Ever on Drugs

Yes

No

Alcoholic

Yes

No

Ever Hospitalized Mental

Yes

No

Ever on Probation - Yes

Ever on Parole - Yes

Ever on Conditional Release - Yes

Never on any of above items

Probation, Parole or Conditional

Release Revoked

Yes

No

Why

New Offense

Other

Now on Probation

Yes

No

Prior Bond Release

Yes

No

Show

Yes

No

Now on Bond Release

Yes

No

Felony

Misdemeanor

Criminal Record

Yes

No

Verification

Address - Yes

No

Employment - Yes

No

Previous Address - Yes

No

Previous Employment - Yes

No

Time in Washington Area - Yes

No

No Verification

95
Here are some ideas on the different ways in which such data may be used,

most of which were not relevant for the present study.

The first set of detailed outputs are factual in nature; based on

the sample cases containing sufficient information, they are designed

to indicate the extent of crimes allegedly committed while on pre-trial

release. This set is based on the initial charge for which an individual

is brought before the court system. The initial charge is converted

into a basic FBI category, noting at the same time whether this is a feic v (F) or a misdemeanor (M) . Then the alleged commission of crimes

by persons on bail from each class of crime is noted, and these new

alleged crimes are again converted into basic FBI categories and noted

as whether the charge is a felony or a misdemeanor. This

approximates work done by others in this field (e.g., Reference 89).

A summary of this tabular format is given in Table 6. In this table, the

four categories in the second level of consolidation are the primary

outputs. Each block in the> matrix can be subdivided to yield more detail,

e. g. , by FBI category consolidation plus a separation into felonies and

misdemeanors. This is illustrated in Table 7 for the first block E(l)x(l)]

in the matrix.

The next basic information might be a cross -classification (as before)

against those alleged offenses committed while on bail for which convictions

have been obtained. This gives more information than has been presented

to date in other sources, and refers to those crimes identified by the

Criminal Justice System for which actual judgments of guilty were obtained.

Tables similar to 6 and 7 could be prepared for convictions only. From

the data on rearrests for criminal activity while on pre-trial release,

an estimate can be made of the probabilities that a person, released on

bail on a charge of a given type, will be convicted for a crime of each

particular type. Each such estimate can be accompanied by a statement

about the confidence with which the true probability can be assumed to

agree, within a given tolerance, with the estimate. The reader is reminded

that such a "true" probability must be interpreted appropriately, since

commission of crime does not invariably lead to conviction, while

conversely, conviction is not absolutely certain to correspond to guilt.

96
Table 6

Matrix of Number of Persons Allegedly Committing Crimes While on Pre -Trial

Release vs. Primary Charge for Which on Pre-Trial Release

Primary

Original

Charge

Number

of Indiv.

Persons allegedly committing crimes while

on bail, by FBI class

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Totals

j CD

|

(l)x(l) (l)x(2) (Dx(3) (1M4)

! (2) (2)x(l) (2)x(2)

(3)

! (4) (4)x(3)

Totals

Here the second level of consolidation is used:

(1) Crimes against Person: 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

(2) Crimes against Property: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26.

(3) Morals Decency Crimes: 35, 36, 37, 39, and 40.

(4) Public Order Crimes: 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53.

(5) Other crimes.

97
FBI

Category

(1) Crimes

Against

Person

lable 7.

Detailed Data Breakdown for Block (1) x (1) of the Matrix

in Table 6

(1) Persons charged with committing crime while on pre-trial release.

Primary

Original

Number

of

(1) Crimes against pe rson

SubCharge Indiv.

N

r

09 10 11 12 13 14 Totals

F M F M F M F M F M F M F M

F

09

M

F

10

M

F

11

M

F

12

M

F

13

M •

F

14

M

Sub F

Totals M

Total F+M

98
The above tabulations furnish information on crimes allegedly committed

while on bail, according to the categories (classes) of the primary charge

for which a person is before the court system. These are 40 in number

(22 FBI subcategories for felonies and 18 for misdemeanors) . One could

consider further refinement based on some other criteria (e.g., the nature

and number of multiple charges) , or could adopt an entirely different

classification scheme. The first choice would lead to a large number of

classes; for the present it seems prudent instead to restrict the refinement

of classification to a point at which reliable inference from our present

data base remains a reasonable goal. With an enlarged data base, one might consider other types of categories based on criminal, economic,

educational or other background characteristics of the defendant.

Information on detention and the length of time on pre-trial release in the

justice system could be presented.

Somewhat different compilations are required for two mutually

exclusive groups of people: (1) those who do not make bail at any time

prior to trial and (2) those who are released on bail at some time. Those

in the first group do not have a chance to become recidivists (except

within the institution). For this group, we suggest maintaining information

according to primary charge and bail condition on:

a. Total number with a given charge and bail condition.

b. Number detained (by charge and bail condition).

c. Average days detained (by charge and bail condition).

d. Minimum days detained (by charge and bail condition)

e. Maximum days detained (by charge and bail condition).

fMedian days detained (by charge and bail condition)

g. Number detained who are convicted (by charge and bail condition)

h. Percent detained who are convicted (by charge and bail condition)

Similar information for the group on pre-trial release can be presented for

each of several time intervals:

a. Between arrest and presentment.

b. Between presentment and meeting of bail.

c. Between meeting of bail and trial.

d. Between trial and release (those found not guilty)

e. Between trial and sentence (for those found guilty).

Tables 8 and 9 present representative data formats.

99
H

SiO

•H

V.

8>3

+-> coo

03

o$Co

CD PmO

PS^OIAUOO

pauxBq.ap #

paq.oxAUoo

pSUfB^.

-ap 'on

sjtep

iiexpaw

ai • w a

to cd cd S « P

<u Q <D Po u o

•H !-» CD4-I 4-> w - n 3 CD CD TJdl/l

J3 cd O (h 4-1 cd O CD

a> <4-i n3 u --^ O "d o

CH 0)

0) .H P^O

•hn Xp .Cj 0) 4-» ^

•» to 4j (^ V) <D

<D

O

CD <D p. -H ^ > m * o c >

co

a o (J

s-. +-> P, CD

a

•H

COo

-3

tn

in

CDoo

4-1 H3O

•H^

CD

P-,oHPc

CD P V • CQ C

•H 05 CD S O •+>

(U o

•d

0) 0) WJ c

01 CO vH h >» CO

a) aJ P > Q cd < M

CQ T3

>> cd

cd c pPc

CD

CO

CDU

ftU

CD P

Vi

CO pauxB^ap %

pauxe^ap 'Ofl aSxeqo qq.xA

jaqnmxt Tg^-ox,

•puoo -[peg PA

P-.

O En S o S

ONo t

-p-§ JO. o

c\j r-f cu 1pop

CQ

men

1Q0
rH8

60Uau

"A

h

<\

id •^ So

<u p CO fcS. a) <u O d s O P "H H B SH 5°o "a LA

•p +> t- o

71 Eh !»

aj en *«. •d O o

LP.

a <p H 60

a)

<D -P

H >A

aa -h u\

*h a> oi pj Bum

trBipsM

•raw qq.TA 'on

sjtea 'xbh

•axjj qq.XA 'oh

sa'bci "UTW

sjCbq sS^asAV

SjCbci TB^ej S U P '-« S ta •p S rH C td

cu Tj. o

^^

O ^ o CO

<u

mH

PL,

do O

r> -H o\

•H rH -P 1) S Ph o H >J3 a s> I 9 P -H O O tH rOO

COHAO

CO

dH o 1 H ON

Sh 0\

0) Ph

O

CD o\ S^- H CO H *S CO a t< H ^ O

VO

rn--~

<u o H

-2

n CO § —B o

CO1 o

iT^a

uo emiao jo

paq.ofAuoo 'ok

•puoo if^a

a

K

m

a « pq S Ph PL, O S PL, PL, o

In c <t> ai -H bO pr. s

•H -H CC) ONO

0\o

PhOO

0)

CD

-pH

1-1

CD" Ph

a) r° co §

CD' .—

§

si +5 % CD a ja o +>

CJ oi

raj -p -P H r"

<> ci

II 10 U7 w H CDO

CU -rt Ti S o H ci) H rH rH k O rU

(I) 01 Ph 13 -P

«) (\i ta H H •iH <H fl H O H

101
Table 9 also provides the . fundamental data needed to establish a recidivist rate. This rate can be defined as the number of persons

rearrested for a crime while on bail (or convicted of a second crime

as shown in the Table) per unit time on pre-trial release.

This rate may be expressed as the probability of rearrest (conviction)

per day of pre-trial release or, as we have used it later in the report,

the probability of rearrest per 1,000 days of pre-trial release. Such

a rate simplifies comparisons of recidivism for different time periods,

different criminal charges, different personal characteristics, etc.

102
The Interpretation and Use of Data

Tabular data presented in studies such as this are often given significande far beyond that warrante.4 sjimgily because •they give the impression

of certainty and exactitude ("hard figures") . This mantle of credibility

can then be transferred to conclusions which appear to follow convincingly

from the data, though in fact the chain of inference 'proves weak when

subjected to scrutiny*

The data in this report (and all other reports in this subject area)

relate to topics which are both highly important and highly emotion- laden- -- crime, justice, human rights, possible changes in long-standing traditions.

Both deep personal conviction and/or commitment to some previously assumed

stance on the issues under debate can easily bias the compass of logic so

that the data seem to point toward support of one's preconceived notions.

Yet statistical data—unless handled with care, skill, and above all,

objectivity —may appear to "prove" things which are not at all true, or

at least not really establishable from the evidence at hand. Statistics

can be used as a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, rather than for

light

We therefore feel obliged to caution the reader about certain common

pitfalls in the interpretation and use of data such as those presented

here. The data (and subsequent additions to them) are of course of

practical interest mainly for the sake of the conclusions which can be

inferred and the decisions which can be made with their aid. Any such

use of the data, however, probably will receive and properly should

receive critical examination by those of different opinion, so that an awareness of frequent fallacies in data analysis can serve to avoid

embarrassment as well as one's own possible initial biases.

Uncertainty can enter into the deliberations in two ways. First, we may have collected but a limited portion of data, a sample, which we

wish to use to represent all the data in a given future population. Uncertainty

in this sense relates to the suitability of the sample for this purpose.

In practice, statistical theory has developed specific rules for the

103
development of random samples; samples wherein each element in the

population has an equal and independent likelihood of being selected.

The sample used in this report is not truly random in this sense. However, the sample may be considered to be almost equivalent to a random one as regards statistical uncertainty, for reasons which will

be indicated in Chapter VI 1 1, where the composition of the sample is

described in detail.

The second and somewhat similar aspect of uncertainty concerns

the relevance of past or present data to the prediction of future

events. For instance, we may have a body of data that includes all

of a given population, e.g., the data in Reference 89 on all indicted

felonies in 1968. Or, we may have only a sample of these data, and have

established rules for relating this sample to the total population

(for the same time period.) In either event, when we use these data to

arrive at a prediction about future events, our statements must be

guided by statistical methodology plus an assumption of stability of

correlations into the future.

The following paragraphs briefly describe some of the common misuses

statistics, in order that the reader may have a better idea of the

questions which should be considered before drawing conclusions from

the data. (See Reference 115 for more detail.)

Shifting Definitions . Data collected over a given time period reflect

interpretations of circumstances and of the law by prosecutors and

judges during the period. In using these data for predicting future

events, we must objectively address the question of whether or not the

definitions will change, and if so, how this change might affect the

data. For example, the definition of capital offense has changed over

the years, with many crimes being removed from that category.

Inaccurate Measurement or Classification of Cases . Although accuracy in

recording data as they appear in the records was of great concern in

104
assembling the data in this report, one must still be concerned about

the effect that potential inaccuracies may have on the conclusions drawn

and- decisions made. For example, the original sample still contains a classification "Possession of the Implements of Crime" (063), which in

imost cases refers to the syringes, etc., involved in a narcotics offense.

jOn occasion, however, this classification is applied to the possession of

burglary tools. These ambiguities could usually be resolved by referring

to the narrative data in the files, but perfect correctness cannot be assured.

Method of Selecting Cases . One should consider how the four weeks

selected for the sample (not truly randomly) might affect general statements about the total population. The way in which this selection was made

(see p. 120) may affect predictions of future events. Also, since the sample

was selected from the first half of the year, generalizations to the entire

year may be open to question. For example, there may be a preponderance

of high temperatures or rain in a given week which may unduly affect the

generalizations

Inappropriate Comparisons . Typical of this misuse is the base reference

used in expressing percentages. The denominators of ratios used for quoting

percentages are often unclear or inappropriate for expressing the relationship desired, or may be too small to allow for comparisons. For instance,

the percent of recidivists must be based upon the number of people free to

commit crime, not upon the total population arrested, many of whom may be

incarcerated and thereby restricted from committing crime. In addition, pretrial release status may change over time from presentment to disposition

of the case. This consideration gave rise to the concept of man- days of

exposure discussed in Chapter VIII.

Shifting Composition of Groups . Groups of people were categorized based

upon the interpretation of the laws by the judges and the interpretation of

the judges' actions by prosecutors in 1968. If we are to use these data for

prediction, we must consider whether such interpretations have changed or will

change, thereby changing the set of people falling into each, category.

For example, the composition of the group of narcotics offenders may change

if the laws related to marihuana change in the near future.

105
Misuse Due to Misinterpretation of Association or Correlation. This kind

of misuse is really a special case of inappropriate comparisons. It

exemplifies the familiar but often ignored fact, that correlation or

association does not necessarily indicate causation. For example,

although the number of clergymen per unit population may increase in our

large cities at the same proportion as the increase in crime per unit

population, it does not follow that the former is the cause of the latter.

Disregard of Dispersion. Comparisons based upon one sample must be

considered in light of that sample's imperfections as representative of

the total population. Likewise, deviations from average or "most likely"

values must be taken into account when predicting future events even if a total population sample is available. Such deviations are properly expressed

as a range within which we are confident that the true value we are seeking

lies. These confidence limits, based upon a range of values and associated

probabilities, directly relate to the sample size and the size of the

data base.

Technical Errors. Occasionally, the methods used in calculations are simply incorrect. The flaws may range from the employment of improper

equations at one extreme to inaccurate addition at the other. We have been

particularly attentive to avoid such errors. The Nature of the System. This study is drawn from actual court records,

not a controlled experimental situation. This fact places certain constraints

on the use of the data. Ideally, to estimate the true probability of bail

recidivism, for example, would require a sample in which every person eligible

for bail would actually be released. However, in the real world, bail is set

with some consideration of the likelihood of recidivism. Therefore,

people who should ideally be in the sample are not able to meet the conditions

for release. Although one might surmise that defendants who do not make

bail would (if freed) haue a higher recidivism rate than these released Cand in oui

sample), there is no way, given the current data base, to test this

hypothesis.

1Q6
Misleading Statements

Results can often be phrased so as to mislead

the user. It is not sufficient to draw conclusions from the truth and

nothing but the truth; we must consider the whole truth. Statements

relating to only portions of the data may be very misleading.

In presenting this list of caveats , we do not mean to leave

an impression that timorousness in reaching conclusions i§ the only

"sound" position. Practical decisions and conclusions must typically

be arrived at without the sort of "proof" of correctness which would

render them substantially immune from objection by a fair-minded

opponent. What we have sought to convey is a better appreciation

of what kinds and degrees of backing such data as ours would or would

not supply to such decisions, and of what additional steps might

enhance their ability to provide support. We do suggest that the

drawing of specific inferences (even "obvious -looking" ones) from these

data be reviewed by a professional statistician before any formal

position -taking ensues.

Measures of Dangerousness

For a person to be considered as "dangerous" to society while on

pre-trial release, there should be at least some non-zero probability

that the person will commit a crime while free. This probability, by

itself, could be taken as a measure of the dangerousness of an individual,

i.e., the higher the probability of committing a crime while free, the

greater is the individual's "dangerousness" to the community at large.

However, this probability does not take into consideration the seriousness of the potential new crime. Society, over a long period of time,

may be thought to reflect in its system of legal penalties the degrees

of seriousness it ascribes to different crimes. The examination of

penalties clearly reveals that some categories of crime are to be regarded

as much more serious than others. Thus, a measure of dangerousness

should involve a weighted combination of the probabilities of committing

107
each of various categories of crime, the weights reflecting the relative

seriousness of the crimes in each category.

If our classification scheme —-'involved M types of crime, and S. is a

measure of the seriousness of g crime of the i-th type, then a possible

measure of the potential dangerousness D of an individual could be

represented in a general way by: w

D = s

i p

i + S

2p2 + ••• Vm"J. Si

P

i 1=1

where P. is the probability that the individual will commit a crime of

type i during some typical or average time on release.

The probability that an individual will commit a "type i" crime when on

release can in principle be estimated from data such as those in this

report. Unfortunately, the data collected are not a sufficiently large

sample for significant meaning to be attributed to the results, and we

do not have data on commissions of crimes, but only^ on arrests and

convictions. All that can be done at this time is to illustrate the

application of this formulation. Appendix D describes the formulation

of the probability representation in somewhat more detail.

The early literature is replete with consideration of the seriousness

or severity of crime (well documented in Reference 100) . One method

used in a delinquency index was developed in the 1920 's by W. W. Clark

1/ A further development of this concept would, of course, have to

treat the possible commission of more than one crime by a released

defendant

108
It was an attempt to utilize public opinion in assessing the seriousness

of delinquent acts. One hundred forty-eight cards, each containing a description of an offense, were submitted to 100 judges, university

professors, students, and persons engaged in social and educational

activities. Each person separated the cards into ten stacks ranging from most

to least serious based on his opinion of the harmfulness of the act's

consequences to society and to individual victims. Each offense received as a "score" the average of the different ratings it received. The offenses

were then combined into 14 legal categories,: and the average score

for each category was found. (An individual's "delinquency index" could

also be found by adding the score values for each of his known offenses.)

Typical scores, based on this procedure, were as follows:

Offense Score Value

(1

(2

(3

(4

(5

(6

(7

(8

(9

(10

(11

(12

(13

(14

68

45

44

39

36

33

32

30

27

21

20

18

16

10

Murder

Highway robbery

Arson

Burglary

Forgery

Immorality

Assault

Larceny

Stealing

Drunkenness

Incorrigibility

Malicious mischief

Vagrancy

Truancy

Clark's method was criticized by M. A. Durea in the 1930 's. Durea

felt that Clark's method did not adequately reflect the relative differences

in seriousness of the 14 crime categories. Therefore, Durea arranged the

14 classes into ill possible pairs (91) and asked raters to select the more

serious of each pair. He found, as he had suspected, that the "seriousness

distance" (quantified difference) between any two crimes adjacer#rjgi-;the

ordered ranking varied throughout the list of crime categories surveyed.

Another method for determining the seriousness of classes of crime

was developed by De Castro in the 1930 's. Seriousness, in this case, was

related to the maximum penalty which could be imposed for each crime

109
according to the Italian penal code. The individual crimes were

placed in one of five classes, and the maximum penalties for crimes

in each class were averaged. The author regarded this method as a theoretical model only, feeling that a working index should be based

on sentences actually imposed.

Still another method for measuring the seriousness of an individual

crime (as opposed to seriousness of a type of criminal act) , has been

proposed by Wolfgang and Sellin. This method is based on assessing

a number of elements of the crime. Score values are assigned for

each element: whether there is an actual victim, whether force was

used and how much, the amount of property loss, the kind or amount

of injury to a victim, etc. This method of assessing seriousness

of crime presupposes that the legal classification system is too

insensitive to important considerations -- that one burglary is not

"as serious" as any other burglary.

In arriving at numerical values for the "seriousness" weights,

S-, in our formulation, there appears to be no better choice than to

use a measure of sentences imposed for various legal crime classes

However, the additional considerations noted above (re the Wolfgang

Sellin method) immediately reappear: one would ideally like the

classification of crimes into "types" to have the property that all

"type i" crimes really are nearly equal in "seriousness" and so can

have a single numerical S. ascribed to them. To accomplish this, each

crime category could be broken into even finer detail (e.g., robbery

could be subdivided into robbery of a business armed with a gun,

other weapon or strongarmed, robbery in the street, robbery in a

residence, and purse- snatching) . The Uniform Offense Classification,

Draft Four (Reference 58) proposed by the FBI, or some modification

of it, could be used as the basis for classification. From the data,

then, the average value of S for each subcategory could be determined

by averaging the sentences received for offenses in that category. An

additional multiplier factor to account for acquittals , suspended

sentences, etc., would also have to be developed.

110
The "measurement of dangerousness" is obviously a very difficult

matter, both conceptually and practically. The type of approach just

described appears reasonable and feasible, though many problems would

have to be resolved before it could be made operational. But it is not

the only alternative.

Another approach to establishing a dangerousness index would

depend upon use of expert opinion in a structured interview program

built around the Delphi technique (Reference 124) , ih which each

expert's opinion is made known anonymously to the other experts

and a new vote is taken until the individual opinions, adopted knowing

the ideas and reasoning of fellow experts, stabilize. This approach

could yield values for the S. , but its application would still require

values for the probabilities (P.) of crime commission.

Still other approaches are inherently contained in legislative

proposals currently being considered. For instance, the administration's

proposal to amend the Bail Reform Act of 1966 (Reference 112) defines

dangerous persons as those accused of:

1. Taking or attempting to take property from another

by force or threat of force.

2. Unlawful breaking and entering or attempting to break

and enter any premises adapted for overnight accommodation of

persons or for carrying on business, with intent to commit an offense therein.

3. Arson or attempted arson of any premises adapted for

overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business.

4. Rape, carnal knowledge of a female under age of sixteen,

assault with intent to commit either of the foregoing offenses,

or taking or attempting to take immoral, improper, or indecent

liberties with a child under the age of sixteen years.

5. Unlawful sale or distribution of a narcotic or depressant

or stimulant drug, as defined by any Act of Congress and if the

offense is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.

Such definitions, based upon experience and knowledge of officials

in the Criminal Justice System, may well be necessary in lieu of more

precise statistical formulations, because of the limited data currently

available upon which to base these formulations.

Ill
Analytical Concepts

The preceding sections have reviewed some of the more obvious

ways of using the data. This section will deal with somewhat more

speculative ways of combining data and developing models for even

broader application.

An Economic Model . It may be desirable in the future to build an economic model to examine the consequences of different assumptions about

the uncertainties, and of alternate criminal justice system procedures.

As an example of such a model, suppose we have a dangerousness

measure or "score" (x) normalized to a value ranging from to 1

such that we know or can estimate a function

p(x) = the probability of recidivism by a person with

some score x, if given pre-trial release.

If we let

f (x) = a probability density function for the distribution

of scores over defendants,

C, = unit "cost" associated with commission of a crime

by a releasee > C = unit "cost" associated with not releasing a person

who would not have committed a crime while released, and

t = the decision variable: the cut-off point, or threshold

score for pre-trial release decision.

It is reasonable that t should be chosen to minimize the expected

cost function

,t 1

C(t) = CjJ p(x) f (x) dx + CnT f

[l-p(x)] f(x)dx.

It follows (apart from some technical qualifications) that the optimal

value of t, t*,.can be determined numerically from the solution of

p(t) f (t) = Se

c, + c k nr

Of course, C, and C are not really "known" but since only their ratio

really matters,one can begin to obtain a quantitative feeling for the

trade-offs involved.

112
Instead of Ck

p(x), one might prefer to use a function

C, (x) = expected unit cost (weighted by seriousness)

of crime (if any) commieted while on release

by a person with score x. Then the function to be minimized by proper choice of t becomes,

t 1 C(t) = / C^ (x) f (x) dx + Cnr f

[l-p(x)] f(x)dx.

Models for Time to Re- arrest . The time that an individual spends on pretrial release, without committing a crime, might be regarded as analogous to the time that an equipment functions without "failing,"

duH iig the period from its installation to its scheduled inspection or

replacement. Thus it may be possible to utilize the methods of failure

analysis in investigating the probability of re-arrest of a releasee

during his release period.

The idea of failure analysis (or statistical theory of reliability)

might be employed somewhat as follows: If f(t) is the probability density

function of time-to- failure, and F(t) is the corresponding cumulative

distribution function, then R(t) = 1-F(tl is the so-called reliability

function and is the probability of surviving (not committing crime) up to

time t. Given that an individual of given type has not "failed" to

time t, the conditional probability of failure before time t + At (normalized

by dividing by At) is a function of t called the hazard function. In

many applications to equipment, the hazard function is essentially

constant (say, X), and this implies an exponential failure distribution

and hence a reliability function

R(t) = 1 - e~ At

.

From a study of the times to failure for members of different classes, one could develop estimates of the "reliability" as a function of time.

Another version of this approach involves investigating whether

the often- employed and mathematically simple "Poisson process" is useful

in exploring some of the variables in the time relationship. Suppose,

113
for example, that there is a probability M of apprehension for a crime

(perhaps M = 1600 — 5600 or some other first guess)— and that

people commit crimes as a Poisson process with parameter A. One can then explore the distribution of times to re- arrest in terms of A (the mean and variance in the Poisson distribution) and M to test

whether different subpopulations have different \'s.

Similarly, one could aim at a model dealing not with preventive

detention, but rather with how best to schedule cases to reduce danger

from releasees.

The mathematical formulations presented above are among the simpler

ones which have proven valuable in apparently analogous fields; they

may well require specialized refinement for full applicability in the

present setting, but provide natural "first steps" in such analytical

efforts

Other Models . A variety of other models could be conceived to broaden

our understanding of problems in pre-trial release, and to point to

possible improvements or solutions.

a. Multiple correlations. In the Summary Data Chapter (VTTI)

,

we have analyzed personal characteristics to see if any one

characteristic would be particularly appropriate for use

in dangerousness prediction. This could be extended to

combinations of characteristics, using the technique of

multivariate linear regression. A preliminary step involves

statistical analysis to determine, among the many

defendant -characteristics which might be considered, a set

which can be considered independent of one another. (For

example, income and extent-of- education might prove far from

independent, and so should not separately enter such a set.)

— Average monthly charges in first half of 1968 divided by average

offenses reported.

114
The main step is to find a subset of these independent

characteristics, preferably fairly small in number,

such that available data indicate the probability of

recidivism to be closely approximated as a simple

mathematical function of the characteristics in that

subset. There can be a great many possible subsets

to be tested, but regression analysis includes methods

for considering these in an orderly sequence, and for

stopping at an appropriate point,

b. Discriminant analysis. This is a statistical technique

aimed explicitly at classifying individual entities into

one of a number of jointly exhaustive and mutually

exclusive categories (here, recidivist and non- recidivist)

The classification scheme is chosen to minimize an average

over-all "cost" of misclassification, based on the "costs"

for each possible type of misclassification (the C, and

C of p. 112 are examples of such costs). This scheme

is based on certain attributes (e. g., perhaps age, previous

criminal record, etc.) used to characterize the individuals;

as for multivariate linear regression, determining a "good"

set of attributes for the purpose of such classification

constitutes a major part of the analysis effort.

In addition to these two specific analytical concepts, one can conceive of: (1) queuing models to analyze court case loads as an aid

in evaluating steps to reduce court processing time, (2) decision analysis

to approximate implicit average judges' decision criteria for bail setting

and findings of guilt or innocence in criminal cases, and (3) PERT and

CPM techniques for scheduling trials and the appearances of witnesses.

115
CHAPTER VIII

Summary Data and Illustrative Analyses

Data were collected on all of the 712 people who entered the

Criminal Justice System of the District of Columbia during four weeks

in the first half of 1968. Provisions were made for assembling the

data collected into approximately 500 categories. About 50,000 pieces

of information (on 8000 keypunch cards) are recorded and available for

analysis. In this Chapter, we present tabulations and plots of some

of the more significant characteristics.

Each incident in which each individual is involved presents almost

a unique combination of data in the various categories. Some cases are very complex and difficult to represent, even with the many descriptors

available. Other cases are straightforward and simple to tabulate. A

typical or average case cannot be assembled for analysis, but we can

and do tabulate typical and average characteristics in many of the data

categories. Only criminal cases, both felony and misdemeanor, were

examined (U.S. cases in D. C).

Definitions . Throughout this chapter, we shall use the following definitions:

Incidentan occurrence of an action or a situation that is a separate unit of experience; an alleged crime including actions

leading up to and following that crime.

Defendant

an individual, against whom criminal charges are brought.

Recidivist: used here in its very broadest sense to include anyone

in our sample re-arrested while on pre-trial release in another

criminal case.

116
Case: an incident which resulted in a given criminal charge or set

of charges against a defendant; including all actions in the

Criminal Justice System directly related to the initial charge (s).

A data form is completed for each case. Referrals, reindictments,

etc., associated with the same incident, but which specify new

charges, are each different cases and a data form is completed

for each.

Master File: the computerized data file which contains all cases resulting from an initial charge or set of charges for a given

incident. There are 714 master cases. Basic File: that computerized data file which contains all master

cases plus all referrals and reindictment cases. There are 781 of

these

Post File: that computerized data file which contains all cases which resulted from incidents which occurred when defendants

were on pre-trial release. There are 62 post cases. Pre -File: that computerized data file which contains all cases which originated before the master cases and for which the

defendant was on bail at the time of the incident which resulted

in the master case. There are 66 pre-cases.

The Sample: We began the study by inspecting the crime profile in

the District of Columbia for the first half of 1968. The District

of Columbia was chosen because: (1) the processing of criminal

cases was all under a single Federally operated court system;

117
(2) the Bail Reform Act of 1966 had been fully implemented in

this jurisdiction; and (3) its records were more convenient

and accessible to the study team. The first half of 1968 was

used because (1) it was the latest time period for which the

vast majority of cases had been concluded; and (2) we wanted to

obtain a seasonal time spread.

The profile for the first half of 1968 is shown in Figure 2. The

graph at the top of the figure presents the monthly distribution of

various pertinent characteristics. Approximate monthly averages are:

Total criminal offenses reported

Arrests for criminal offenses

Criminal charges -D.C. Court of General Sessions (CGS)

Defendants - CGS

Felony Charges - CGS

Felony indictments

5600 1

1700 1

16002

975 2

4752

150 2

1 Based on records of the D.C. Police Department (Reference 5)

2 Based on counts by our data collectors.

Approximate weekly averages in the D.C. Court of General Sessions a

Criminal charges = 370

Defendants = 225

Felony Charges = 110

The first problem that we faced was that of developing a data form.

We chose the first week in 1968 to work with for that purpose, and prepared

a narrative description of each of this week's cases, listing the items

thought to be of interest. After several sequences of revisions, the form

was consolidated to aid construction of a computerized file, and all data

for the first week were converted to this form.

1

118
Figure 2 CRIME PROFILE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Monthly

Ave

Month

119
The three additional weeks shown on the figure were chosen to

complete the sample. These weeks were chosen so as to avoid the severe April and late June peaks apparent in the graph. The peaks were

judged to be atypical for our purposes, rather than random fluctuations

of unusual size in "normal" activity rates, because (a) they involved

the "April Riots" and the closing of Resurrection City, respectively,

and (b) no other peak of comparable size occurred.- The weeks were

selected to give a variation over different time periods of the month.

Thus, week 1 was at the beginning of a month, week 3 was at the end

of a month, and weeks 2 and 4 were mid -month. Specifically, the sample

weeks were as follows:

Week 1 - December 31 - January 6

Week 2 - February 11 - February 17

Week 3 - May 26 - June 1

Week 4 - June 9 - June 15

Four average weeks of defendants in the Court of General Sessions

would provide a list of 900 names. The four weeks in the sample provided

735 names, or only about 82 percent of the average. To these names must

be added names of defendants who first appeared before the Magistrate

or were originals before the Grand Jury. We began the investigation

of these four weeks with a total of 910 names. Careful analysis of

each individual case revealed that many of these cases had actually

entered the court system during a time period earlier than the sample

week. They appeared again in the sample weeks because of referrals,

reindictments, or as Grand Jury originals which had already begun in

the system. (A detailed discussion of the problems leading to double

counting is presented in Chapter V.) A thorough investigation of all

cases provided a master file with 714 cases and a basic file of 781

cases, which we feel was only about 82 percent of what would have

been the corresponding average number for four weeks.

120
Basic Characteristics of the Data

Summary data are compiled in Table 10. Although there were 714

cases, there were only 712 individuals, since 2 defendants were involved

in second incidents in a different time period while still in pre-trial

release for a prior case. In all, there were 13 people who figured in

the sample twice, but since 11 of them had their initial cases disposed

of before they entered the sample a second time (i.e., they were not

recidivists) they were counted as separate defendants. Data in the

lower portion of Table 10 explain the shrinkage to 426 defendants as the basis for calculating recidivism.

In obtaining a numerical measure of recidivism, two possible

methods were considered. With 712 defendants in the sample and 426 free on pre-trial release, we observed that 47 of the latter were arrested

for subsequent offenses at least once, and 10 of these were arrested

twice. I_f recidivism is mainly an inherent characteristic of a defendant,

then counts involving defendants only are appropriate in measuring

recidivism. But, if recidivism is more a characteristic of the situation

in which a defendant finds himself (no job, etc.) then perhaps recidivism

should be determined by counting cases. For our sample, the comparison

follows

Number of

Arrests in

iMaster Sample

Number of

Releases

Subsequent Arrests

95 Percent

Confidence

Number Percent Interval

712 Defendants 426 Defendants 47 Defendants 11.0 8 - 14

714 Cases 428 Cases 57 Cases 13.3 10 - 16.6

121
Table 10

Summary Data

Basic Data

1. Total Master Cases in the Sample 714

2. Total People in the Sample 712

3. Number of Defendants on Pre-trial Release With

Data Sufficient for Analysis^ 426

4. Number of People Arrested While on Pre-trial

Release for the Sample Case 47

5. Percent Rearrested and Formally Charged 11.0

Other Data Features

6. Number of Cases No Papered and Not Reaching

Presentment 58

7.

3 Number of Defendants Formally Charged 654

8. Cases "Nolled" or Otherwise Dismissed

at Presentment 22

9. Number of Defendants in Jail \^ho Were Never

Released 176

10. Number of Defendants in Jail Presumed Never

Released, but Without Full Record 11

11. Cases Where Data Were Not Sufficient to

Permit Analysis 19

A master case contains a completed form for each incident

individual

involving an

2 Obtained by subtracting the sum of lines 6, 8, 9, 10, and

line 2.

11 from

3 Obtained by substracting line 6 from line 2.

122
The sample may be treated as approximately a random sample for

calculation of confidence limits (p. 121). In actuality, it differs

from a completely random one in two respects which have opposite effects

on calculation of precision or confidence limits: (1) on the one hand,

the selection of cases was deliberately made within 4 specified months

,

and with an eye to achieving variation in time -of-month. This, for

example, excludes wild possibilities such as all the 712 people falling

within the same month, which could occur under a completely random

selection; (2) on the other hand, within each month, the cases were

selected in a cluster, rather than being randomly scattered throughout

the month; cases within the same week are not necessarily "independent

observations," but may tend to be more like each other than cases selected at random would be. Since the extent to which these two

effects offset each other is unknown, the best that can be done is to assume that the net effect is relatively small, and therefore that no

great error is incurred by calculating precision confidence limits as if the sample were completely random.

Confidence limits on the probability of recidivism, based

on a sample of n , are given approximately by

p-2 /p(l-p)/n. For example, the limits on the rearrest rate p=ll percent

(=0.11) can be approximated by 0.11 - 2 JIT. 11(1-0. llj/426 = .11 - .034 =

8% to 14%. This means that we can make the statement "the (unknown)

recidivism probability is between 8 and 14 percent" with a high degree of

-confidence. That is, if the true probability being estimated does not lie

between the limits, then a quite unlikely event (probability at most 5%)

would have occurred; it is conventional to reject this possibility, as too implausible.

123
Unless otherwise stated, the discussion which follows will relate

to the number of defendants.

The detailed characteristics of the data bank allowed us to explore

various ways of classifying defendants to see if any seemed especially

useful in predicting recidivism. The three classifications of offenses

used were as follows

Felony - Misdemeanor

Violent - Non-violent

Dangerous - Non- dangerous

The felony-misdemeanor separation is very typical of analyses of this

type; a felony is defined as -an offense punishable by confinement for

more than one year. The other categories, violent and dangerous, are subsets of the felony category, and are defined explicitly in the

proposed preventive detention legislation (Reference 112) . A finer

breakdown than this did not appear appropriate because of the limited

sample size.

The proposed legislation allows the prosecutor to ask the court

for a preliminary hearing to detain either a person charged with a dangerous crime , or any person charged with a crime of violence, if that

person is already on pre-trial release, pre-sentence or pre-appeal release,

or on probation or parole for another crime of violence, or if that

person has been convicted of a crime of violence within the past ten

years

The "dangerous" category, described briefly on page 85, includes

the following Court of General Sessions charges:

124
Robbery. - 905, 915, 975

Burglary - 952, 987, 988

Arson - 903, 904

Rape - 906, 919, 954, 972

Narcotics - 923, 930, 921, 932

This method of counting is the only one convenient to the data,

but it results in a count higher (by no more than 10 percent, we

estimate) than that by the criteria indicated in the bill, because the

latter (1) are not intended to include pick-pocket defendants under

robbery; (2) would cover only robberies with attendant use of force;

and (3) would consider burglary and arson only if occurring on premises

used as a dwelling or a business.

Crimes of violence include all the dangerous offenses plus the

following

Homicide - 965, 966

Kidnapping - 956

Assault with Dangerous Weapon - 911, 912, 913

914, 964

We did not apply the further tests (in the bill) of whether the defendants

were on release or whether they had been convicted of a crime of violence

in the preceding ten years, and so there is some overcounting in this

category also.

125
Criminal Charges in the Sample. The number and types of charges in the

sample vary according to the place in the Criminal Justice System at

which they are counted. The police define the initial charges, the

prosecutor can initiate changes in the charges, the court may deliberate

on only a few of the charges, etc. Some defendants, of course, have more

than one charge against them for a given incident. A comparison of the

numbers of charges in the various locations for the 714 master cases

follow:

Charges at:

Police

Action!/

Prosecution

Screening!/

Presentment or

Prelim. Hearing

No. of Cases Where Data

are Available

Percent Cases With Only

One Charge

Percent Cases With Two

Charges

Percent Cases With Three

Charges

Percent Cases With Four

Charges or more

Total Number of Charges

Recorded

573

80

16

3

1

712

579

54

27

10

9

1019

623

75

18

5

2

885

1/ This includes charges which were "no papered."

The existence of multiple charges makes it very difficult to compare

cases. For example, one person was charged with a robbery felony, an assault felony and a weapon offense misdemeanor. One could create a category

of these three charnges in which to classify this defendant, but the likelihood of any more defendants with just these three charges is very small..

In order to simplify and clarify the analysis, we chose to categorize

each set of multiple charges by its most serious offense. In the example

above, the charge would simply be listed as a robbery felony.

126
With the guidance of References 87 and 100, we ranked the charges

and counted only the most serious one for each incident at presentment

or preliminary hearing. Reference 87, The President's Commission on

Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice Task Force Report,

Science and Technology (p. 56), presents a "disutility" index for eight

classes of charges. Reference 100, Sellin and Wolfgang, The Measurement

of Delinquincy , ranks crime charges on the basis of interviews with a variety of people. These latter data, assembled during the 1930' s, may

not necessarily represent today's feelings, but did provide guidance for

some classes not included in the tabulation of disutility. Table 11

presents the ranking arrived at and the frequency with which each appeared

in the data as "most serious charge." The description of each charge

identified is as shown in Table 4 on pages 86-89. All felonies were

ranked more serious than misdemeanors, except that "unspecified felonies"

were not ranked. The number of charges in each charge class is

presented in Table 11.

Release Conditions. The relative frequencies of various release

conditions for each of the three different breakdowns of defendants are assembled below, with each defendant categorized by the most serious

charge against him. For conditions at presentment or initial hearing

(first bail setting) the sample data showed the following distribution.

Type of

Charge Total

Money Bail

Personal

Bond

Personal

Recog

Other or Unknown

No. % of Total No. a. No. % No. %

Felony

Misdemeanor

217

437

113

239

52

55

22

5

10

1

49

149

23

34

33

44

15

10

Total 654 352 54 27 4 198 31 77 11

127
Table XI.

Distribution of Most Serious Charges in Master File

1 Felonies

L

Misdemeanors

Number in Number in

Rank Charge Sample Rank Charge Sample

1 Homicide!/ 13 17 Homicide 5

2 Sexual Assault (Rape] 4 18 Dangerous Drugs 28

3 Robbery- 40 19 Burglary 47

4 Dangerous Drugs 18 20 Assault 94

5 Arson 4 21 Larceny 124

6 Burglary 34 22 Extortion 2

7 Assault 38 23 Weapons Offense 39

8 Larceny 6 24 Fraud 9

9 Sex Offense 7 25 Stolen Vehicle 15

10 Forgery 15 26 Stolen Property 11

11 Weapons Offense 3 27 Commercial Sex 21

12 Stolen Vehicle 19 28 Flight -Escape 11

13 Embezzlement 3 29 Gambling 18

14 Stolen Property 30 Disturb Public Peace 12

(Receiving) 1 31 Miscellaneous 1

15 Abortion 1 Total Misdemeanors 437

16 Gambling 5

Unspecified Felonies 6

Total Felonies 2lf

Grand Total 654-/

-i^For specific Criminal Code charges for each category, see Table 4 on pages 86-8

Of the total of 712 defendants, 58 were "no papered" or otherwise not defined

at presentment, leaving 654 charges actually processed.

128
Bail was set for a total of 654 defendants, 58 of the 712 being no-papered

or otherwise disposed of before presentment. Of the 654, clear records

were available for only 577. —' Money bail was used the majority of the

time. In this sample, there was more of a tendency to use personal bond

for felonies than for misdemeanors, and just the opposite in the use of

personal recognizance. The percentage obtaining money bond was about

the same for felonies and misdemeanors.

The variations shown in Part a of Table 12 indicate that money bond

was used more often for the more select felonies - violent and dangerous

charges. The proportion of money bond conditions went from 52% for the

felony category to 56% for the violent crime category to 60% for the

dangerous crime category. The comparison of total number of charges by

category shows that violent charges account in our sample for about

74% of all felonies, and dangerous charges account for 48%.

A comparison of release conditions at initial bail setting with

release conditions actually occurring is also shown in Table 12. Of

the 654 defendants for whom bail was set, 426 of these defendants are known to have been released, and out of these we have the breakdown

for 391 actual release conditions shown under Part b of Table 12. The

percentage of felonies in the initial bail settings and the percentage

in the group actually released are both about the same - 33%. However,

a significant difference in type of release conditions for the felony

cases was noted (top of p. 131)5

—' I.e., the sum of lines 9, 11, and 12 in Table 10,

129
Table 12.

Pre -Trial Release Conditions Summary

a. At Presentment or Preliminary Hearing

Type of PreTrial Release Felony Misdem.

Type of Charge

Violent Non V. Dangerous Non D

Total

Money Bond

Personal Bond

Personal

Recognizance

Unknown

217

113(52%)

22(10%)

49(23%)

33(15%)

437

239(55%)

5( 1%)

149(35%)

44(10%)

156

86(56%)

16(10%)

31(19%)

23(15%)

498

266(53%)

11( 2%)

167(34%)

54(11%)

105

63(60%)

9( 9%)

16(15%)

17(16%)

549

289(53%)

18( 3%)

182(33%)

60(11%)

b. Under which Actually Released V

Total 2/

Money Bond

Personal Bond

Personal

Recognizance

Unknown

126

33(26%)

23(18%1

68(54%)

2( 2%)

265

108(41%)

5( 2%)

151(51%)

1( 0%)

86

23(27%)

17(20%)

45(52%)

K 2%)

305

118(39%)

11( 3%)

174(57%)

2( 1%)

52

13(25%)

11(21%)

27(52%)

K i%)

339

128(38%)

17( 5%)

192(56%)

2( 1%)

1/ Bail assumed to be same as at presentment if release occurred less than

~" 5 days after presentment. If more than 5 days had elapsed, the actual

entry was used.

2/ Total adds to 391. Seventeen defendants on bail twice for same incident. —

A total of 418 bail periods analyzed; data records

were not sufficient for 27.

130
Conditions

Money

Bond

Personal

Bond

Personal

Recognizance Unknown

Initial —/

Actual —

113(52%)

33(26%)

22(10%)

23(18%)

49(23%)

68(54%)

33(15%)

2(2%) — Percent of felony conditions at presentment (217)

—2/ Percent of felons released (126)

Although actual changes from one type .of bail to another have not

been extracted from the data at this time, we are convinced that most

of the indicated changes from money bail to personal recognizance are real, occurring during bail review, and are not due to the 33 unknown

conditions suddenly showing up as known personal recongizance conditions,

The violent and dangerous charge categories for those defendants

actually released showed a lower percentage of felonies than in the

initial release conditions.

Percent of Initial Felony Charges

95% Confidence Interval

Percent of Released Felony Charges

95% Confidence Interval

Violent Dangerous

74% 48%

68-80% 41-55%

72% 46%

64-80% 37-55%

Rearrest Charges. Of the 426 defendants known to have been released, we

found that 47 (11.0%) were subsequently re-arrested at least once while on pre-trial release and 10 were rearrested twice. This percentage, 11.0,

is an underestimate of the crime on bail rate for a number of reasons.

a) Court Data Limitations. As described in Chapter V, the

problems of finding names in alphabetic indices throughout the

131
court system make \t difficult to detect all of the re-arrest

cases. Because of the extent of the record we collected,

including police and Bail Agency data, we are confident that

what we recorded were truly re- arrests of the same defendant.

We may not have obtained all possiblere-arrests because of the

above problems, even with extensive help from the police

records; however, we do not feel that our estimate of the re- arrest

rate could be in error by more than one percent due to this

problem,

b) Charges in other Jurisdictions. FBI Crime Career Data have

been obtained for about 40 percent of the defendants included

in the sample, but these data are too limited to determine

the time sequence of events connected with each case. Specifically,

there are no pre-trial release data available. Then, too, the

records include only felonies and serious misdemeanors (where

the definition of serious misdemeanors tends to vary from one jurisdiction to another) . Finally, there is a lag in updating

the Crime Career Records, and the latest updating varies for

each defendant. Over and above these problems, it would be

necessary to visit each jurisdiction noted in the Crime

Career Record to complete a data Form in order to take full

advantage of these data.

A brief review of the Crime Career Records we do have,

however, seems to indicate that a third or less of the offenses

in the Record occur in geographic jurisdictions other than the

primary location.

If we assume, for example, that 30 percent more re -arrests

would be identified were we able to follow our data collection

procedures throughout the country, this would bring the estimated

recidivist rate up from 11.0 to 14.3 percent.

132
c) Number of Arrests versus Offenses Committed. We note from

Figure 2 that an average of 5600 criminal . offenses were

reported each month, but only 1700 arrests were made. If

we assume that there is one charge for each offense reported

(involving a low bias, because we know that police often

identify more than one charge per defendant, but also an offsetting high bias, because there is often more than one defendant per offense and a defendant can commit several offenses

in a given time period) , we would have a crime clearance rate—

of 30 percent. This would mean that no arrests were made in

70 percent of the cases. If such offenders are assumed present

among the recidivist and non- recidivist releasees in proportion

to the sizes of these classes in our sample, then the actual

recidivist rate for pre-trial releasees would be much greater - near 37 percent. One might argue, however, that since a recidivist has been identified to police at some time in the

past, he is more likely to be arrested for a further offense

than is someone from the general population. Of course,

these assumptions are subject to question, and this paragraph

is designed to illustrate the kinds of considerations involved,

not positively to identify actual values.

The foregoing discussion makes it evident that large numbers of

crimes might be committed by persons on release, yet not be attributed

to these persons because arrests are never made.

— A clearance relates an arrest to a given crime (s) , so the clearance

rate indicates how many arrests have been made in proportion to crimes

reported.

133
The data showing most serious charge at re-arrest versus charge

at presentment or initial hearing are shown in Table 13. Felonies have been

broken into 13 categories and misdemeanors into an additional 8. It is

apparent that no clear pattern exists in the sample data, except that a large number of larceny re- arrests after an initial larceny charge was noted.

A summary comparison of recidivists who were re- arrested after the

sample cases, by the categories established above, reads as follows:

Initial

Charge

Persons

in

Sample

No.l/

Persons

Released

ChargeFelony Misdemeanor

No Paper,

Unknown Total

Felony ,, Conf. IntervalMisdemeanor , J Conf. Interval217

437

147(68%)

61-75%

279(64%)

59-69%

11(7%)

3-11%

4(1%)

10(7%)

3-11%

18(6%)

3-9%

4(3%)

0(0%)

25(17*1

11-23'

22(8%)+

5-11%*

Total 654 426^ 15(3%) 28(7%) 4(1%) 47(11%

1 1/ Confidence Interval of 95% was used. Interval is associated with

percentage in parentheses above.

2/ Total for which we have data.

3/ % of total persons in sample is shown in parentheses.

4~/ % of persons released is shown in parentheses.

Data in the above tabulation are sufficient to conclude that:

a. Th&- re-arrest rate for defendants on felony charges is much higher

than that for misdemeanants -- quite iikel) twice as high.

b. Re- airest for the more serious charges is strongly associated with

defendants initially charged with a felony. Thus, a recidivist on an initial

felony charge is just about as likely to be charged again for a felony as for a misdemeanor, while recidivism by initial misdemeanants involved

a felony in only about 1/4 of such instances. (This conclusion must be

tempered by considering the associated confidence intervals.)

134
imoi (N) Jb mjoj^" <3 I—1 t-" c I

Hs c to K r-j d

= o ^

UMOID[Un t—

r- rH to

(/) h

o

03E

T3

V) H

s

•*^o :t< rH rH C-: rH <?7:VO

suocteQjvi *0< O 1—

rH uo1q.joq.x3 '61 O

r-*> — o

auooj-bt *81 — (XI

,-t- C7^ AiBiSjcng vi r-i i—

!>3 linessy '9i iH r-i

1 i . rH pq Stuq 'Sirea "si CM r-1 LO r

s

r>3 rH 00 OpTOTUIOH "frl o (V »

</) M

7)

0)H

rHoi

i 0)

Auojaj j;ai{q.o-£-| I—

z l N 5i

•qoA uoxo^s '2i 1

rH . rsi -r^r- SUOdBOjYl '11 "? o o

AJL93JC0J '01 rH

- rH osuojjO X9S *e 1 r

O c

Auooj^q

g

o to

o

rH

0)

runessy 7 CM CM fNl AiBx^jtng *c . I" rH 1—

uosxy *s 1 L_ O e> sSruci 't 1 o o

Aioqqoy '£ rH tO rH —

T-. tf3 q-iriBSsy xos •£

>•—>l . , o o

opioxuiOH "i!

1 d o rH rH y L auiBS.

UT S3.lIBpU3J9a Tj" o co

rH

^r <*

to CO

tO \& k:

rH

to' 2~*-*\ s rH LO* OO

fNl rr-, CN] to

oo-

,, .

jo JL9qmr\M rsj rH vO

s

rH

03

4-> O

Oi H

t/l +-> cx -Q H c v—

3 n

+J

CO

[/J CO 7)

l—l2

rH <S) 3 •H 3

a &

<D a3 — a H - Q 0;

i/5 V) 4H J= C MH —. rH

5h 7) 3

t/2 -

OS

'" >

rH 3 n n

t/l H

03 Pi

bfl 13H .—1 b h i—l £ 4-1 & c c

Hh

r-l -H o

5-<

-I1 rH g•H e S O

i—I 5-i H u 03 1 1) P rH 3

'-- r; o ': :- o t; - H d^ 5-i o rH d o3 H

3

-C =a G w o3 U w a rH o3^ Ofl Eti w t. O Q. 0. PJ r£ 7) £ ~ — 7] r-< 7) H >< 5-t ej - £

t. 5-1 5i P ( 1 ~

"d» Q O U Cu H 3 3

03 O *-) 4-1 o ^

3 r- £

0) +J H HE CO tf p < — _1 w LH & w c 6 X Q CC ._T 12 O

5h O rH rH <NJ to <* LO \0 t>- oo Ol O rH !^J to t/i ^ LD o c^. CO rr> O rH

^-a. II -, , Ph —

<—

rH rt

:gjrH rH r-i rH rH rH Csl CM 135
These data also tend to indicate that defendants (in the sample)

who were charged with felonies and released were re- arrested more often

on both felony and misdemeanor charges than were defendants charged

with misdemeanors.

A similar tabulation for persons charged initially with violent

and with dangerous offenses follows:

Initial

Persons

in PersonsRe-arrest Charges JJ

No. UnCharge Sample Released Violent Non-V known Total

Violent 156 106(68%) 5(5%) 11(10%) 2(2%) 18(17!

Confidence Interval-!/ 1-9% 5-15% 10-24!

Non-violent 498 320(64%) 4(1%) 23(7%) 2(1%) 29(9%.

Confidence Interval

-,- 4-10% 6-12%

i)angerous N-D

Dangerous 105

i 68(65%) 4(6%) 11(16%) 2(3%) 17(25'

Confidence Interval—

0-12% 7-25% 15-35'

Non-dangerous 549 358(65%) 4(1%) 24(7%) 2(1%) 30(8%;

Confidence Interval4-10% 4-12%"

1/ Confidence Interval of 95% was used. Interval is associated with

percentage in parentheses above.

2/ % of persons, in sample shown in parentheses.. —• % of persons released shown in parentheses.

The data above strongly suggest that the "dangerous" criterion is

the best predictor — of re- arrest among the three criteria (felony, violent,

dangerous) ; the evidence seems sufficient to conclude that those in the

dangerous category can be expected to produce a much higher recidivism rate

—n— But not necessarily a good predictor.

136
about 3 to 4 times as high as for those in the non-dangerous category.

Personal Characteristics, in the tabulations and discussions which

follow, we consider various personal characteristics (e.g., age, schooljngl

for the various categories of defandants. For each personal

characteristic, two tabulations are presented. The first tabulation

relates the characteristics to all the people in the sample and compares

the results for persons released and those not released. It may reflect

in some way factors associated with current release decisions. The

second tabulation relates the characteristics to all the people released

and compares persons re- arrested with those not re-arrested. No attempt

has been made at multiple correlation of the characteristics. Complete

data from the Bail Agency records were not available for some of the

personal characteristics. However, a summary of data available

follows

a. Age of Defendants.

Category

Persons

in

Sample

Persons

Released

Persons—

Not

Released

Available

Data in

Sample

Median

Age

—,——— " ' First

and Third 7/

Quartiles

Felonies 217

217

126

91

80

55

26

23

20

20

37

32

Misdemeanors 437

437

265

172

208

137

26

30

20

22

35

37

Violent 156

156

86

70

57

43

25

24

20

20

32

32

Non-violent 498

498

305

193

231

149

26

29

20

21

36

36

Dangerous 105

105

52

53

28

32

21

22

19

19

25

31

Non-dangerous 549

549

339

210

260

160

26

30

20

22

37

37 — Includes p data were — Age of pe]

respective

approprial

lersons in

insuffici

'son such

;ly. Use

:e when me

jail and p ent to pern

that 1/4 ar of quartile

dian -is use

>ersons whos

lit analysis

id 3/4 of pe

;s as measui

e cases wei

:rsons. in sj e of varial

re "nolle:

mrple arc :ion in c

jd" or

; young

.ata is

where

er,

137
The median age of defendants charged with dangerous crimes seems

to be slightly lower than for felony defendants and for those charged

with violent crimes. In addition, releasees in non-serious categories

(misdemeanors, non-violent, and non- dangerous) appear to be younger

than non- releasees.

For defendants released, the median ages of defendants charged with

serious crimes and misdemeanors are as follows:

Category

Persons

Released

in Sample

Persons —

Re- arrested

Persons not , 1/ Re-arrestedAvailableData in

Sample

Median

Age

First

and Thirc

Quartiles

Felonies 126

126

17

109

7

73

38

25

25

20

Misdemeanors 265

265

18

247

13

195

22

26

20

20

13 3rr

Pe 4

3+-

Violent 86

86

14

72

7

50

38

24

25

20

Dangerous 52

52

12

40

5

23

38

21

25

19

fi 1/ Socio -Economic data were available for only the number of persons indicated

this column. Total of 35 is less than all re-arrested persons (47) because

"unknowns" in the data files.

ii_

a : _

k From the above two tabulations on defendant's ages, it is evident that

those initially charged with felonies or dangerous or violent crimes, were

younger than those charged with misdemeanors, non-dangerous or non-violent

crimes, respectively. However, for those who had initially been charged with

the more serious crimes, the recidivists were older than the non-recidivists.

A possible explanation for this is the fact that those defendants in the misdeme

138
non-dangerous and non-violent categories, who were not released prior

to trial, were considerably older (by about 4 years) than those who

were released. (Possibly a siphoning out process took place.)

The above relationship between age and recidivism is intensified

if the crimes of robbery are removed from the above analysis. (See

section concerning robberies.) That is because defendants on robbery

charges are younger, but the recidivists among them are also younger

than for the totality of recidivists from the more serious crime

categories

b. Education . In the same manner, a comparison of educational attainment

can be structured. The summary table follows:

17

(Category

Persons

in

Sample

Persons

Released

Person

not

Released

Available

Data in

Sample

Mean Years

Schooling

Standard

Deviation £/

<elonies 217

217

126

91

87

57

10.2

10.1

2.47

1.88

.Misdemeanors 437

437

265

172

173

124

10.3

11.3

2.75

4.82

Violent 156

156

86

70

62

•49

10.0

10.2

2.45

1.93

Non-violent 498

498

305

193

231

132

10.4

9.9

2.58

2.38

Dangerous 105

105

52

53

35

36

10.4

10.1

1.84

1.78

Non-dangerous 549

549

339

210

225

145

10.3

10.0

2.55

2.16 — Includes persons in jail and persons whose cases were "nolled" or where

data were insufficient to permit analysis.

2/ Standard deviation is applicable as measure of variations when mean is. used.

The mean Coverage) grade level is around 10 years of schooling. It

might be desirable to consider specific schools attended, in view- of

their differences in quality. However, data to analyze this particular

factor are not available in the Court System at this time.

139
The variation for defendants who were re-arrested follows:

CategoryPersons

Released

in Sample

Persons —

Re- arrested

Persons Not

Re- aires ted

Available

Data in

Sample

Mean

Years

Schooling

Standard

Deviatio

Felonies 126

126

17

109

13

74

9.5

10.4

1.90

2.20

Misdemeanors 265

265

18

247

17

156

10.1

10.4

1.64

2.54

J Violent 86

86

14

72

11

51

9.3

10.1

1.56

2.51

Dangerous 52

52

12

40

9

26

9.9

10.6

1.10

1.86 —/ Total (34

data file

) is less than all re- arrested persons

•

(47) because of "uriknows" in

There does not appear to be any significant relationship between

average length of schooling and seriousness of crimes (initial cases)

,

yet the data show a tendency for release of the more educated - - except

for the violent crime and misdemeanor categories. Also, there is a slight indication that less schooling is associated with the higher

recidivism rate. However, the differences in schooling levels exhibited

by aggregated data appear to be too small for this factor to serve as a useful predictor of recidivism. The size of the standard deviations

indicates large individual variation within the groups. This, coupled

with the closeness of the means to each other, indicates that the two

groups of each pair are not distinguishable by level of schooling.

Therefore, attempting to predict the behavior of any one individual would

be exceedingly difficult. Either further analysis of individual defendants

or a larger sample would be needed if more definitive conclusions are sought.

140
Community Ties. A tabulation indicating the length of time that

typical defendant lived in the District of Columbia follows:

I

the

1 Category

Persons

In

Sample

Persons

Released

Persons—

Not

Released

Available

Data in

Sample

Median

Years in

Community

First

and Third

Quartiles

Felonies 217

217

126

91

75

61

19

18

77

22

27

Misdemeanors 437

437

265

172

150

113

17

15

6

5

22

23

: Violent 156

156

86

70

53

54

. 19

18

8

7

22

17

Non-Violent 498

498

305

193

172

120

18

15

6

5

11

23

Dangerous 105

105

52

53

30

41

18

15

9

5

.21 23

Non-dangerous 549

549

339

210

195

133

18

15

6

6

23

24

Includes persons in jail and persons whose cases were "nolled

where data were insufficient to permit analysis.

11 or

Most of the defendants have long-established community ties. Only about

10 percent have lived in the community a year or less.

141
A comparison of rearrested defendants with Hon- re -arrested

releasees follows

Category

Persons

Released

In Sample

Persons—

Re- arres teo

Persons Not

Re-arres ted

Available

Data In

Sample

Median

Years in

Community

First

and Third

Quartiles

Felonies 126

126

17

109

10

65

19

19

9

6

25

22

Misdemeanors 265

265

18

247

13

137

20

15

14

5

21

22

Violent 86

86

14

72

8

45

21

18

8

6

25

21

Dangerous 52

52

12

40

6

24

14

18

8

10

24

21 —' Total (35) is less than all re- arrested persons (47) because of

"unknowns" in the data file.

The above data do not show a consistent trend. When interpreting

these data, one must also be aware of the associated fact that the

recidivists (except for defendants on robbery charges) were older than

the non- recidivists. Because of the small sample sizes, these data

must be interpreted with great care.

142
Employment. Following the pattern set by previous comparisons , we

show the responses of those defendants interviewed by the bail agency

to the question of whether they were employed. The tabulation follows:

Category

Persons

in

Sample

Persons

Released

Persons not

Released^/

Available

Data in

Sample

Percent—'

Employed

Felonies 217 126 90 59

217 91 67 58

Misdemeanors 437 265 184 59

437 172 132 50

Violent 156 86 63 60

156. 70 58 59

slon -Violent 498 | 305 211 63

498 193 141 50

Dangerous 105 52

1 46 33

1 105 53 45 58

Non-Dangerous 549 339 238 61

549 210 154 51 —• Includes persons in jail and perso

or where data were insufficient to —2/ Percent of all Data in Sample.

ns whose cases were nollied

permit analysis,

The low rate of employment among the releasees charged with a dangerous

crime is striking. It is equally important to note that these figures

indicate only whether the interviewed defendant claimed to be employed;

not how long or how regularly.

143
The breakdown for re-arrested and non- re- arrested defendants follows:

Category

Persons

Released

in Sample

Persons 1/

Re-arrested

Persons Not

Re -arrested

Available

Data in

Sample

Percent —

Employed

Felonies 126

126

17

109

14

76

21

66

Misdemeanors 265

265

18

297

17

167

41

61

Violent 86

86

14

72

12

51

25

69

Dangerous 52

52

12

40

10

26

20

50

_1/ Total (35) is less than all re-arrested persons (47) because of "unknowns'"

in data file. —2/ Percent of Data in Sample.

This tabulation very vividly relates employment to recidivism. Although

the sample of re-arrested persons is very small, these data indicate that

employment may indeed be a useful predictor of recidivism.

144
Skill or Trade. On the Bail Agency forms, each defendant is asked

to identify his skill or trade as white collar, blue collar 01• laborer.

These data were often not supplied. However, our data file shows the

following comparison:

Category

Persons

in

Sample

Persons

Released

Persons '^Available

not \( j Data in

Released ! Sample

Skill

WC BC L

Felonies 217 126 ! 48 11 20 17

217 91 37 10 8 19

Misdemeanor 437 265 | 94 20 28 46

j 437 172 57 17 16 24

Violent 156 86

J 34 8 16 10

i 156 70 32 8 6 18

Non -Violent 498 305 108 23 32 53

498 193 62 19 18 25

Dangerous 105 52 15 3 5 7

105 53 24 6 3 15

T*U. •%-'.».OiK Non-Dangerous 549 339 127 28 43 56

549 210 70 21 21 28

1/ Includes persons in jail and persons whose cases were "nolled" or where data were insufficient to permit analysis.

Because of sparse data, no definite conclusions are possible.

145
These data, shown for re-arrested defendants, follow

Category

Persons

Released

in JSaraple

Persons —

Re -arrested

Persons

not

Re- aires ted_j

Available

Data in

Sample

Skill

WC BC L

Felony 126

126

17

109

3 12

45 10 18

7 13

87 19 25

17

3

43

Misdemeanors 265

265

18

247

Violent 86

86

14

72

3

31

1

7

2

14

1

4

10

7

Dangerous 52

52

12

40

2

13

1

2

1/ Total (35) is less than all re --arrested persons (47) because of

"unknowns" in the data file.

Again, the available data are so sparse that it is difficult to draw any

conclusions from these figures

146
Family Ties . In this category, we have tried to identify how close each

defendant's family ties are. We have done this by specifying whether he lives

with his family (parents or relatives) or not. The data tabulations

follow:

Category

Persons

in

Sample

Persons

Released

Persons

Not-7

Released

Available

Data in

Sample

Percent p.

Living —

with Family

Felonies

Misdemeanors

Violent

Non -Violent

Dangerous

Non -Dangerous

217

217

126

91

64

52

437

437

265

172

142

117

156

156

86

70

43

46

498

498

305

193

163

123

105

105

52

549

549

339

53

210

30

38

176

131

61

56

66

54

58

55

66

54

~63~

55

65

54 — Includes persons in jail and persons whose cases were "nolled" or where data were insufficient to permit analysis. — Percent of data in sample.

147
A breakdown by re-arrested and non-re- arrested defendants follows.

Category

Persons

Released

in Sample

J,/

Persons

Re -arrested

Persons not

Re- arrested

Available

Data in

Sample

2

Percent Living-;

with Family

Felony 126 17 11 72

126 109 53 59

t _ Misdemeanor 265 18 15 67

265 247 127 66

Violent 86 14 9 67

86 72 34 56

Dangerous 52 12 9 67

52 40

i 1

21 62

1/ Total (35) is less than all re- arrested persons (47) because of "unknowns"

data file.

2/ — Percent of Data in Sample.

in

The above two tabulations do not reveal any real relation between

family ties and the recidivism rate. However, there is an indication

that if a defendant is living with his family, he is more likely

(but not much more) to receive pre-trial release.

148
Previous Record . Defendants are asked by Bail Agency interviewers whether

they have a prior criminal record or not . The accuracy of defendants

responses to this question was alluded to in the previous chapter when

they were compared, for a few selected cases , with pre-sentence reports

A more detailed comparison is contained in the last section (on robberies)

of this Chapter. It appears to give a reasonable indication of the

actual situation. Data for the various categories are as follows:

Category

Persons

in

Sample

Persons

Released

1/

Personsnot

Released

Available

Data in

Sample

2/ Percent —

Prior Record

Felony 217 126 76 34

217 91 58 52

Misdemeanor 437 265 66 30

437 172 41 41

Violent 156 86 52 33

156 70 48 48

Non -Violent 498 305 78 30

498 193 44 43

Dangerous 105 52 31 36

105 53 37 46

Non Dangerous 549 339 94 33

549 210 49 43 —1/ Includes persons in jail and persons whose cases were "nolled" or where data were insufficient to permit analysis. —2/

• Percent of the data iri the sample.

149
As might be anticipated, a lower percentage of the defendants who were released

had prior records. A breakdown of released defendants, relating this factor

with re-arrest, follows!

Category

Persons

Released

in Sample

Persons

Re- arrested

J/

Persons not

Re- arrested

Available

Data in

Sample

Percent

Prior Record

Felony 126

126

17

109

11

65

45

32

Misdemeanor 265

265

18

247

4

62

25

31

Violent 86

86

14

72

9

43

55

28

Dangerous 52

52

12

40

8

23

50

31 —' Total (35) is less than all re- arrested persons (47) because of

2/ "unknowns" in data, file. —' Percent of data in sample.

The available sample data are too few to establish any relationship between

prior record and recidivism rate - - if one does exist.

150
Summary. Differences in personal characteristics vary in their usefulness

and significance. With the exception of employment, there do not appear to

be any outstanding predictors, but further analysis and correlation may

reveal better predictive performance by suitable combinations of them.

These characteristics are of interest in themselves, because they

give a picture of the arrested community. The profile of our sample

population follows:

Median age (of 480 arrestees:

first quartile = 20; third quartile = 36) (p. 137) 26.5

Mean educational level (grade completed:

N=441; standard deviation = 3.34) (p. 139) 10.22

Median years residence in the community

(N=401; first quartile = 6; third

quartile = 23) (p. 141) 18

Percent employed (p. 143) 56%

Skill (from 236 defendants of possible 654,

percent of 236 for which we have data .J (p. 145)

While collar defendants

Blue collar defendants

Laborer defendants

251

301

45%

Family ties (percent living with parents or

relatives, p. 147)

601

Percent with previous record (p. 149). 38%

These summary values may be useful when comparing the sample with other

populations, and in defining a comparable "non-arrested" population for

a more complete analysis of predictors.

151
Recidivist Index

Previous sections have discussed the relationship between the

number of persons released and the number of those re-arrested. The

ratio of these two was defined as Recidivism Rate . Rates were

developed for the entire sample population and for sub -populations

classed as misdemeanants, felons, allegedly violent or dangerous.

Our sample data showed that a higher rate occurred for those classified

as dangerous than for those in other categories

These rate determinations do not account for the possibility that

different groups differ in the average length of their periods of

release, thereby providing unequal opportunities for further offenses,

re- arrests, and charges.

The analysis of this section is directed toward examining the data

base to determine whether the persons in the sample exhibit different

propensities to be re- arrested when classified by type of originally

charged crime; and further, whether this propensity varies over time with

the length of the release period.

As a measure of propensity, we define a Recidivist Index as the

number of persons arrested per 1,000 man-days of release for the category

and time period under consideration.

First, to indicate the differences encountered in release periods,

the table below lists the durations of the first release periods for

various percentages of persons in the indicated categories.

Days or Release - Initial Release Period90% on release at least

Sample

20 days

Mis.

21 days

Fel.

14 days

Violent

14 days

Dangerous

13 days

75% on release at least 32 days 30 days 41 days 35 days 35 days

50% on release at least 54 days 42 days 105 days 105 days 111 days

251 on release at least 144 days 95 days 246 days 199 days 256 days

10% on release at least 256 days 176 days 371 days 321 days 347 days

2/ Number in category —

Number having 2 release

periods

401

17

268

7

135

10

96

7

60

3 — These days on release are counted from day of release, which in some cases occurs later than day of presentment.

2/ — These are the total in each category, including hand counting of cases involving release periods of more than 391 days.

152
The last line of the table shows the small percentage of persons

having split release periods. Disregarding the second period, the table

shows the longer periods. of release that are encountered in the more

serious cases. Thus^ seeking individual indices for the several categories

is a reasonable step toward providing a clearer insight into the mechanism

of recidivism.

There are two events that were suggested as potential keys to

understanding the rearrest and charging of those on release. These events

were original entry into the system (presentment, etc.), and disposition

(trial)

The release periods were therefore defined relative to these two

events. The variation in the number of persons on release with the number

of days after the first event is depicted graphically in Figures 3 and 4.

The rise that occurs over the first few days after presentment

(Figure 3), when considering the total sample and misdemeanants, is

explained by delays in initial release due to the time necessary for raising

money bond. Observe the relatively quicker decay of the curve for

misdemeanants and the relative persistence of the number of felons on

release over long periods of time.

These general patterns were similar for each of the weeks of the

sample. Normalized comparisons of the four weeks and the entire sample

are shown in Figure 5. It is observed that some difference is encountered;

for instance, note week number 1 during the period of 40 to 100 days. But

153
rO o

tooooOOOoOOooo o o fNI -*

ro fM V

V)aS - k 09

<B M-r <H pf

C r-l

O Vh -h

O <D a, ^ in cd • ©as

to o s-<

m 0)

<4-l 4-> rH Z (D' 2C o g cu . +j *j

CO -H

C M4.-g • Ml) 5-. <U <C" © £

<D

C E-h > S -H

XI t) I -H Kl;Prl g MH <D O >s C a> 3 a> ^h as <u s-f- Z Q PL, CO Q Wft. ooo

154
Bc

0)

</) CD e-o+J

ca

i/v co ooc o o o «=JCfl <u e o fi ra CO <D m o O km

J-i Xi rH

U <D

Q) fl <D •J 60 0) Jh g "4-1 S CH3 3 cd & 3 <u C O 2 Q O 2

155
Figure 4

VARIATION IN ..NUMBER ON PRE-TRIAL

RELEASE AND" PRB-APPEAL RELEASE

WITH TIME BEFORE AND AFTER TRIAL

Note: Upper Curve

Lower Curve

ALL DEFENDANTS

Misdemean ants

400

360 Number of Defendants

on Pre-Trial Release

A Given Number of days

.^20 Hpforev or Ai"T.er their

280 -

Trial

240

200 -

/' f

Ififi

j? . M

170

80

40

"~i

^^"**"

100 80 60 40 20

Days Before Trial t

20 40 60 80 100

Days After Trial

Date of Trial

156
Figure 4A

jfARIATIQN IN. NUMBER. ON PPE-TRIAL- RELEASE AND PSEAPPEAL RELEASE WITH TIME BEFORE AND AFTER TRIAL - FELONIES

120

100

Number of

Defendants on

Release g0

NOTE:

Change of

Scale frouL

100 50

Days Before Trial

t

Date

of

Trial

50 100

Days after Trial

Note - 1 Curves are for Felons

2 Curves aTe foT Violent

3 Curves are for Dangerous

157
- :B::Hfi I

AVG:^HAI: : VSI13H i •:o;Si\*VCWH43fl: .dQ |H3^!HfiN: : JM^fe^^fefe:^^ 1
the overall patterns are similar. Analysis of the divergence of week

No. 1, cited above, has not been undertaken as of this writing.

One possible explanation is a heavier proportion of misdemeanants

in that week.

Figures 3 and 3A further confirm the extended time periods

for which felons are on release as compared with misdemeanants.

The sharp discontinuity of the curves is, of course, occasioned

by changes in release status at trial. Release may terminate

because the defendant is absolved of the charges, or his release

may be revoked when he is found guilty.

The date of the alleged commission of the most serious crime

by persons on release was referred to the same two events in the

criminal justice cycle of the base case of the defendant.

If the sample were sufficiently large, calculation of an index

for each day (first, second, etc.) would be possible. The sample

here does not permit such determinations, and grouping is necessary.

Twenty-eight-day periods and 140-day periods were selected as "pigeon holes" for grouping to achieve greater reliability for the

indices. A period divisible by 7 was chosen to avoid a biasing

of the data based on differentiation of days in a week.

The indices for incidents "timed" relative to presentment are displayed in Table 14, and those relative to trial in Table 15.

The tables are arranged to: first, give indices for each

category by 2 8- day periods as well as 140 -day periods (derived from

aggregating the small periods) ; and second, to give an overall

average index for each category.

159
Tabje 14.

GROUPED INDICES

28 Re-arrests per 1.0QO days of Exposure y -Day Release Periods Referenced To Presentment —

MisdePeriod Sample meanants Felons Violent Dangerous

Presentment

1 1.139 1.326 0.696 1.025 1.813

2 1.025 1.412 0.388 0.570 0.962

3 0.786 0.729 0.853 0.626 0.962

4 1.688 1.040 2.250 3.320 5.107

5 1.139 1.371 0.974 0.754

6 0.648 1.060 0.841 1.218

7 0.436 0.677

8 1.816 4.175 0.853 1.264 1.842

9 0.684 0.927 1.317 1.901

10

1-5 1.129 1.224 0.994 1.229 1.781

6-10 0.728 0.648 0.765 0.697 1.005

Over 10 1.300 1.064 1.350 2.431 2.694

Overall 1.062 1.133 0.997 1.274 1.718

—' Although there might appear to be significant differences between some of

these indices, the reader must be cautioned that they are based on only

a very small number of arrests. (See Table 16.)

160
Table 15.

GROUPED INDEX

Re-arrests per 1,000 days of Exposure

28-Day Release Periods Referenced TO Trial Date

MisdePeriod

1

Sample meanants Felons Violent Dangerous

* *

2

ft *

3

* * 1.721 2.506 3.663

4

* ft

5

* * 1.918 1.866 2.782

6 1.260 1.474 1.101 1.651 2.436

7 1.061 2.053 2.302 3.597

8 0.872 0.812 0.941 1.366 2.145

9 0.625 0.518 0.790 0.564 0.918

10 1.11 1.471 0.327 0.469

Trial

11 1.571 0.878 2.594 3.854 2.849

12

13 2.000 5.587

14 3.509 5.076 8.849 17.544

15 11.90 12.821 32.787 62.500

1-5 * ft 0.845 0.989 1.459

6-10 0.972 0.982 0.958 1.142 1.614

11-15 1.756 1.018 2.475 3.870 4.878

Overall 1.062 1.133 0.997 1.274 1.718

* Not calculated

161
Caution must be observed in interpreting the tables because of

the small numbers encountered in some cells of the matrix. —• The

time on release (exposure) and the numbers of persons rearrested

and charged are tabulated in Tables 16 and 18.

Certain patterns are visible in tables of the indices with

respect to presentment.

1. The overall average index for those classified as dangerous

is substantially higher than for any other category.

2. The overall average index for felons compared to misdemeanants

is slightly lower but not significantly different.

3. A consistent time- index pattern of a decrease from the

first 140-day period to the second, and an increase for those

remaining on release for longer than 280 days, is noted.

Certain patterns are observed in tables of the indices with

respect to trial date:

1. The consistent increase in index for successive 140-day

periods is noted. In particular, the rather substantial increase,

except for misdemeanants, between the 140-day periods preceding

and following the trial, is noted.

2. In the pre-trial period for dangerous defendants, the consistently high index for periods 5-8, is noted.

3. The decrease in index for all felony classifications in

periods 9-10 (just before trial) is noted.

— Where the number of defendants is only one or two, the corresponding

indices should be regarded as merely very crude measures.

162
Table. 16. RE-ARRESTS PER MAN-DAYS EXPOSURE

FOR PERIODS REFERENCED TO PRESENTMENT

Where:

Read each cell' as A/B

A = number of persons re -arrested

and charged in period

B = exposure in man- days on

release in period

(each period is 28 days)

MisdePeriod Sample meanants Felons Violent Dangerous

Presentment

1 11/9660 9/6787 2/2873 2/1952 2/1103

2 7/6829 6/4250 1/2579 1/1755 1/1040

3 4/5086 2/2743 2/2343 1/1597 1/1040

4 7/4146 2/1924 5/2222 5/15Q6 5/979

5 4/3512 2/1459 2/2053 1/1327 0/891

6 2/2964 0/1078 2/1886 1/1189 1/821

7 1/2291 0/814 1/1477 0/923 0/651

8 3/1652 2/479 1/1173 1/791 1/543

9 1/1462 0/383 1/1079 1/759 1/526

10 0/1251 0/334 0/917 0/641 0/443

1-5 33/29233 21/17163 12/12070 10/8137 9/5053

6-10 7/9620 2/3088 5/6532 3/4303 3/2984

Over 10 7/5386 1/940 6/4446 6/4446 5/1856

Overall 47/44239 24/21191 23/23048 19/14908 17/9893

163
Table 17. RE-ARRESTS PER MAN-DAYS EXPOSURE

FOR PERIODS REFERENCED TO TRIAL

Read each cell as A/B

Where: A = number of persons re-arrested

and charged in period

B = exposure in man- days on

release per period

(each period is 28 days)

MisdePeriod Sample meanants Felons Violent Dangerous

1 * A 0/794 0/535 0/341

2 * A 0/1025 0/703 0/485

3

* A 2/1162 2/798 2/546

4

A A 0/1371 0/936 0/650

5

A A 3/1564 2/1072 2/719

6 4/3174 2/1357 2/1817 2/1211 2/821

7 4/3769 0/1821 4/1948 3/1303 3/834

8 4/4588 2/2463 2/2125 2/1464 2/932

9 4/6395 2/3864 2/2531 1/1772 1/1089

10 11/9856 10/6796 1/3060 1/2132 0/1279

Trial

11 3/1910 1/1139 2/771 2/519 1/351

12 0/1123 0/549 0/574 0/377 0/235

13 1/500 1/178 0/322 0/222 0/145

14 1/285 0/88 1/197 1/113 1/57

15 2/168 0/12 2/156 2/61 2/32

1-5 A A 5/5916 4/4045 4/2741

6-10 27/27782 16/16301 11/11481 9/7882 8/4955

11-15 7/3986 2/1966 5/2020 5/1292 4/820

Overall** 47/44239 24/21191 1 23/23048 19/14908 17/9893

* Not CalculaEed

** Includes tilne before perioc1 1 and after {>eriod 15

164
4. An increase in misdemeanor index for period 10 is noted. —

5. The periods 11-15 are all characterized by low exposure and

very small numbers of persons rearrested and charged.

The following general observations about the data are believed

pertinent (small cell sizes must be considered)

1. Persons classified as dangerous appear to exhibit a greater propensity to be rearrested the longer they are on

release.

2. An increased propensity to be re-arrested per day of

release is found as the release period extends more than 280 days

after presentment.

3. Persons classified as dangerous exhibit an increased

propensity to be re-arrested in the period from 8 to 24 weeks

prior to trial.

4. Based on the very limited sample, defendants exhibit a higher index when released after trial (while awaiting sentence or

appeal) than before trial.

— This is not considered likely to be a random perturbation,

because one- third of the exposure occurred during this period,

with many misdemeanants having only short release periods

that begin within 28 days of trial.

165
Recidivist Cases

Since this section focuses attention upon the nature of

recidivism, rather than the number of recidivists, its data will

not be strictly limited to re-arrests which occurred after the master

cases (post cases) . The data collection procedures were designed

also to collect offenses prior to the sample case (pre-cases),

which in effect makes the sample case itself a case of subsequent

recidivism, for the purpose of increasing the number of recidivist

incidents available for analysis in this section. Therefore, we

will now refer to initial and re-arrest cases , and will mean

either the already discussed sample case and its subsequent offense,

or a prior case and the sample case which followed it. The relationship of these prior and subsequent cases, broken down by defendant

and case (which means an initial arrest followed by re- arrest for a separate, subsequent incident) is illustrated as follows:

Pre-Sample

Initial

Arrest

In- Sample

Initial

Arrest

Total

Initial

Arrests

Defendants 52 47 99

Cases 66 62 128

The increase in number of cases over defendants in this chart

is explained by the fact that, for this part of the analysis, we

also count each subsequent or prior offense as a separate case of

recidivism. Thus, in several cases, one defendant accounted for more

than one prior or subsequent offense.

166
Frequency of Re -arrest by Type of Crime. Table 18 illustrates the

frequency with which subsequent felonies and misdemeanors were

allegedly committed by persons already arrested for a specific crime.

The table shows, for instance, that the 7 persons initially arrested

for a dangerous drag misdemeanor were subsequently re -arrested for a robbery felony, a homicide misdemeanor (i.e., negligent homicide),

two dangerous drug misdemeanors , two larceny misdemeanors , and a weapons misdemeanor. For this frequency table, any case of multiple

charges in an initial or subsequent arrest was reduced to the most

serious single charge, using the ranking shown in Table 11 on page 128.

Correlation of Initial Arrest to Re-arrestby Degree of Crime. The

frequency with which an initial arrest charge of felony or misdemeanor

was followed by a re -arrest felony or misdemeanor charge follows:

Arrest Type Re- arrests

All

Recidivist

Cases

Recidivist

Defendants In , / Basic Sample —

Initial Re-arrest Number Percent Number Percent

Felony

Felony

Misdemeanor

Misdemeanor

Unknown

Felony

Misdemeanor

Felony

Misdemeanor

Unknown

23

30

16

52

7

18

23

13

41

5

11

10

4

18

4

23

21

9

38

9

TOTAL 128 100 47 100 — This is for only those defendants who were re- arrested after they

were released in the master case. Data are presented here for

comparison purposes. See page 134 for full data.

167
1

•H

f-H u

m

o

CD

4-> V)

<D

rH

13

i J9pZ

m

o

CD 1rH

00

rH

CD rH

•i

IWI O To" cxi o rH r-t O rH

rH U1 rH rHf 3 T r-H o FT BT O ^T "W C7^

"FT" tlMOlDfUfJ

rH rH rH

COor—H

TOO

6

o

nD

(O >H

j oi^o :iz H CM r—

rH r i rH f rH suodesM *oz r-H ri i-i K)

u01q.j03.x-j • 6] O

AUGOJCBq : 8] N rH rH rH cm r-H H rH .o

CN AiBi3j:na vi W - rH r-H r+r* r^ IXnessy '91 rH N rH rH r-H H r- 3rua '3W3Q *S'[ CM K1 rH rH rH KS r-H -frl" rH ©piDXUtOH 'frl CD

to

+-> in

CD

!h?h

nJ &

o

rH

CD

fin

auo [9j isxpq:£i rH p

CX) •IJ9A U9I011S *n rH . rH CM rl- SUOOBSM 'Xl <P vAisSaOjj *oi CM CXI 9SU9JJ0 X3g 'e rH r-i Xusoireq *g o

aim?ssy •/ CM rH rO AreX'O^ng; *c rH CM CXI rH vo uosxy *c o

sSiuq *t

tO ( rH «* Aisqqoy $ cxi rH rH rH rH r—

|

rH CO 3-XTOSSV X9S 'I

' o

OpTDtUK>H "I ; rH i—

ra

Original

Presentment

Charges

CD 13H

U

•H

(o e

CD O

• H Kfi

r-i rH

CD

p.

Co a

r—

3

t/i

rH

Co

CN

CD

to

t/1 w

B

o

too

rHog

Co Q

d

o

CO <

in

rHM

rH

•

'-J r—

r-f

to

to <

CDU

rH

cti

CO

CO

CD

<—

4HO

X

CD CO g

CX, oH

IS

<D

<4-( <-H O

g

ct S

rH

rH

B

toa

r—

u

H

a>

H

CD rHO

*J

C/3

0-1

r~!

t/1 CDH

PSo

r—

|

CD U,

cu -Ca

to

rH

Misdemeanors

14.

Homicide

tO—

rH Q

O

JhCDbOd

Q

LO

rH

P

rH

CO

rH

rH

CQ

r-H

ou

H

nj

00

rH

oH+-> -Ho

+j

w

rH

(O

CD

t/) r-

M

CD m

O

aTO

<D OCXI

rHo

d

c:-

!0 •H

IS

rHod

+3

CVJ

CO +Jo

168
There were a total of 128 initial arrests which were followed

by either a felony or misdemeanor re -arrest. These data include

every recidivism case, whether pre-sample or in the sample; and

in any arrest in which the defendant is charged with more than one

crime, the highest ranking charge (e.g., felony over misdemeanor)

is counted. Of the 53 original felony arrests which had re-arrests

23 were re-arrested for felonies. The table offers striking evidence

that a defendant initially charged with a felony is about as likely

to be re- arrested for a felony as for a misdemeanor, while the defendant

initially charged with a misdemeanor is far more likely lo be

re -arrested for a misdemeanor than a felony.

Disposition of Initial and Re-arrest Cases. Table 19 illustrates the

frequency of various dispositions for initial and re -^arrest cases,

which are either misdemeanor or felony charges. For instance, the

table indicates that 56 of the initial cases were felony charges,

and 15 of these defendants were not convicted; whereas only 38

of the re-arrest cases were charged as felonies, and 17 of them

resulted in no conviction. It also shows that 12 of the 56 defendants

initially charged with felonies were actually convicted on misdemeanors

,

and 23 were convicted on the same or some other felony. This table

does not correlate initial to re-arrest cases ; it merely totals the

frequencies within each type. Note that the absence of a conviction

does not necessarily mean the defendant was acquitted in a given

case, since there may have been plea bargaining involved or the

prosecutor may have elected not to prosecute a second case after

conviction in one of the cases.

169
Table 19

Comparison of Convictions for Initial and Re-arrest Cases

Misdemeanor (most serious charge) Initial Case Re- arrest Case

1

Convicted same charge

2Convicted other misdemeanor

3

No conviction

k. Convicted felony

5 . Still pending

6Unknown

h5

22

1

3

1

k2

36

2

2

"oT"

Total 72

Felony (most serious charge) Initial Case Re -arrest Case

7« Convicted same charge

8Convicted other felony

9- No conviction

LO. Convicted misdemeanor

LI. Still pending

L2Unknown

L3. Other uncountable

20

3

15

12

3

3

56

11

2

17

3

1

k

38

8

Total

128 128

Recidivist Cases Where

There is Conviction on Both Initial

and Re-arrest Cases

felony - felony

felony - misdemeanor

misdemeanor - felony

misdemeanor - misdemeanor

Unknown or pending

Total

k

9

2

27

k2

26

68

170
Frequency of Conviction in Both Cases

Table 19 also illustrates how

many instances occurred in which both the initial and rearrest case resulted in conviction. The type of conviction is tabulated as to

whether it is a misdemeanor or felony, but it is not correlated to

the starting charges in each case. Thus, the table tells us that

9 of the 42 known double convictions were felony-mis demeanor

convictions; it does not tell us whether the 9 misdemeanor

convictions originated as misdemeanor charges.

Change of Pre-trial Release Conditions from initial Case to Re-arrest

Case. Table 20 illustrates the change in pre-trial release conditions

from the initial case to the re -arrest case broken down by felony

and misdemeanor. It tells us, for instance, that of the 22 cases on which pre-trial release information is available, and in which both

initial and re-arrest charges were felonies 11 of the re-arrest cases were changed from an initial case personal recognizance bond to some

form of money bond. The Table also indicates that 12 of the 32 cases that went from felony to misdemeanor on the re- arrest charge

were given a lighter form of release (either PR or a lower money

bond) , even though the defendants were standing before the judge

as initial release violators.

Disposition of Recidivist Cases Classified as "Dangerous" in the Proposed

Preventive Detention Legislation. Of the 56 recidivist cases beginning

with a felony, 41 began with a felony defined as "dangerous" in the

proposed Preventive Detention Legislation. Table 21 indicates the

disposition these charges received in the criminal courts, and also the

171
Table 20. Bail Changes from Initial to Re-arrest Cases

Initial to Re-arrest Cases

Initial

to Felonyto Felony

Felony

to Misdemeanor

Misdemeanor

to Felony

Misdemeanor

to Misdemeanor Total

3 (19%)

7 (44%)

1 ( 6%)

5(31%)

15(29%)

2(4% )

3 (6% )

13 (25%)

3( 6%)

6(11%)

10(19%)

>+0(33%

5( 4%

k( 3%

27(23%

15(12%

6( 5%

2l+(20<

Pretrial Release Condit ions

PR * MB

PR + PR

MB -» PR

11 (48% -f 11 (37%)

3(10%)

1 ( 3%)

3 (10%)

8(27%)

4(13%)

)

)

J

Low MB -> H

High MB ->

igh ME

Low MB

1.(17%:

3 (14%;

)

) Same MB

Unknown 5(21%)

)

)

Total 23 30 16 52

2/

121

Where PR = Personal Recognizance

MB = Money Bond

Low MB - High MB means the bail in the initial case was a money bond

which was increased in the re-arrest case e.g., a $300 money bond

in the initial case which changes to a $1000 money bond in the

re -arrest case. High MB - Low MB denotes a change from one money bond in the initial

case to a lower one in the re-arrest case, e.g., from $1000 to

$300.

1/ Percentages are of total for each column (e.g. the 11 whose initial PR

condition was followed by MB condition is 48% of the 23 who faced felony

charges in both re-arrest cases)

2/ Charges were not known for 7 additional cases.

172
disposition of their re-arrest cases. The Table demonstrates for

example, that 27 of the initial 41 charges were brought to conviction,

but only 17 on the originally charged or another "dangerous" crime;

whereas 21 of the re- arrest charges were brought to conviction, but

only 5 of these on an alleged "dangerous "charge . Ten of the initial alleged

felons were not convicted; 17 of those re-arrested went free.

Table 21 also shows the relationship of the disposition of

the 19 "dangerous" re-arrest cases to their initial cases. Table 22 shows the same relationship for all of these re-arrest

cases which would be classified as "violent" under the proposed

Preventive Detention Legislation.

173
Table 21.

Analysis of Initial Cases in Recidivist Sample by

Proposed Preventive Detention Standards

41 (731) of 56 initial felony cases were dangerous crimes.

17 (421) of 41 initially charged with a dangerous crime were convicted of

that or another dangerous crime.

10 (241) of 41 initially charged with a dangerous crime were convicted of a "non- dangerous" crime.

10 (241) of 41 initially charge^ with a dangerous crime were not convicted.

4_ (101) of 41 initially charged with a dangerous crime: not enough data.

J5 (12%) of 41 were convicted of a dangerous crime in re-arrest case.

16 (391) of 41 were convicted of non-dangerous crime in re-arrest case. 17 (42%) of 41 were not convicted in re-arrest case.

3 ( 7%) of 41 - unknown disposition of 2nd case.

Recidivist Cases in Which a Dangerous Crime was Charged

'Dangerous" Crimes

19 cases arrested for "dangerous" crime on re-arrest case (15% of total

of 128 recidivist cases)

6 (31%) convicted of charge in initial case and re- arrest case.

3 (16%) convicted of charge in re-arrest case but not in initial case.

7 (37%) convicted of charge in initial case but not in re-arrest case.

3 (16%) unknown.

174
Table 22.

Analysis of Recidivist Cases with Initial "Violent" Charge

Dangerous

19 (731)^/

6 (86%)

3 (751)

7 (70%)

3 (60%)

Added Violent

7 (27%)

! d4%)

1 (25%)

3 (30%)

2 (40%)

Total Violent

26 re- arrests for "violent" crime

7 convictions in both initial

and re-arrest cases.

h convictions in re -arrest

"but not initial case

10 convictions in initial but

not re -arrest case

5 unknown

1/ Percent of total violent cases which were dangerous cases.

NOTE: we have not checked the police records of the defendants in the

"Added Violent" Column. This must be done to comply with the full

intent of the definitions of violent and dangerous.

-—r- —wnrt

175
Robbery Cases

One very interesting use of the data is to focus analysis upon a single type of crime. The effort generates characteristics about the

defendants charged with this crime that greatly enhance our understanding

of these criminal incidents. Such understanding is a necessary condition

for designing effective responses specific to such activity.

For this study, data involving the felonies of robbery, attempted

robbery, and assault with intent to commit robbery were isolated from the

data bank and subjected to more specific analysis. The results of this

analysis are discussed below.

Initial Count . Examination of the entire four -week sample base

disclosed 40 different persons charged at either presentment or indictment

with at least one of the crimes of robbery, attempted robbery, or assault

with intent to commit robbery. Presence of one count of any of these

three crimes —-was sufficient to draw a defendant into the "robbery" subsample, and each instance of multiple counts was counted as only one case. The 40 persons, therefore, are all of tne people who were ever presented

in court for any of these three crimes during the sample period. In addition

to these 40, there were 14 cases in which the prosecutor decided not to draw

formal papers on defendants arrested on robbery charges. In one case, the

entire case was dropped; in 13 cases, the police arrest charge of robbery was

dropped and the defendant was formally charged with one or two misdemeanors.

Since these defendants were not initially charged in court with one of the

robbery crimes, they were not counted as part of the robbery sample.

Police Records of Prior Criminal Activity . The police records , popularly

known as "rap sheets," are heavily relied upon by prosecutors and judges

at the initial bail setting. They are also implicitly written into the

"violent crimes" section of the pending preventive detention legislation

as indicators of certain types of prior criminal activity by a defendant.

Of the 40 robbery defendants, 16 showed no District of Columbia

police record prior to the charge that brought them into the sample, and

seven more records were unavailable at the Police Department, indicating — Even if not the most serious charge.

176
that the defendant had probably never been involved with the police

department prior to this arrest. Thus, there were actual police records

available for analysis on only 17 defendants.

Of these 17 defendants, 12 showed at least one prior felony arrest,

but only 4 showed any felony conviction. Eleven showed at least one prior misdemeanor arrest. None of them showed any prior narcotics charges.

Table 23 summarizes the prior criminal activities of these 17

defendants, as shown in police records.

Several qualifications are pertinent here. First, 13 of the 16

defendants showing no prior record were 21 years old or younger, and had

not had much time to generate an adult record. However, examination of the

presentence reports (see Table 11) for 11 of these robbery defendants,

indicates that 6 of the defendants do show prior juvenile records;

5 of the 6 show very serious criminal histories . One appears on the police

"rap sheet" showing 2 charges of rape, and one each of robbery, housebreaking,

and assault with a deadly weapon. The other 4 are not recorded on "rap

sheets," and account evenly between them for 3 charges of robbery, 4 of

housebreak, 6 of unauthorized use of a vehicle, 1 of burglary and 1 of

assault oil a teacher. Thus, it is very possible that the 23 missing

police records could be supplemented by Juvenile Court records to present

a profile of criminal history more serious than that which appears on the

police department records alone.

Second, the police records are difficult to tabulate. On one occasion,

what appeared at first glance as three felony arrests , merged into one arrest upon examination of the names of complaining witnesses, arresting

officers and Crime Career Record numbers. Our count of prior arrests

is made on the basis of such screening. Further, the number of convictions

may be understated, since the police records in most cases during the time

period of pur sample did not include the disposition of many cases on the

"rap sheets."

177
Table 23

Prior Criminal Records

Prior Prior Prior Prior Bail

Name Case Felony- Felony Narc. Misd. Agency

No. No. Age Arrests Conv. Arrests "Arrests ' Record

026-026 28 No prior record 1 M 1/

047-047 18 No prior record 2 M

084-087 Not available

144-149 19 3 Robbery None None 1 NR

146-151 -- No prior record NR

154-159 19 No prior record 1 M

155-160 20 None None None 1 NR

160-167 38 None None None None 3 M

161-168 22 None None None 1 —

204-214 19 No prior record NR

211-228 22 None None None None —

212-229 32 No prior record 2 M

214-231 20 1 Robbery

1 Carnal Knowledge

None None 1 1 F

1 M

215-232 18 No prior record NR

035-234 30 1 Housebreak None None 3 2M

262-263 21 1 Rape -housebreak

1 Robbery

None None 1M

IF 283-286 20 1 Robbery None None None NR

331-337 20 No prior record NR

343-349 25 1 Assault to kill None None 1 IF 347-353 21 No prior record NR

362-368 18 No prior record . 1 HBK-GL; 1 UUV±/

NR

379-388 19 None None NR

439-456 21 No prior record —

445-462 19 No prior record

453-472 27 1 UUV

.. —

1 None 1 IF; 1M

1/

Responses by defendants recorded here as prior felony or misdemeanor record, no record, or data not available (---).

2/ — HBK-GL = Housebreak - Grand Larceny.

UUV = Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle.

178
Table 23. Prior Criminal Records (Cont'd.)

Prior Prior Prior Prior Bail y

Mame Case Felony Felony Narc. Misd. Agency

Mo. No. Age Arrests Conv. Arrests Arrests Record

477-498 19 No prior record

1 F§IF

... 479-505 19 None None 1 2M

480-506 19 No prior record NR

610-610 18 Not available NR

770-770 18 No prior record NR

865-865 _. . 3 Robbery 1 None 4 —

868-868 -- Not available —

874-874 19 None None None 1 2M

884-884 -- Not available —

894-894 22 Not available —

908-1006 24 5 Robbery 3 None None —

928-928 21 No prior record NR

931-931 24 Not available —

939-939 24 3 UUV None None 2 2M

985-985 Not available

1/ Responsesby defendants recorded here as prior felony or misdemeanor record,

n<? record, or data not available ( —).

-' Forging and uttering - passing or negoti ating a forged document (e.g., cashing

a forgec check.)

179
Bail Agency Indications of Prior Record . When the Bail Agency was interviewing these defendants to determine their eligibility for personal

recognizance or some other form of non-money bond pre-trial release, 13

defendants admitted to past records, 14 said they had none, and 13 interview

forms either could not be located or contained no information on that

particular question. Five of the 13 admitting to a past record actually

had no prior police record, and 6 of them misstated or understated their

records. Four stated they had no records when police or other records

indicated they did; 3 of these 4 had serious juvenile records.

The last column of Table 23 shows the prior records of

these 40 defendants as reflected in the Bail Agency files.

Personal Data. Analysis was done on several kinds of information taken

from the Bail Agency interview forms. It disclosed that of the 40

defendants, 30 were 25 years of age or less, 19 were 20 years old or under,

and none were over 38 years old. Thus, 751 of the robbery defendants were

25 or younger.

Twenty-two of the defendants had at least one or more years of high

school, 4 completed only 8th grade or less, and the records of 4 showed no

information on this question. No records were available for ten.

Nineteen of the defendants were life residents of the District of

Columbia, and 7 more had lived here at least one year prior to their

alleged crime. Two had lived here less than one year, and 12 records were

either not answered as to this particular question, or unavailable at the

Bail Agency. Twenty-four of them acknowledged living in some form of

supposedly stable relationship, be it with parents, relatives, spouse,

friend of same sex, or friend of opposite sex. Only 13 acknowledged any employment at all, and of these 6 had been

working less than a month, 4 less than a year, and only 3 more than a year.

Of the 13, 7 worked in a blue collar capacity, 6 as laborers.

These data are summarized in.Table 24.

180
Table 24.

Personal Data on Recidivists

ikame Case Grade Years Family How long Type of Work

iffo. No. Age Completed in D. C. Relation Employed WC - BC - L

r026 -026 23 11 14 Y 3/ N 4/

027 -047 13 12 4W 2/ N N —

034 -037 No r ecord aval lable

144 -149 19 9 3 Y N —

146 -151 23 — y -- N N --

154 -159 19 12 19 Y N —

155 -160 20 10 20 Y 1M BC

Il60 -167 33 3 3

- 2W L i 161 -163 22 No record

(204 -214 19 12 4M Y 3M L

111 -223 22 10 12 Y 10Y BC

212 -229 32 11 5 Y 1W BC

214 -231 20 11 13 Y N -- £15 -232 13 9 13 Y N --

035 -234 30 No record s

262 -263 21 10 21 Y N __

233 -236 20 11 20 Y 2Y L

B31 -337 20 11 20 Y 1Y BC

'343 -349 25 11 25 Y N —

[347 -353 21 3 21 Y N —

362 -363 13 9 13 Y N —

379 -333 19 10 19 Y N -- 439 -456 21 No record 3 445 -462 19 12 19 N 1W

3W

WC

453 -472 27 -- 27 Y BC

1/ E lanks in this column indicate missing data on the interview forms, c

irlissing forms.

2/ A11 figures in this column are years, unless otherwise indicated as

V,reeks (W) or months (M) . 3/ Pl yes (Y) in this column indicates the defendant is living with his

s pouse, parents, relatives, or friend of an opposite sex.

4/ 1'ime of employment is recorded here as years (Y) , months (M) , and

reeks (W) . Unemployment is indicated by the letter N.

or

181
Table 24.

Personal Data on Recidivists (Cont'd.)

Name Case Grade Years Family How long Type of Work

No No. Age Completed in D. C. Relation Employed WC - BC - L

477-498 19 7 19 Y 3Y BC

479-505 19 11 19 Y N -- 480-506 19 9 19 Y 2W L

610-610 18 -- L0 Y 1M L

770-779 18 10 8 Y N --

865-865 20 — N

868-868 No records

874-874 19 8 19 Y -- BC

884-884 No records

894-894 No records

908-1006 No records

928-928 21 10 21 Y 1W L

931-931 No records

939-939 24 10 24 N N -- 985-985 No records

182
Process Through the Courts

The average time from initial presentment

to trial for 36 of these defendants was 200 days, or almost 7 months.

The records on the other 4 cases are incomplete. Twenty-one were

convicted of the initial charge or a lesser one, 11 were not

convicted of any charge, the result for 7 cannot be determined, and

one fled. Five of the convictions were appealed and were still

pending as of December 31, 1969.

Twelve of the defendants were never out of jail on any form

of pre-trial release, and 8 of these were convicted. Twenty-three

were released some time before trial on either money bond, personal

recognizance, or personal bond, and 13 of these were convicted. One fled

the jurisdiction. Four of the 15 defendants held without bail until

their trials, only to be found not guilty or have their charges

dropped, were held in jail for times ranging from 45 to 250 days.

A summary of this information is given in Table 25.

Recidivist Comparisons . Of the 23 defendants actually out on release at one time or another, 7 were re- arrested for a subsequent

crime. Four of the rearrests were for felonies, 2 for misdemeanors

and the cause of 1 is unknown to us. Two of the felonies resulted in

conviction on the same charge, one in a misdemeanor conviction, and

one in no conviction. One misdemeanor charge resulted in conviction,

and one in no conviction. It is known that of the 7 recidivists, iWo

were free on money bond when re-arrested, one free on unsecured

personal bond, and one free on personal recognizance. Pre-trial

release records on the other three are unknown except for the

initial money bond settings.

183
Table 25

Process Through the Courts

Ever

Name Case Days to Released Conviction

No. No. Trial Y/N Bail Y/N Appeal

026-026 34 Y 2/ PR N

047-047 57 N 1000 N -- 084-087 46 1/ N 5000 N

144-149 64 (Indict) N MB ? -- 146-151 36 Y PUB

1000

N

154-159 88(Indict) Y PR skipped

155-160 243 Y PR Y -- 160-167 250 Y ? N -- 161-168 107 Y PR Y -- 204-214 84 N 3000 N

211-228 315 Y 1000 Y

212-229 292 N 15,000 Y

-- 214-231 182 Y PR Y -- 215-232 241 N 5000 Y Pending

035-234 492 Y 5000 Y

262-263 245 N 3500 Y —

283-286 245 Y ? Y

-- 331-337 35 (GJ) Y PBU ? Pending

2500

343-349 198 Y 300 N -- 247-353 144 Y ? Y Pending

362-363 273 N 2000 Y

-- 379-388 124 N 25,000 Y

-- 439-456 72 Y PBU N

-- 445-462 135 Y PR Y

-- 453-472 198 N 500 Y —

1/ 3 cases could not be traced beyond the poinl: of indictment , and 1 could

not be traced beyond referral to the Grand ^Jury.

2/ A yes (Y) in this Column indicates that the defendant was : Free on pretrial release at some time before his trial . A no (N) meaiis he was

not released before trial.

184
Table 25

Process Through the Courts (Cont'd.)

1 "Ever

Name Case Days to Released Conviction

No. No. Trial Y/N Bail Y/N Appeal

477-498 301 Y 5000 Y _ _ 479-505

1 227 Y PBU

2500

Y Pending

480-506 272 Y 1000 Y -- 610-610 377 Y 15000 Y -- 770-770 105 N 10000 Y --

865-865 151 N 15000 Y __ 868-868 229 No records

874-874 241 Y PR Y -- 884-884 302 No records

894-894 154 No records Pending

908-1006 411 No records

928-928 129 Y PR N -- 931-931 139 Y PR N -- 939-939 139 Y 1000 N -- 985-985 95 (Indict) No records

185
Compared to the total sample of 40 robbery defendants , the

recidivists as a group are younger, less educated, and less

frequently employed. They show a high proportion of prior police

or juvenile records.

A summary of the prior criminal records and the personal data

on these 7 recidivists is contained in Table 26.

186
+J

C/3 •H>

•H

X)•HO

,Qs

CN1 9

CO 13

PhO

O

pi

H

•3

u

Pio

•H

Ph

PL,

O ft P <+H O H

cd £ P -H •H CO Pi H H -P

o io-co LO-4 O

W CV H

-4-H D-H 40W4- h en.oi cv

Juvenile

Record

serious serious

Bail

Agency

Record S Ph ft en ^ h g 1 WN

Prior misd.

arrests p! Pi O O H H H

Kind

of

Employment o o

ft ft 1 I pq I pq

Prior

narc.

arrests None None None

:ord :ord

None None

X)

O

H

•h 3

Eh pq

Prior felony qonv. None None or

re<

or

ret

None- None

cd p

. cd O

H

cd

Pio

CO

Ph

ft

None 1

Robb 1

asslt /kil]

No

pri

No

pri

1

forg

None

Prior felony

arrest o H P>

•H cd S H

cd ft Pd

1 >H !>H !>H >H >H J>H § >

oo

>h >H |Zi >H >-> S3 >H

CO O

Ph «

cd CJ >H -H

en o ioh o o

o

02 CV2 CV2 H H H

TS ft

Pi ft 02 o Robb 2

misd 4

misd

UUV

Robb Burg

Grade

Completed 130 H H 150 I>H150 H H H

>

p!ouS t>H >H xi

>h PJ >h >h

ft

P ft

CO ft H O

P 411

r£243H rO rQ40 rQ40

OOMPhOOOO Pd pi <j pe; cd pe; pd w

<!

150 O LOH O O O nWWWHHH

CO • cd o O S

a • cd o „ s&js

I>vO O v£)i50 -4 H (V2 en

1 1 1 o m en

v£> 130 -4

*=i w <n

en^o m_ch

en-4-^-co

i i i i J> J> o>-4

-4 !>!>;>-

_co_-4-4-to

CO • cd o O S3

S • cd o

!>v0 o eni5o lo_4

vD -CO -4- LO 0^ O D- H cv en en-4mi50

I I I I I I I o en en o- c- e> -4

vO 130 -4 -4 I> !>- !> H 02 en en -4 -4150 187
CHAPTER IX

Observations and Recommendations

This pilot study has assembled the case histories of 714 District

of Columbia Criminal Court actions which occurred in four separate

weeks in the first half of 1968. The problems of data collection and

analysis have been fully described. Various devices for predicting

recidivism have been explored to discover how they might be used with

the information available to the Court at the time of pre-trial release

(presentment or initial hearings) . They are compared with predictive

instruments used for parole and probation purposes. The summary data

section (Chapter VIII) describes the results of the study. Additional

and more sophisticated analyses are possible with the data collected,

although the limited sample size will affect the reliability of the

comparative findings. Observations and recommendations based on the

analysis conducted so far are included in the paragraphs which follow.

Crime While on Pre-trial Release. The number of re-arrests of persons

while on pre-trial release is an imperfect indicator of the volume of

crime committed while on pre- trial release.

The re-arrest rate of 11. Q percent in D. C. was obtained from

firm, positive data in the Court System for a 4-week sample. The

sub-group initially charged with felonies showed a much higher

rate of 17 percent. If felonies are further stratified into violent

and dangerous categories, as defined in the proposed legislation, the

recidivist rates become 17 and 25 percent respectively. Although the

sample size is not large, the differences are sufficiently large to

support the hypothesis of a higher recidivism rate for these groupings

of released defendants. (The above comments refer to the number of

exposures -- periods on pre-trial release -«• not to length of exposure.)

Additional indicators of potential recidivism were also noted.

For example, the recidivists among the releasees initially charged

188
with felonies (except for robbery) tended to be older and to be arrested

for the more serious crimes. Employment seems to be a significant factor

in recidivism, although our sample size is very small. Other factors

relating to family ties, educational level, and length of time residing

in the community did not individually correlate well with recidivism.

Thus, thoughsome predictive criteria have been isolated, our understanding

of what are the "essential" crieteria and the proper weights for each

is still so incomplete as to preclude a workable and reasonable

method to estimate the probability of recidivism for a specific type

or class of defendants.

If the "dangerousness" criterion in the proposed legislation (or,

more precisely, our rough approximation of it [see page 75]) had been

applied to impose preventive detention, 17 re-arrests would not have

occurred, but 39 defendants, who were not in fact re- arrested would

not have been released.

An important innovation of this pilot study is the definition

of an exposure index and the strong indication that crime on pre-trial

release in D. C. appears to be directly related to the number of

man-days released. Thus , a man released 120 days was twice as likely to

be re-arrested for an alleged offense as one released for 60 days.

In calculating this index, we have counted from the date of the alleged

second offense, rather than the date of the second arrest, so there

is no time lag in calculating the index to bias the index against

those defendants who were released for a longer period of time. The

full meaning of the re-arrest rate of one re-arrest per 1,000 man-days

of pre-trial release (36 percent probability of re-arrest in one

man-year) is not yet clear. It needs to be compared with the arrest

rate of a broad population for the same class of individuals who are not on pre-trial release.

189
Finally, we note that there are still other data, admittedlydifficult to obtain, which might improve the predictive instrument,

or, at least, yield additional cases of re-arrest while on pre-trial

release (e.g., arrests in other jurisdictions).

In light of these observations, we recommend that:

1. Efforts be made to complete the FBI record correlation,

that all related FBI records be consulted, and that data forms

be completed based upon data in these other jurisdictions.

2. An attempt be made to identify characteristics of

the re -arrested population and to estimate the arrest rate for

a similar sized population with like characteristics which

has no recidivist history.

Detailed Analyses. The summary data have included only broad analyses

of the defendants in the sample as a whole, the relationship between

recidivism and various categories of initial charges, and the robbery

cases. We have only just begun to tap the wealth of data in the file.

One might be interested in a deeper analysis of the facts in the cases,

the personal histories, the variability with judges, prosecutors, and

defense attorneys, etc. Again, it is not clear what valid conclusions

could be drawn in view of the small sample size, but analyses such

as these would be helpful in framing explicit hypotheses which might

then appear worthy of more detailed analyses and possibly additional

data collection.

This matter of hypothesis definition has always been a difficult

problem. Many suggestions which are so generally worded that they

defy specific formulation within the boundaries of the data sample

have been presented (e.g., what correlations are found between persons

who appear to be flight risks and persons who appear to be dangerous?)

Other suggested hypotheses are clearly outside the scope of the data

190
collected (e.g., what kind of violations occur in cases of release on

recognizance, and how often do they occur?) . It is not that these

questions are unimportant; it is just that they simply cannot be

addressed within the boundaries of the data collected.

Those detailed analyses to which the data do lend themselves

are not simple in the sense that one merely pushes the right series

of buttons on the computer and the answers fall out. The data must

be properly interrogated, culled, collated, and analyzed; and the

results must be evaluated for statistical reliability and validity.

3. Data analysts, supported by legal experts, should

continue to test out various hypotheses. In some cases,

the results will be statistically significant. In other

cases, the test may only identify areas which appear to be

of particular interest. In all cases, however, this effort

would specifically express these hypotheses in explicit

analytical language amenable to quantification. It would

also identify the specific assumptions which must underlie

many of these analyses. We feel that such an effort,

resulting in very explicitly defined hypotheses, is

advisable before any large-scale data collection project

is undertaken.

Data Collection. In spite of our concern for clarifying hypotheses

before a large-scale data collection process is undertaken, we note

that many criminal jurisdictions around the country are already

beginning to collect data to answer their own pressing operational and

administrative questions. It would seem that these collection efforts,

put in a broader context with a consistent data collection format,

191
would provide much useful data for broader analyses. These data

could be added to data already collected to provide a much larger

data base --if they are carefully defined at the outset. It is

clear, however, that assembling data from different jurisdictions

will be fraught with problems related to the differing legal definitions

of charges in these jurisdictions. Close cooperation between local

jurisdictions and the National Institute of Law Enforcement and

Criminal Justice would permit these data to be much more meaningful.

To accomplish this end, we recommend that:

4. A Court System Study Guide be developed to aid other

jurisdictions in obtaining criminal case data. This

study guide would acquaint local jurisdictions with

procedures for defining their sample, would describe problems

they are likely to encounter and possible solutions, and would

provide a standard data collection form aimed at greater accuracy

in data collection and efficient conversion of output for

computerization.

5. An effort be made to contact all jurisdictions where

data collection efforts are currently under way to

coordinate possible results. Personal contacts would

be desirable. In addition, the National Institute should

offer to supply guidance in the form of meetings and

seminars to all jurisdictions currently contemplating a data collection effort.

Prediction Devices. Currently available prediction devices used in

parole and probation determinations appear to offer but minimum

improvement over intuitive judgment. The rating sheets used in

192
Release -On- Recognizance programs are primarily subjective, In

addition, the short time generally available between interview of

a defendant and the presentment at which pre-trial release

conditions are set precludes adequate verification of information

which the defendant supplies.

The assembly of a much larger body of data of the scope included

in this pilot study would be necessary in developing a prediction

device or formulation. In the meantime, however, we note from parole

and probation studies that age of offender at first arrest and the

offender's family life at that time seem to be important factors

in later recidivism.

We recommend that:

6. The Bail Agency consider revising its interview form to obtain

information on early defender involvement and family characteristics,

in order to provide inputs toward the development of prediction

devices

7. Work for a general mathematical model of the type developed in

SIMBAD (Reference 2) for pre-trial release cases be begun. We

feel that such a model will be essential in the future development

of a prediction device.

Summary. The limitations of this pilot study resulting from the small

sample size and paucity of data have been frequently referred to.

Directly related to these limitations is the extreme difficulty described

vividly in Chapter V, of following court records through the Court System.

We cannot overemphasize this problem, for it is, in essence, the key

to the analysis of many problems in the Criminal Justice System. The

creation and implementation of a model record-keeping system is

193
urgently needed. Moreover, this system should be computerized where

possible, and should provide flow-through information for each stage

'nal Justice System. Such a system should be designed

to aid also in solving operational and administrative problems,

as well as to provide fundamental data for research. We urge

that this concept be in the background of any specific studies

undertaken in this area, and that plans be formulated to address

this need directly.

For the immediate future, we recommend that:

8. A numbering system be established for consistent use by

all elements of the Criminal Justice System. This numbering

system should identify each incident and each individual,

and, when taken together, would facilitate the accumulatior

and ready exchange of clear, accurate information throughout

the jurisdictions of the Criminal Justice System. To be

really effective, this numbering system should be augmented

by formal data recording and summarization procedures.

194
APPENDIX A

References and Bibliography

195
APPENDIX A

References and Bibliography

1. "Amendments to the Bail Reform Act of iyt>6". Hearings before the

Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the

Judiciary -- United States Senate. Jan. 21, 22, 23, 28, 29,

30 and February 4. U. S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D. C. 1969.

2. "SIMBAD" (Simulation as a Basis of Social Agents' Decisions),

American Behavioral Scientist , 11 (3) : 28-33,

1968.

3. Andry, R. G. The Short-Term Offender . A study in forensic psychology.

London: Stevens and Sons, 1963.

4. Annual Report, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D. C.

1967.

5. Annual Report, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D. C.

1968.

6. Attorney General, Office of the, A Bill to Amend the Bail Reform

Act. Explanatory Statement in Proposed Bail Reform Act

Amendments. Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,

July 11, 1969.

7. Babst, D. V.; Gottfredson, D.M. ; and Ballard, B. Jr., "Comparison

of Multiple Regression and Configural Analysis Techniques for

Developing Base Expectancy Tables." Journal of Research in Crime

and Delinquency , 5(1): 72-80, 1968.

8. Bacon, M. K. ; Child, H.; and Barry, I. L., "A Cross -Cultural Study

of Correlates of Crime." Abnorm. and Soc. Psychology 66(4),

291-300, 1963.

9. Bail and Summons: 1965. Institute on the Operation of Pretrial

Release Projects, New York, Proceedings of October 14-15, 1965;

and Justice Conference on Bail and Remands in Custody, London,

Proceedings of November 27, 1965. (Published under auspices of

the National Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice, 1966.)

196
10. Balogh, J. K. , and Rumage, C. J., Juvenile Delinquency Proneness:

A Study of the Kvaraceus Scale. Washington, Public Affairs

Press, 1956.

11. Bergst, G. L., Jr., "California Criminal Justice Information System."

Lockheed Government Information Systems Report GIS-73, June,

1969.

12. Blackler, C. , "Primary Recidivism in Adult Men: Differences Between

Men on First and Second Prison Sentence." British J. Criminol . 8(2), 130-169, 1968.

13. "Blueprint for Change." Annual Report, Bureau of Prisons : 1967 . Washington, D. C, Bureau of Prisons, 1967.

14. Blum and Chagnon, "Some Parameters of Persistent Criminal Behavior,"

Clinical Psychology 23(2), 168-170, 1967.

15. Blumstein, A. and Tanson, R. , "Models of a Total Criminal Justice

System". Operations Research , Vol. 17, No. 2 March -April 1969, p. 199,

16. Bothman, R. W. ; Hartinger, W. ; and Richardson, H. "A Comparison of

Two Delinquency Predicting Instruments." J. Research Crime

and Delinquency , (Jan.): 45-48, 1965.

I 17. Burdock, E. I., and Hardesty, A. S., "Psychological Test for

Psychopathology." J. Abnorm. Psychology 73(1), 62-69, 1968.

1 18. Burgess, E. W. "Factors D^terniining Success or Failure on Parole" in

Bruce, A. A. (Ed.) The Workings of the Indeterminate Sentence

Law and the Parole System in Illinois , Springfield, Illinois,

Illinois St. Board of Parole, 1928, pp. 205-249.

19. California. Department of Corrections. Current Research Studies

Regarding Violence Prone Inmates. Sacramento, 1965.

20. California. Youth Authority Department. Research Division. Research

Report No. 41. Prediction of Future Assaultive Behavior Among

Youthful Offenders, by Martin J. Molof. Sacramento, 1965.

21. California. Youth Authority Department. Research Division.

Research Report No. 31. An Analysis of Parole Performance by

Institution of Release (1956-1960), by Robert F. Beverly and

Evelyn S. Guttmann. Sacramento, 1962.

197
22. California. Youth Authority Department. Research Division.

Research Report No. 40. An Analysis of Parole Performance by

Institution of Release (1952-1962), by Robert F. Beverly.

Sacramento, 1965.

23. California. Youth Authority Department. Research Division.

Research Report No. 52. Institutional Program Patterns, Parole

Prognosis and Outcome. Sacramento, 1967.

24. California. Youth Authority. Research Division. Report No. 55.

A Comparative Analysis of Base Expectancy Tables for Selected

Subpopulations of California Youth Authority Wards. Sacramento,

1968.

25. Carney, F. S. "Predicting Recidivism in a Medium Security Correctional

Institution." J. Crim. Law, Criminol., and Pol. Sci .58(3),

338-348, 1967.

26. Clark, J. H. "Applications of the MMPI in Differentiating AWOL

Recidivists from non-Recidivists ." J. Psychology , 26, 229-234,

1948.

27. Cowder, J. E., Pacht, A. R. "Predicting Institutional and Post

Release Adjustment of Delinquent Boys." J. Consulting

Psychology , 31(4) :377-81, 1967.

28. Craig, M. M. and Glide, S. J. "Application of the Glueck Social

Prediction Table on an Ethnic Basis." Crime and Delinquency , (Apr.): 175-185, 1965.

29. Craig, M. M. and Glick, S.J. "Ten Years Experience with the Glueck

Social Prediction Scale." Crime and Delinquency, (July): 249-

261, 1963.

30. "Crime in the National Capitol." Hearings before the

Committee on The District of Columbia, Iftii ted State Senate,

91st. Congress, 1st. Session, March 11-12, 1968, Part 1.

"Regional Aspects of ' the Crime Problem and Implementation of

the Recommendations of the President's Commission on Crime."

19-8
31. "Crime in the National Capitol." Hearings before the

Committee on the District o£ Columbia United State Senate,

91st. Congress, 1st. Session, May 19-22, July 15-17, and

August 7, 1969. Part 3. "Reorganization of District of

Columbia Courts."

32. "Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment for Selected Large

Governmental Units, 1966-1967". Bureau of the Census - State

and Local Government Special Studies No. 51. U. S. Depart, of

Commerce, March, 1969.

33. Davis, G. F. "A Study of Adult Probation Violation Rates by Means

of the Cohort Approach." J. Crim. Law, Criminol, Pol. Sci.

55(1), 70-85, 1964.

34. Dean, C. W. , "New Directions for Parole Prediction Research."

J. Crim. Law, Criminol., Pol. Sci . 59(2), 214-218, 1968.

35. Dean, C. W., Duggan, T. J. "Problems in Parole Prediction: A

Historical Analysis." Social Problems , 15(4) :450-459, 1968.

36. Duggan, T. J. and Dean C. W. "Statistical Interaction and Parole

Prediction." Social Forces , 48(l):45-49, 1969.

37. Edwards, W.; Lindman, H; and Savage, L. J. "Bayesian Statistical

Inference for Psychological Research." Psych. Review , LXX,

1963, 193-242.

"The Elements of Crime Seriousness and Their Possible Use by the

Police in Planning and Controlling Crime, Crime Detection and

Prevention Activities." Arthur Anderson and Co., July, 1968.

39. Experimental Statistics : National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91 , Washington, D. C, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963.

40. Ferracuti, F. "The Prediction of Violent Behavior." Corrective

Psychiatry and J. Soc. Therapy , pp. 289-300, Nov. 1964.

41. Franks, C. M. "Recidivism, Psychopathy, and Personality." British

J. Delinquency , 6, 192-201.

42. Frease, D. Probation Prediction for Adult Offenders in the

State of Washington. In: Washington, Institutions Department.

Research Review. Olympia, April, 1965. p. 29-39. Mimeo.

(No. 19).

199
43. Freed, D. J. and Wald, P. M. "Bail in the United States: 1964."

A Working Paper for the National Conference on Bail and

Criminal Justice. U. S. Dept. of Justice and the Vera

Foundation., Washington, D. C. , May 27-29, 1964.

44. Gibbens, T. C. N. Psychiatric Studies of Borstal Lads . London,

H. M. Stationery Office, 1963.

45. Gibbens and Prince. "Results of Borstal Training." Sociological

Review , Memo. 9, 227-236, 1965.

46. Gibbons, D. C. , and Garrity, D. L. "Definition and Analysis of

Certain Criminal Types." J. Crim. Law, Criminol., and Pol . Sci . 53(1), 27-35, 1962.

47. Glueck, E. T. "Distinguishing Delinquents from Pseudo -delinquents ."

Harvard Educational Review , 36(2) : 119-130, 1966.

48. Glueck, E. T. "A More Discriminative Instrument for the Identificati

of Potential Delinquents at School Entrance." J. Crim. Law . Criminol. and Pol. Sci ., 57(l):27-30, 1966.

49. Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. Ventures in Criminology , London, Tavistod

Publications, 1964.

50. Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. 500 Criminal Careers , New York, Knopf,

1930.

51. Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. Predicting Delinquency and Crime , Harvard

Univ. Press, 1969.

52. Gottfredson, D. M. The Evaluator Frame of Reference . New York,

National Parole Institutes, National Council on Crime and

Delinquency, 1966.

53. Gottfredson, D. M. and Ballard, K. B. "Association Analysis,

Predictive Attribute Analysis and Parole Behavior." Paper:

Western Psychological Association Meetings, Portland, Oregon,

April, 1964, mimeo.

54. Gottfredson, D. M. , "Efficiency of Two Methods of Prediction of Pare

Success ," American Psychologist, 15, 580, 1960.

200
55. Gough, H. G.; Wenk, E. A.; and Rozynko, V. V. "Parole Outcome

as Predicted from the CPI , the MMPI t and a Base Expectancy

Table." J. Abnorm. Psychology , 70(6) :432-441, 1965.

56. Grygier, T. "Treatment Variables in Non-Linear Prediction."

American Society of Criminology. Interdisciplinary Problems

in Criminology , 1964, edited by Walter C. Reckless and Charles L. Newman. Louisville, Kentucky, 1965, p. 29-42.

57. Hathaway, S. R. and Monachesi, E. D. , (eds.) Analyzing and Predicting

Juvenile Delinquency with the MMPI . Minneapolis, University of

Minnesota, 1953.

58. Hoover, J. E. "Uniform Offense Classifications," Draft Four.

(Unpublished.)

59. Hoover, J. E. "Crime in the United States, Uniform Crime Reports"...

1966, 1967, 1968. U. S. Government Printing Office. August,

1967, 1968, 1969, respectively.

60. Hurwitz, J. I. "Three Delinquent Types: A Multivariate Analysis."

J. Crim. Law, Criminol. , and Pol. Sci . 56(3), 328-334, 1,965.

61. Institute for the Study of Crime and Delinquency. California

Medical Facility. Offender Classification and Parole

Prediction, by Don M. Gottfredson and Kelley B. Ballard, Jr.

Vacaville, California, 1966.

62. Institute for the Study of Crime and Delinquency. California Medical

Facility. The Validity of Two Parole Prediction Scales: an Eight-Year Follow-up Study, by Don M. Gottfredson and Kelley B.

Ballard, Jr. Vacaville, California, 1966.

63. Institute for the Study of Crime and Delinquency. Report No. 6:

Wisconsin Base Expectancies for Reformatories and Prisons, by

Don M. Gottfredson, Kelly B. Ballard, Jr., John W. Mannering,

and Dean V. Babst. Sacramento, June 1965.

64. Jacks, L. "Offender Characteristics Predictive of Parole Behavior,"

American J. Corrections, 28(3): 10-12, 1966.

201
65. Kanum, C. and Monachesi, E. D. "Delinquency and the Validating

Scales of the MMPI." J. Crim. Law, Criminol. and Pol. Sci. , (Mar. /Apr.): 525-534, 1960.

66. Korn, R. R. , and McCorkle, L. W. , Criminology and Penology , New York, Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1959.

67. McCullough, W.; Kolodney, S.; and Wormeli, P., "Analysis of Integrated

Offender/Offense Data.", Sociosystems Laboratory, Sylvania

Electronic Systems -Western Division for: California

Council on Criminal Justice. Dated 29 May 1969.

68. McGargee, E. I.; Cook P. E.; and Mendelsohn, G. A. "Development and

Validation of an MMPI Scale of Assaultiveness in Overcontrolled

Individuals." J. Abnorm. Psychology , 72(6), 519-528, 1967.

69. McGee, R. Objectivity in Predicting Criminal Behavior. Eighteenth

Circuit Courts Sentencing Institute, Denver, Colorado, 1966.

70. McKegney, F. P. "Psychological Correlates of Behavior in Seriously

Delinquent Juveniles." British J. Psychiatry , 113(500),

781-792, 1967.

71. Mandel, N. and Barron, A. J., "The MMPI and Criminal Recidivism."

J. Crim. Law, Criminol. and Pol. Sci . 57(1), 35-38, 1966.

72. Mannheim, H. and Wilkins, L. T., Prediction Methods in Relation

to Borstal Training . London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1955.

73. Monachesi, E. D. "American Studies in the Prediction of Recidivism."

J. Crim. Law , 41, 269, 1950.

74. Moroney, M. J. Facts From Figures . London: William Clowes and

Sons, Limited, 1956.

75. Morris A. "An Assessment of the Gluecks' Studies in Juvenile

Delinquency." Sociol. and Soc. Research 46(2), 156-166,

1962.

76. Morris, A. "The Comprehensive Classification of Adult Offenders."

J. Crim. Law, Criminol. and Pol. Sci . 56(2), 197-202, 1965.

77. Naar, R. "An Attempt to Differentiate Delinquents from non-Delinquents

on the 3asis of Projective Drawings." J. Crim. Law, Criminol.

and Pol. Sci. (Mar.): 107-110, 1964.

202
78. New York (City) . Youth Board. A Manual of Procedures for the

Application of the Glueck Prediction Table. New York. 1964.

79. New York (City). Youth Board. Research Department. Validation

of Glueck Table for Identification of Juvenile Delinquents,

Based on Five Intrafamily Factors. New York, 1953.

80. New York (State). Executive Department. Division of Parole.

Bureau of Research and Statistics . Seventeen Year Follow-up

of 163 Male Parolees. February 10, 1967.

81. Nicholson, R. C. "Use of Prediction in Caseload Management."

Federal Probation , 32(4):54-58, 1968.

82. Panton, J. H. "Use of the MMPI as an Index to Successful Parole."

J. Crim. Law, Criminol., and Pol. Sci ., 53, 484-488, 1962.

83. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of

Justice. Commission Report: "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society." Washington, D. C, U. S. Government Printing

Office, 1967.

84. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of

Justice. Task Force Report: "Assessment of Crime."

Washington, D. C, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

85. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of

Justice. Task Force Report: "The Courts." Washington,

D. C, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

86. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of

Justice. Task Force Report: "Juvenile Delinquency and Youth

Crime." Washington, D. C, U*S. Government Printing Office, 1967,

87. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of

Justice. Task Force: "Science and Technology." Washington,

D. C, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

88. Report to the Judicial Council Committee to Study the Operation

of the Bail Reform Act in the District of Columbia, 2nd

Edition, May 1968. District of Columbia Circuit. George L.

Hart, Chairman.

203
89. Report to the Judicial Council Committee to Study the Operation of

the Bail Reform Act in the District of Columbia, 2nd Edition,

May 1969.

90. Report on National Needs for Criminal Justice Statistics. Bureau

of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, August 1968.

91. Report of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of

Columbia, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C,

1966.

92. Report of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of

Columbia, Appendix. U. S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D. C, 1966.

93. Reynolds, J. S. and Fitch, W. A. The Bail Reform Act and Pre -Trial

Detention. Office of Criminal Justice, U. S. Department of

Justice, September 5, 1967. (Report and Appendices.)

94. Rogers, J. W. and Maynor, N. S. "Optimism and Accuracy in the

Perception of Selected Parole Prediction Items." Social

Forces , 46(3) :388-400, 1968.

95. Rose, G. "Trends in the Use of Prediction," Howard Journal of

Penology and Crime Prevention , 12(l):26-33, 1966.

96. The San Francisco Project: A Study of Federal Probation and

Parole. School of Criminology, University of California,

Project Reports 1-11 and Supplemental Report.

97. Schaffer, S. A., Data Sheet for Studying Bail and (Pre-trial)

Parole Jumping, Vera Institute of Justice, June 5, 1969.

98. Schuessler, K. F., "Parole Prediction: Its History and Status."

J. Crim. Law, Criminol., and Pol. Sci ., 45, 425-431, 1954.

99. Sellin, T. and Wolfgang, M. E. "Constructing an Index of Delinquency,

A Manual." Published by the Center of Criminological Research,

Univ. of Pennsylvania. October, 1963.

100. Sellin, T. and Wolfgang, M; E. The Measurement of Delinquency, New

York: Wiley, 1964.

101. Smith, J. and Lanyon, R. I. "Prediction of Juvenile Probation

Violations." J. Consult, and Clin. Psychology 32(1), 54-58, 1968.

204
102. Sterne, R. S. "A Re -Evaluation of Parole Prediction," Criminologica , 3(4):3-7, 1966.

103. Stott, D. H. A Delinquency Prediction Instrument : London, U. of

London Press , 1960

104. Stott, D. H. MA New Delinquency Prediction Instrument Using

Behavioral Indicators." International J. Soc. Psychiatry 6,

195-205, 1960.

105. Stott, D. H. "Prediction of Success or Failure on Probation."

International J. of Soc. Psychiatry 10(1), 27-29, 1964.

106. Stott, D. H. "The Prediction of Delinquency from Non-Delinquent

Behavior." British J. Delinquency , Jan., 1960.

107. Subin, H. I. "Criminal Justice in a Metropolitan Court. -- The

Processing of Serious Criminal Cases in the District of

Columbia, Court of General Sessions." Office of Criminal

Justice, U. S. Department of Justice, October, 1966.

Subin, H. "Bail for the Rich, Jail for the Poor," The Nation , March 24, 1969.

Taylor, A. J. W. , "Prediction of Parole: A Pilot Study with Delinquent

Girls," British J. Criminology, 7(4) :418-424, 1967.

Taylor, J. G. : Navarro, J. A.; and Cohen, R. N. "Data Analysis and

Simulation on the District of Columbia Trial Court System for

the Processing of Felony Defendants," Institute for Defense

Analyses Research Paper P-415 . dated June 1968.

111. Tuteur, W. "Can Violent Behavior be Predicted?", Corrective

Psychiatry and J. Social Therapy , p. 39-43, 1963.

112. United States Congress, "A Bill to Amend the Bail Reform Act of

1966 to Authorize Consideration of Danger to the Community in

Setting Conditions of Release, to Provide for Pre-trial

Detention of Dangerous Persons, and for Other Purposes."

HR 12806, S-2600, 91st Congress, First Session.

113. Void, G. B. Prediction Methods and Parole . Hanover, N. H. : The

Sociological Press, 1931.

205
114. Voss, H. I. "Predictive Efficiency of the Glueck Social Prediction

Scale." J. Crim. Law, Criminol. and Pol. Sci . 54(4), 421-430

(1963) . 115. Wallis, W. A. and Roberts, H. V. Statistics, A New Approach . Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956.

116. Ward, P. G. "The Comparative Efficiency of Differing Techniques

of Prediction Scaling." Australian and New Zealand J. Criminol . 1(2):109-112, 1968.

117. Wilkins, L. T. "Persistent Offenders and Preventive Detention."

J. Crim. Law, Criminol., and Pol. Sci . 57(3), 312-317, 1966.

118. Wilkins, L. T. "A Re-Evaluation of Parole Prediction: Some

Comments," Criminologica , 3(4):9-10, 1966.

119. Willie, C. V. "The Relative Contribution of Family Status to

Juvenile Delinquency." Social Problems , 14(3), 326-335, 1967.

120. Yefsky, S. A. (Ed). Law Enforcement Science and Technology , Vol. I.

London: Thompson Book Company, 1967.

121. Zamsky, Steven A., "Effects of Bail and Other Pre-Trial Procedures

on Outcome, Plea and Speedy Trial." National Institute of

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, United States Department

of Justice. A Narrative Report of Oregon School of Law,

Eugene, Oregon, Dec. 1969.

122. "Report of the D. C. Bail Agency for the Period of January 1, 1969-

December 31, 1969," District of Columbia Bail Agency, Washington,

D. C.

123. "Second Annual Report for Period Ending May 31, 1968" District of

Columbia Bail Agency, Washington, D. C.

124. Dalkey, N. , and Helmer, 0., "An Experimental Application of the

Delphi Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science,

9 (3): 458-467, 1963.

125. Ennis, Philip H. , "The Measurement of Crime in the united States."

Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Law Enforcement

Science and Technology, Law Enforcement Science and Technology,

Thompson Book Company, 1967.

206
APPENDIX B

People Contacted During the Study

The following people were consulted either by letter or in person,

during the course of this study. We wish to acknowledge their assistance ; note, however, that their mention here does not imply agreement with

statements or conclusions made in this report.

Honorable Donald E. Santarelli (discussions)

Miss Sylvia Bacon (discussions)

V

Mr. Frederick Hess (discussions)

Mr. Thomas Lumbard (discussions)

Mr. Earl Silbert (discussions)

I Miss Karen Skrivseth

Mr. Joel Blackwell

Mr. Harry Greene

I Mr. John Junghans

Mr. Lawrence Margolis

Mr. Frederick Stein

Mr. Frederick G. Watts

Mr. Joseph Burton (letter)

Mr. Frederick Beane

Mr. John March

Honorable Harold Greene (letter)

Honorable Tim Murphy (interview)

Honorable James Be Is on (interview)

Mr. Joseph Lowthes (letter)

Honorable Thomas Flannery (letter)

Mr. Alfred Hauttman

Mr. Robert Stearns (letter)

Mr. Luke Moore (letter)

Honorable Arthur L. Burnett (letter)

Honorable John F. Doyle (letter)

Mr. Samuel Wertleb (discussions)

Mr. George W. Howard

Mr. Fred Peterson

Associate Deputy Attorney General

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of

Justice

United States Attorney's

Office at the Court of

General Sessions

Chief Deputy Clerk's

Office - Criminal Division

Court of General Sessions

Chief Judge

Judges of the Court of

General Sessions

U.S. Attorney's Office

District Court

Clerk's Office - District Court

U. S. Marshal

U.S. Magistrates for

the District of Columbia

Formerly , U . S . Commiss ioner

U.S. Probation Office

— Presently Executive Assistant to the United States Attorney for the

District of Columbia.

207
Honorable J. Edgar Hoover (letter)

Mr. Jerome Daunt (discussions)

Mr. Bruce Beaudin (discussions)

Mr. William Cecil (discussions)

Chief John Layton (letter)

Chief Jerry Wilson (letter)

Inspector Waters

Mr. Fred Landers

Mr. Frank Polarhie

Federal Bureau of

Investigation

District of Columbia

Bail Agency

District of Columbia

Police Department

Mrs. Joan Jacoby

Mr. Kenneth Hardy (letter)

Dr. Stuart Adams (discussions)

Mr. Dewey Meadows (discussions)

Dr. Barry Brown (discussions)

Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (discussions)

Mr. Paul Woodard2/ (discussions)

Mr. Lawrence BasFir (discussions)

Mr. John Vale (discussions)

Mr. Glen Ketner (discussions)

Dr. Alfred Blumsteinl/ (discuss ions)

Miss Jean Taylor (discussions)

Professor Samuel Dash (discussions)

Mr. Daniel FreedV (discussions)

Mr. William Eldridge (discussions)

Mr. Carl Imlay (presentation)

Mr. Wayne Jackson (discussion)

District of Columbia

Office of Public Safety

District of Columbia

Department of Corrections

U.S. Senate

Subcommittee on Constitutional

Rights

Institute for Defense Analyses

Georgetown University Law School

Urban Coalition

Federal Judicial Center

Administrative Office of the

U.S. Courts

27

: — Now with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

3/— Now Professor in the School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie

University

4/— Now Professor of Law, Yale Law School.

Mellon

208
Miss Barbara Bowman (discussions)

Mr. Norman Lefstein (discussions)

Mr. Charles Rousselle (discussions)

Professor Dallin Oaks (discussions)

Mr. S. Andrew Schaefer (discussions)

Mrs. Patricia Wald (discussions)

Mr. Peter Wolf (discussions)

Dr. Robert G. Miller (discussion)

Mr. Jack Highsmith (discussion)

Mr. Robert Webber (discussion)

Mr. Richard 0. Motsay (discussion)

Legal Aid AgencyUniversity of Chicago Law

School

Vera Institute of Justice

Neighborhood Legal Services

Georgetown University Law Center

Travelers Insurance

Chief, R.O.R. Division, NYC

Probation Office

Information Center of the

National Council on Crime and

Delinquency

Director, Baltimore City PreTrial Release Division

209
Appendix C

Data Collection Form

210
o

o

i

I co

co

cc

CD

ccO

<

<

Q

H

s o C_> S M b. h-4 o cc w a

O O 02 z J

i—p—

CO >-a CO bj < <

3 O O OS CQ f-3

<

H

<

Q < 1-3 CO 1 CO 3 <-> CU !-3 1-3 O < Z Z Cu o

a>

•o

•o

•i-i so

COo

rJ=

+JU >->

•r-l to CQ ^

<4H U. o m co o

i—i Qj co sO

I s

so

co

u> in co

c\j o

O to co hQ CM

a

H

CO

CCO

Iju UJ

CC

<

CQa

<

i

cm t* o ca

CO -sT O CM

CQ CM O T

i i o> t c co co -< en

i-i O ^h 3 <q< <

**

o> o

c/i TT

CO 1 U "?T V

CM CO Q | St < co co H 1—4 o

o

co

CO U CM Iju rr

CQ

c

o>

<4-l <4H o

CQCU

Jh cc

o> cu co

CQ

+> &

O 0) COS Q- H

it a mou t*-o cm CD^HOTQ i—I i—l CO e i co i r- b i -h i t*

co -^

CM ^h

CO CQ

o

-£= C

o

co +J CM CO

0>hh

<

«HO

t-CM <L>

1 *-> CM CO CM a

c

<h V'

<Ho

in <H

CO O

o 0J o

CO U CM I)

1 o 1 +->

i co -o h n u i comco^o'-j'rr'Dinco nz H a.nQnz'-, 0QNU^< H Q

CM©coo

<z

o

CO

ccu

Cu

w

o

CU

o CO

Iin

in CO

cu a> 0) D5 -CP O

M Si U

CO CO CO u

-JD rr CM w

a> m sO h- CO

-o 1 i | 1 p co r-4 o- r—

cj in vO O t0>

S-H CO

co C +J 0> 0)

CO w 05 D> ^ 'a> ^-i >m

>-i M CO CO

IB ^ £ JC s < o o

m r01 0)

(-4 S« CO CO

211
o \ 4-J ^ u \ o

OO

a<d

at, C/3 OS 0) EC Up

"3- o O co

PL, "3 ^E-i < „ e- en < <D QLO

Ua

"5* c P

P, oc

co

4-1

cti "3P 4-1 o £ ,H 3 > < LW z o

CD CD

CO 6 3£

cop

LH 0)

<-H *_ o

bO

CD

<-h £ O -HP

4->

U PO <H

a, o

CD OS

po

CD -H U 4-1 •H a3 rH CJ o o

CX

X

Sh3oX

•ppu

<4Ho p

CDp

0)

(30 Co

•H ,-^

4-J CD

co

u

N 03 H H e

co "d

(30 P

Ph 03 O 3 > CO P.^ •r4 /—v bO * 0) 71 °«

cd P

r-4 -H

XI rd gcd

03 r-t rH -H •» H 3 - p

03 ^3 CD

O > t N CJ -H

CO CD

M P 4-J

4->

U CO -H

4-J Ul o 4-> Tj P T3 •h as

cOu

03 ••> CD » U

Ph -H

CD r-4 (30 Ph

o3 5

fH

U

4-1 CJ CO o3 • p

bO CD • r^H CD O ^ >

•H Ph

4-> U » H >, > +-> P.03 x p-

(30 LH P O -H

4-> CD C

Ph 0)

4->

p

03

O 2 U o

00

CD «r-V3 c

Ph ^—

N 4-> t:o

-—i P(

rt CD o > H o W u c—

p. oX X (J 4-J >. p. CO CD P- PO •\ Lh fr

P, 3 4-> i—i O P c

•H

p

rHG oc P

•H CD e X4-J

«s CD p X o 3

•H

4-J •* cON to • H 03 rH

03 1

4-J T3 • H

Ph Ph CO O o

to

<n

•X o X rH

4-1 03 >s

CD 4-> XS Ph *

* CDPh

r:

O

•H P.

4-J Ph oH LH > O

>^ X =3 rH X) o3 CD >

Ph

0J •* mLH c 3 3

10 •r-^ e

co •H

COo <4H -^ o

c.

vf

03pU

CO

Ph •HPh

10poup

CD •3P

CD MH

C4HO

CD X4-> o

4-1 P.CDPhOp

Pho

CD

CO3

Ph03

PhO

Ph

4-J

CO

4-> COP

bO

CO X

bOPu

CD X4-> LHOO

PhP3

4-> P

CD

PiCOao

CO

H

4-J P

CD -3

CDUPoco

l/> p.

CDP,

10p

•H

CObO

cj

<D

(J

PhO

<4H

CO

Ph

LH- • HU

CDPh

I/) co

Ch

03O^-M

a; "—

T3

CD>

rH 4-» O CO > o P h

•H

X4-J CDO •» H co O CD LH CO •H m c o b

r. CD a. p3 o 3 P

a. cj » CO rH o

CD>OXCO X)

CDp

CD>ooo

CO LH

PhO

P,S

4H

CO

CDCO O

oo

212
CO

rr

co

CO

CC

CO

aso<

o>ex

to a,u

a>a.

co a.ozb e O CO « CO

co VI to £Eo > U +-> +J CO < 3

to

-*-- 3

(J +J

CO tn C2 < o a> w co cm co 'T in no r~- Q O

Cp DOu

a>en

1-co A t O CM

on CM o cm ^ *r

TT

co rr LO

O

CM CM CM CM co ^r lO O

~> sO

S* 1—

T, i o in

cc o .—

UOo

>-

UJz CJ

cc z o l-H H z H UJ < UJ

as co o 3 co

a>

!h CM

CO I -E CO

CO O

CO

CD

CO co >s;

COO 4-> ~^ J= <D E S CC EO Dt- O OCM

•o CO 3

co

CMI CMCM

BBoO

CO3O

co

0} a

*j o U CM 4) CM 3 I *-> I o in co m

co o '->

Q cm o o

a-CO

co

CO

CO

CD CO

4-> CO rt CD

CO >i C Z

a> >h

a,

CO >Ho O Z o > E h < a> co

o. in =

co co I co >>

s*CO Cu

en

CO

.. <d

a. a> cc

cc

Q- -* 2

ca o

a>c

co u

co co in cq

a> •H CO CO +J a

cr •rt Ih o

CM

—

a a> in <D 1 *t-t c .c i +-> CO CO •^ o -i-* m co CM ca TUO TT Q

CO ca

h-m cj

CM CO in ao

213 l H H Z Z UJ

UJ s

cou

cc

Cu
\0

o

Ph<

<

P

o

to cn

to

l O

to

1 cn

•CO in

l O

to

1 vD 02

1 -4 ^O 02

1 -4 ^o

H

m

cno1 02 H

1

cn

1 H

I o- ON

1 H D- O

i><e-cn-c«-in-co-i>--e3-cn-ta-in-e8-i>-6e- o o o o o o o

m\h \cn"^ m\h **-* cn\ m\ 0iXcn<in<i><c;cn< Ln<:iX

u -4\0\02-\.4\0\02\-4\ Pt>PcnfqinPI>PcnPinP[>P

a

a> cn

CO E>

I H

i>-X"02 x'-4X'i>X~02 X-4XT-X"

H PS PS PS PS PS o w u u w w

•H

-p M M X K W

•H Oh PL, P-, Ph PL, COO EH H EH EH EH & C_> U O U U

CO •HOq^OflfflflOP^QfflOOfl PO-O2-4I>-02-4r-- IOIOIOIOIOIOIO

o m o- o> m o o

^0020-40^00020-40^00

w

CO \4\^0 "\-fi0 •-». -4\MD \150 \ i-0^O^hW>h-4->hvO>hCV>h-4->hvO>h

pa XW

PL, P-,

EhOEHO

S S S S £ S S

O o a o o o a ^OOOOOOO WS3S3-S3S3S3S3S3 --'L> en lo o- en lp, i> rdv0O02O.4-Ov0O02O-4O^0O

HMD 02 -4- vO 02 -4 ^O Ph^00020-40v00020-40vOO

cq —- in

CD \0 o m

H cn tn H m LO

02

I -41 ^oi 02

J -4

1 1 0> H cn 0>

1 H1 cn H -4 MD H -4 ^o

co

CDW)C\2

in \D

cci I rS 0> o m

co to H

1 H1 m m

rH o 02 H o 02 -4

1 i -4

I t> o

I 1 0A

•co < cn m •to m cn in o

EHS3

EH

S3w

co

•co o

H

Sfl-P fn fn Jh ?H ?H -POOP-, OEHOccJO H O X "+H <+H CD Ch >>-H CD -p K CO fn -P 3 O PhH t3 Jh T3 XS S CD H O H SHPhH 3H CDH 3^

•H OOO^CDOCDfHCD|K!P ^SSOSPffiOffiOnffiWO U OUS Eh K X

.4 P-, O S3 S3 O O P O W XI

>>

CDC

fnO

P

-P

<u

coa

CD «H

CD P

>X5

I m

02

CDw

Til

1-3

CDO o

S3

T3

H

cn

i 02

cv

H

ccJ P

60 P

1-3 U

o

-p

0) Pi Pi

o

02 CD

I -P m ccj H p

CO

-P-P<

co

•to < 02

C^o

to

in

i -4m

o

to cn

toin o

to

^o 02cn-4in

^0

a h

cd in

-p i c oCD -4

CO X X

X

paa

p

pjo

p

cj O

CJ3 S3

oH

P

H

COo to o U-4H O H

CO I S3 I S3 •H t> 0-> P 4-OvO O

cd •H »-3 1-3 fnv£)"\-CO\.

EH -4 U^O O

O

P

Ph

S3

u

p

PhS3 O Ci3 mo ou rd -4 15^0 S3

I I H -4Ov0 O

Ph -4S3^D S3

cn

-4

T) I O H

CJ -4

bOO

U -4

(0 i ^ !> o cn

to H Fh Ph

01 >> CO pH P

H

o o o H^-.cn\m\

cn< m< ixc;

X >H >H 0"v^.02-\-4^

cnP m p r- p

cn 0>

02 H

m

cn H 1>

02 -4 H

X X

X

w

p

o

X

X

w

1-3 p

o o

O cj O

S3 S3 S3 vO -to o

02 H -4H D-H

I S3 I S3 I S3 in o- o>

02 O -4 O vO O

i-3 h> i-3 -4"\vO ~\-CO \ WO4O\0O

u

p

PhS3

P

Ph

S3 O CjJ

p

Ph

S3

cnu mo oo 02 S3 -4 S3 ^O S3

I I I 02 O -4-0 vO O

02 S3 -4S3vD S3

in

M3 H02 cn-4

cn H

H

-4

cn

MD

toH

1 in

02 H o 02

| -4

1 0> r1 in to pq cn m

o

o

t>> -pH >>!h H -P O

<U rf-H(H

Ihcd -P O -P U S3

Ph O

S3 P

H

S3

id n

CO H

a

l"3

1-3 n

cd o

-po

214
SO

oom

osmo

ti<<a

<d01 T3

•"3

CMCM o

CM c

0) o

-P 10 c to

ata

"3

CO X!O

CDe

CO

W

COc

COuap

•H

SO

CD

a)01

133

PS 1-3 It

ps. P a

m

CO <d n CO s

a> ID

CD Sh SB U en P-ps

PS (1)

en cd C OS o

•ha

-p 3 5 Wcu

CO •• -=* o 1 cu r- en

-=* OS 5 § I o

r-l e

-=* <

COCIo

•H

73cooo

<Da

>>

a,

H SB

CO -^ m

p\ No

fn us

CD US CD XI I -P

-PO CO

O US

Q

<D OS <H

-Pc

CDS

-po

•H

T3C . M O

O

H

M

T3

CD Oc H IS O * p3O

O

po

SB

•H

O 3O

O

O

O

MMM

H

M P\ c r- S S 5: £ S 1 •H H H H M M CM

-P f^

•H

OO

O

O

O CO O Q D O D Oa * £ ^ 3: S CO

10

Q

OO

D

Q CD •H CM O CO NO J* rH flf^H J* M .=» 1—

US

M SOM

a

CD i-l xs p\ o 1 U OS

CM

Os

en UNUS

PS

so

p\ us PSus so

CD -P

CO Qco w

CDOICO U CM

co 1 xl us

CJ CM o

[soI

SB>

CDenU

CO XIO o

r^ cd ih 1 -P -H us co us co so q r^ 03

h >,h

CI CO CO c

CD

H 01 S \ s c

CD rH •H •H

73 CO rH

U

CO

H CD CO •H Sh u CD S H a, K

215
00

ini m

ON

vOJ COI 2

pqO3

NO

cnegcn

CO o

CO

m

vO

r-.

W CM ZW rH H <0 Z l W ON o o < r«. < Q r^ Q o

cnON

CNI o

en -^ m <; . >•

cn ~^, m q o m ~-~

1—

en

ON

X!

a

a

a zoMHH

COO CO

CM <?

CO I l-l c~.

QO

Qo z o Z

NO z M r-~- HI CN H z 1 ON z 1 m Z o vO O CM CJ

aol z QO

rjz l z ON

NO

O

HH

NO

•-> ^00 U vO

•-3

CJ CN

>-> O

to o

CONO

>-> o

Phz uPhzo m o s o

sf z no Z i i

pli <j- z vo

a

OhZO

cm z

PhZ

cm o cm z 4

PhZo

OS

u Z no ZI O no o Z no zo

cn nO

i-i cn

NO

00 T33

hj cnCNI CN

CM

Pi

CD 4J

ct) Q

<DOc

4Jc

<u CO

M

01 T3 A cu 4-1 00 o C CJ) cO X, CO o

0) ,, 3 CO

r-H CO co e< co a 5 n Xl cn

CO •H u •o 3 en c u

x: 3 o

4-1 4J o •• •H CO o S 4J Ph

CO gen

vO i-l i cn -rHCO pq

<r 3 i o

inC

<u o

00 -H T3 4J 3 -H Z uo

1-1 c0 PQ

CUOac

0)

to

<uM

co pj C

cn

w cn m i 01 CO

P< CM

CO

a> H

H

•H

cO ^ Z Ph On Cii CU cn Ph

4J I nj oo pq Q cn a

0100c

CO MO Z

CO PQCN

NO <U I 4-1 r^ cO m q

u

m

4J

O o m

216
C/3

CQ

OSo

<

<

Q

-a

cd X

u>c

CO o

J3 Ih O

a> +> E O

co en

en

C/3 e

3

CO

!m -o 3 CD J= (/) cS

+-> E

•iH C a. 3 -r-i 3

e- t/3

«4HCD Q g(L3< K H .Q »-"

CO

rr cn

vD

02

I

CD cc

0)c o

z

e

01 HH

CO

CD D>_]

a> cd a J

CQ O

CD CD E <*-( O CD O CU s

• • >> o

E X! Z

O

•n -O -O E P J) 3 TJ

rl C/J 1/1 CO CD

co to (O !h £

ri "O !h E j= -h M K »1 f"H

•r-l -i-H >i-H -r-1 <*-) Q Q Q 3 <

OO

U

CUu

CD -E

=

u.

-a

CD T3

co a

>-i o H H

X5

"O 3 U CD E CD -rt E

co 2 a ^

o • a.

-a «<h CD <*H

CD a

OS OS OS OS CU

co <c

CM >-> o

1 o

CM

CM

+j CD

O +-> o o

CD CC

os

CDE V3

co en

CO O

CD CM CD •• a. i (-> +-> •^r a.io co +-> —i < -i Q <

<:w

CU

Cu<.

o

a.

CO CD

I +-> CO CO cm a

co

i CM

CO CQ

CO

CDa.a.

CO

CDU

CUo

T

I m

co

T3 o

E

Oo •• o

in

in co

I T CC in 3

co c

in 3

i a

CO E T <C

incO

CDa. H en

-i H

CO 3

CQ3 •• CD CQ Z CU sO CC E>T CU O I « m ca

CD

CDcnE

CO J=

0- CO vO CQ

CO CO

CO vO CD s in a

CD

c E

3 © •o

co 1-1 V

u +-> CO o CO o

.c .—

CL

+> o +J CO CD •IH •H CD >pH to s >. s C2 c

CU r—

1—1—

CD <W H • r-( M co Vh CD CO CO co o CO CQ CQ O

O 2 > CQ Q

ECOQQOQQQO CD O co » CO O T O T s T C- ^

CO<-*CMCQTCQmcQr^-CQCMCaTaQmCQl'~

CD CD cc cc

QQ

uo n

u. o OE3333333 E +J 3

COCDCO CO CD CO CO CO CO CO co+JCMOTOinot— ocM©Tom©t^o CD CD cc a

CO a

CD(O

CO r^

CD CM

1—

i CD CM

CC CM

CM r^ CM r~ CM h- CM ^ m r^ CM 31 m rr^ CM r- CM t- CM r^ co in vO CM CO m -o

CO a

a cc

0) Q

J-J CM2

o

h>H H CC Z O

U H

H cn

UJ i—i Q X

O o

CM CM

1 m o m 1 in o in m CO

i ini -oi in

<—

co in

1 o in o o m c co < co "V sO CO CQ co -31 -o o

CM

217
in 3

I o 51

tN 0- v» to to

>- H 06

to 3: O CO -i s

'N tu < 1 c

LO • 00

^-1 00 tN T

o

Io

•--< 3

-a co

o o o o o

U- U. U. U- u. HUU.O a CJ CJ CJ CJ (J V < >-,06 o vO O sO *D sO XZ co cj u. z r~l_ r^s- t-» S- f-S- !•».(- j

M

c m z z z z z z

0) c ^ CL ULl >« I-~ >- r^ >- 1^- >- r-- >- !» >-

4-1 c tN fN tN tN tN 3 r~ r^ [^ r- t-^ o1

CO 00 oo 00 CO

>o vD o vO sD X X X X

op6 op6 \Do6 o a: *D X

•O O CJ CO X * 2 V) O 2 !/) nO 2: CO *0 3: CO SO 06 C P6 O O 2 t_) 06

i i i i i 5 co loOcj in o u loocj lo o cj co

CJ Z row \C *63 *0 *D ^ C O

06 ~^ nah « at- to a: i— n B (- f. £6 f- —1 O. c c_ voo- «oa o 0- o c- 3 -H "CO 1 CO 1 CO 1 CO 1 CO 1 CO

0) to co co \ csica in co tN co in ca rsico Z (O S Cu D ^O TZ ZZ> ^C 'Z. ID \0 7! D O ^ ZD v03C^ M

4J H z z z ~z z

tu n! o\ o \ o \ o — o-~.

s: co sO >- o >- *o>- £> >- o >-

06 CO CJ 3

rt (/)+-» <l) u

i 3 </) Mt3 CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ

i-l *-> C 1) C X •H fl -H E tO +-» CO CO CO CO CO w +j a) 3 x -h 00 CO 00 CO 00

CO '/; 06 CO U 3 LO 06 LO D6 log; LOq; loo6

-^c

oh id +J t/> C to vO •£> ^D vO a

i) <u a> LO LO LO LO LO

+-» r-( 4J

cj v d a 06 a LO LO LO LO LO

*-.

+-> i—

06 06 D6 06 06

tu <u en \ en \ en \ en \ en \ Q6 "0" O ^ro -a-c TQ TO

in co o

<U <o o o o o o

3 >

in u CO CO CO CO CO 2 </> <U o r^ r~ t^- r^ t^

CO M CO z «H tM TM -3-1-1 TM

0)s

to z

a> LO LO LO •-0 LO

DA 0) ^r "* -3- «* •o -a 3 O ^f Tt -3- Kf

-1 -J -d- -o- -3

1 "* n

C CJ CO z

oH 1 J1«X XX XX X +-» I O 4-1 to X o u ZIhZ(h Z U ZIh z u H T3 w tu tu O (D O

o c 3 x CO.CCO.C cox cox cox h o o a> +-» tN +-irsl +JtN +JfN +->fN «- > cj z z o •^CJOTCJ O 'TUO «*U O TU T

+-» tu o o o o ^ -3- ^t •<T u

o T Tl- T

1) Q ro tO to to to

l/l CJ CJ CJ CJ « C »t

'_) -H 4) CSI *-3 tN>-3 f>J ,D fN 1^) tN»-) °0,Q to U tOO rOCJ IOU rOCJ 3 - rt fe II II 1 tu )- 3 ^-IC0 Ht/1 rHCO H tfl rtCO Z O 2 IOU too IOU to U IOCJ

co

• H

+-» M 31 CTl en en en

~H <U tNI (N tN tN tN c +-» •H tO -3- T •=f T

> a CM tN ' J tN tN \ ~H > o > > > > > C) tH tN\ fN\ ri~^ tN^ tN ^>> 06 > CNQ6 tN06 tN[_; fNQ6 1 —

co

•H

+J o o o o o

u tN tNI tN

LO LO LO LO LO

rH 01 •H +-> to to CO Q 00< COCO' 00CJ 00 a OOUJ

218
o o o o o o

a, ll. u- Ll, tu U, ^hUHO X CJ CJ u CJ CJ U CD < i-H OS O \o vo o O sD sO

.-H Z =Q CJ U, 2 c^ h c~- e-h r^ f-i r- h r- f- r~ E- c

-H z z z z z z z

n. c -» "3- "n. -3- \ -H- -\ =3- ^^ •* ~^ 'H- ^s. LU >- t>- >* r- >h r^ >h r~^ >h r-- >- r^ >h

<-> c cn) CN) CN1 CN] CN] On] 3 r-» t^ r^ r-» f- r-~ O | e- oo OO oo 00 OO CO < vO sD sD VO VO vO o x o x -o x vD X O X vo X

T) C CJ CO X

c

£> PC O OS sO OS

i S CO i S CO i 3 CO

sO OS «0 PS sD OS

i 2i/i i S to i S co O O PS CJ OS

CJ Z 2 to CO

LO LO LO LO LO LO "O O CJ> no O CJ >0 O U OOU sDOU iOOU

os-^e- to OS E— to OS £- to OS E— COOSH rOOSE- tODSE-H

rH Cu \ <0 O- O 0- O Cl- O Oh O 0-i OP.

S -H •• CO 1 CO 1 CO i CO I CO i CO I CO

cd t« pa oq \ ZfflgtlS cnj cq cni pq ro cq ogD ><o £ -3 ogn cn] pq cn] pq cN] pq logs voS3 iog3

,_l M "H z z z z z z 01 CO O \ O \ O --s. o -^ o ^^ o ~-~, S ca \0 >"• VD >H CO >H O >h <3 >- VO >h

3

4-> CD raw S

+j cs co s := s IS S 3^

in +-> CD ^

r in 00*3 cj cj cj U CJ u hH C 0) (3 J= H -H = rt 4-> cO CD c3 X >H

co co co CO CO CO 00 00 CO CO CO oo

ca os c/3 cj s LO OS LO OS LO OS L.1 OS LO OS LO OS

C

o

H CD

4-1 CO C CO vO vD VD sO o \o

CD CD 0) lo LO LO LO LO LO

4-1 hH 4-> o o rt t-H q as a lo LO LO LO LO LO

+J t-H OS ' OS OS os as oS

CD CD CT> ^^ 0*i \ C7i \ CTi \ cn "\ O) -n-^ El OS f a . ** a «-r q S3- Q "H- Q •* Q

t-H CO o

CD CD 3 >

•• <S) U o o o o o o

co co co CO CO CO S w u o r-N r~- r-. tN. t^- t^

PQ i-H CO Z "* I-H t >—< «3M-h H- M *H- HH -^H- 1—

CDi2 CD LO LO LO LO LD LO CO CD -H- 5t ^Hr 3- nJ" **

X! "3 3 O «H- *H- H" >=f 'Tf- "vt

>-: CJ •H- H- ^r st rt ^

c u co zx o

•H

+-> COI

i XO5

5

'4h CH h Z

xxx Sh Z Sh Z Sh 2XXX M Z U Z U

r-H TJ CO CD CD CD CD CD CD <D O C 3 J3 co j-s co j3 co x CO -C CO .C CO X •H O O CD 4-1 CN] 4-1 CN] 4-1 CN] 4-1 CNl 4-1 CN) 4J CN) 4-1 > CJ Z Z O *3- CJ O >3- CJ O *3- CJ o vtuo -*jo -3-uo

4-1 CD o o o o o o -it. H± -* 51- *H- ^J- *nT u

o -1- ^H- «* —r "* -ir cd a ro ro ro to ro ro

c/l u u u U CJ CJ

CO C U U .H CD oe,n

cni l-j CN] i-j cm >-^ CN) i-j cn) i-j CN] t-j to CJ to CJ to CJ O Sh h HC/) t-H CO Hi/) H W -H CO HC0 2 O Z tO CJ MU to CJ to CJ to CJ to CJ

S3oH4-1 CO CI CT) Ol Ol CTi Ol —i CD Cs] CN] CN) CN) r~sj O 4-1 H CO *H- *H- =) -H- «* ^Nt > a <N] CN] CN) CN) rg rsi

~-n r-H > o > > > > > > CD -H CN] \ CXI ^^ (Nl ^s. < CN) \ CN] N^ (N] s^

OS > CN1 OS CNJ OS CN1 OS CN) OS CN) OS CN) pd C

o j H

4-1 o o o < o O o

u<

CN] CN) CN] S CN] Cn] r>] LO LO LO T LO LO LO

.-H CD -—1 ^H •H 4-> CO CO o. ca o CO < 00 PQ 00 U oo <; co pq oo cj

219
09SI

fn «S • • X H p m o P CVi cd i H

-V • fn

W cn

M • s a

w *^

C

^-^

X

—

(7> •H w c H A ,—

01 ^ CO CO CAi • !J W u 1 in

P1 3

tiO -D vO • g

w 1 ^ S C H H ^~* H -4 <d •H H ^

u €0- m O H

•rH

p

COi -d

•H

Hu

XioO

(^

-dpo

CO P2 >O

Q tfU 2 s

Ph

CAi 01 p in

O o 0)

pX ^^

G

M C\2

Q o f*i 0]

M | H cd

H1 • 04 w

-dj CO

O

Eh S i H

cdft

H

en

O ID

M

— • H X) -—

-CO- rr S >H —

% p H S ~~^

cd S _

UJ *v » <o s •H •n

u

H

O

C\i (1) CVi Ph" £ W >H 0} •to CO - • • o 4" s O H (V >H v£) o H •X -P !> 1 * XI w S • • a 1 CO U <M I N t H H

Cd • • Ph O-hHO Ti 01 vO « H TJ >H w o H •\ a C P O • -60- LO Ph •H ^ 1 EH ft a -4 H cd 3 o T3 3 O H * 1 • > in a a CO H fn Jh CT> O O < H CA2 CO W 1 Ph cd cn vD H > i •H P- , • vD Ph 1 U 4 ^ !h -P s ' ** w H

tH X)

H C\2 -p Ph cd o 1 v fl cn

a

N

H •P •H P c\< CQ

U -ee- 13 -P 1 Ph a b£ ^ «\ CO 1 P" .J eh cd O -w* H a ra o Ln O 4^ •« co O W o ta •H Cvi A P 3 X • t-q > ^—

CO cd

O cn s ,C| *— > •H o «*-^ U-, w 1 s -p =8= •V Sh 3: •H P s T3 ^-* o fn X 6 ^ cd m Ph Wk • 40- Ph •H H Ph X w H «\ •H i -4- » u *~* — a

PQ pq

m Jq 5 h o m

w XI

ftH ~ 3 • Pi 5

?H

— Xi 1 ctf s « » izi cd •• p >• vD

1-1 ^fa • -4S i on is CV P «v S •• >> o (\2 H o^S H u CV fH w a a PQ 2: H

<D <; »v cd ••

p

O tofl 3 a *

PQ ^ ° < •• cd c ^ fi o C E m

e?

O Ph >-< -P |3 o u !x! CAi < ^ H1 O — < U

cd

OU

h-5 o ?H Xi

O

C

£>

_ EH •• v£> CO -d Ph ^ H «v M H 1 H •rl • VI o w •Hv£) PL, r cnO

<u o Q ra P •%

H

M < -^on i XI 4"' CO 4" id •H CJ lu l •> • q Ph" £ a !> u >ifA2 O

<D HH o •H • • X

O J-M3 o -p cdW cd • H CJ -—

PhCV

H £

cd > 1 CD ^ <:

—•> T3

m

p

-1 ft •* -P <v£> fn CQ — a X H

CO

H <J ^ S O ••

p

w cn

H ^ 5 CO inH ^ uo u

xi

•iH ^ H •P a o 1 ^q > H u t3

X

-P Ph =fe •rH «* -4 o •H

H Xi o U 2 o & H P Xi H > •CO •H >> >> racv *\ ~ o H •H cn pq =: l cQ o o P4 0^ u ^ nq cn fi £ o •H rs T3 Ch U •• U

«H

U -p

H < O

C X)

O hO

M 'ad Xi -P P Ph

=te

d < < rt >> • • cd Jh ?H

U >•

rt •HH 01 •H

U

O XJ CQ o (U H H A •iH U cd x> ft H H

fi id <+H •H •H 0} fi > u

a c ft

H bO

cd

H <H (d id £ cd

H jri

p pi

X

a cd S Ph O PQ cq ^ Ph !-l ^ co s CO O pq ^ H <\! cn O W

tH

cv fcH

t-1 o w < s hq ^ & >H H < H o o Q EH 2 p s w H H l-l HHhI CO Qi Ph w < O H H <* s Ph PQ < ft K s pq 220
15

TSHX

CQa

T3H

•HA!

COU

Pho

cd Hioo

pi H

CQ

cd HHou

0) -pH

CO

ib

CO

•\

O " -4-u i PQ in *• -4-u

3=

a;

Pho&o

p.

EH

OH

Ph PhO

Ph

CO

CO ou

-4PQu

35

-p

0)oH

p.SuoH

Phft

<hO

0)ft

>> H

TloH

ft6w

bO

P!o

i-l

15o

<oS oI -co CoI

0) O^ -P m-H -4 $ ' \cn

TS^O

cd

Pi

M3I H

COmi m

TS

-p

C\2

ftsoo

TJ

cd

Ph O

+->

0) -aa• o

vO S3v£> o

bO <

bO

PiO

l-lo

bO oO

Ph

0)i> w

O2

-p

fl

0) TS

pi -P

CO

toaHHHH

cd -P

a,

?Ho

£h

"0N

•HH

cd -pH

ft

CQOK

Ph

a)> o2

CQbO

Ph «o

02

vO >HOH

H.ooo

a>N

•HH

cd -P

•Hft

CQoK

0)

Ph0)

O

-4I O

<n

o-cni en

u

cd

CO

!=H

-P

cd

Pio m - cn< I PL, -4- •> cnPQ

Ph

CQ

cd H

0) aiH

cd

CJo

rl-PH

xfou

a)CQ

al H

Pi

x!

CQ H>

Ph

ft

CO

CQcd H

CPh -4I Al^O U -4 O

CQcoH

-P

•HX)cou

toini m

in

X

PhO

COS3 -^ r

-4-fU I CO en *> -4- Pi

O

Phrd PhO

•HP

cdo

Ph Phou

t> w o

>>

H S

^t>H

AJO

Pi

PiU<

Ph -4

PQ I Ph Hm

bO

Phcd a oo

S3

!>

\0I -4 vO

-P

CQ

mho-co s

-4!m

-P

P^

pi

CO x>

pi COo

COo

S3

bO

Phcd O

CQcd H

Pi

Tl

Pi

O

O ^O

PQ

PhO

•H

Ph Ph

O

S3

CQ

cd H

Pi

TJ

PIo

PQ

Pi oo

CO

0i

C\2I

«0

bO

Ph -4

cd cn A 1 O H

cn

H

-4

u

cd o• cn

TS CT>

Ph CVJ o

bO

Phcd Ao

bO

Phcd Xio o

Pio

S3

PhcdPh

cd

T3

Pho

CAJ Pi I

vO Pi H S3 I ~ m pi

CQ>»

cd co -4

-P cv

Pi I cd cn

T> CV

PI Cho

bO

Phcd u

NO

cni in

cn

O 2O

r-H3O

•HIu

Pv

rv z

^H

C/l piO

•H>H

CmO

I"

Phcd

O >•u

-a

~s i CVl >H

cci <CO

•Mqoc

•HJ=

in

cdC• H

cn

CAJ

EH2

PQO

i-l Phs

-4

02

S3oH

EH

w < EH O f-1 t> < o w w w

pqCOO

pqh1

pq

Pi

PiOH

Pi

Ph

PiO

EHCOHM

m

i-q tH

PiO

Ouw

Pi 2o1—

S

221
Appendix D

Procedure for Determining Measures of Potential

Dangerousness

The procedure to be described here assumes that two basic

classification schemes have been settled on. (Experimentation with

different choices for these schemes will be required.) One is a classification of crimes; the i-th type will be denoted T. , where

i = 1, 2; .. ,M. For concreteness , one may assume that the M crime

categories are those represented by the FBI classification scheme.

The second is a classification of factors such as socio-economicpersonality characteristics or other characteristics; the categories

here are assumed indexed by the symbol "k", where k = 1, 2, ...,K.

These two basic classifications can be combined into a two-way

classification of the population or sample in question. Let 0(i,k)

designate the class of those individuals who both exhibit the k-th

combination of socio-economic-personality-characteristics, and also

are on pre-trial release in connection with an "original" crime of

type T. . To avoid triple subscripts later, relabel the classes

0(1,1), 0(1, 2),. ..,0(1,50, 0(2,1),...,0(2,K),...,0(M,K)

A

l A2 AK

A

K+1 A

2K ^MK

In general 0(i,k)-*-A

r

, where r = (i-l)K + k; r = 1,2, . . . ,MK

since i = 1 , 2 , . . . , M and k = 1 , 2 , . .

. , K. Let B. denote the class of individuals convicted— of a type T. crime committed while on bail from the "original" offense.

This formalism is applied in two distinct settings. The first is

prior to use of the procedure; based on data from a sample of appropriate

2/ size—, to obtain estimates of the probabilities (P ,) that an individual,

identified as in class A^, will if granted pre-trial release, then fall

in class B.. The second setting is that of actual use; given an individual

— Could also be used to denote the class of individuals re-arrested and

ideally used to denote the class of individuals who actually committed

a second crime. —2/

' There are standard statistical methods for determining the sample

size required to achieve a prescribed degree of precision in the

results

222
known to be in class A , to "look up" the numerical values estimated

for the various P .'s (i = 1,2, . . .M) to aid in the decision on pretrial release.

The estimate of P . is a very natural one, namely the fraction

f . of members of class A (in the sample) who did in fact fall into

ri r

v v j

class B.. The procedure for calculating f . from .the sample data is as follows:

Let N = number of persons in class A

n • = number of persons in class A

who fall into class B.j , where the row sum is n

r< = n , + n

r 2+,,,+ n

r M

and the column sum is n # ^ = n^ + n

2 ^ + ... +n

iviK,i

Construct the matrix

\ B

: B2

B. ... \ Total

No Second

Offense

A

l

n

ll n

12

n

li •'• nlM nr

Nr

n

i.

9

n

21

n

22

• • • • •

-n

2i

...

• • • •

n

2M

•

n2v •

•

N

2 -n2

.

•A

r

•

• •

n

rl n

r2

• • • • *

•

n

ri '••

•

•

n

rM

•

•V

•

N -n

r r*

• • •

"MK,1 "MK,2

"•

•^i

•

"mk,m

•

"mk, •

•

Total n#1 n

#2

n . . .

•i •M

r=l r=l

r

Not counting the row and column for totals, the table consists of

MK rows and M+l columns . From its entries , form the relative frequencies

n n V

which are the estimates of the corresponding P

r

i's.

223
We define the measure of potential dangerousness , of members

of class A. while on pre-trial release, as

r 1 rl 2 r2 m rM

(r = 1, 2, . . . ,MK) , where S. is a measure of the seriousness of

type T. crimes, determined by some criterion such as the average sentence

associated with convictions for this type of crime.

The measure of potential seriousness defined above is the expected

value of the seriousness of crimes (if any) committed while on release

by a member of class A . This definition automatically also provides

a ranking for the "dangerousness" of the various classes A , i.e., if

D < D then the potential danger associated with the class A is less

than that associated with A . We can use this index to order the

n

classes A according to their potential dangerousness, e.g., we may

have something like

D

1S

<D

22

<D

6 = D

32

<D

* <D

7

<D

9

< "

We anticipate the use of this measure or index of dangerousness

to be somewhat as follows. If one has determined that an individual

before the court is a member of class A by reason of knowledge of the

current charge and socio-economic characteristics then if D is less than

* r some critical value D , preventive detention normally would not be

invoked. On the other hand, if D is greater than or equal to the

a r critical value (D £ D ) then the individual is considered to be in a "critical zone" where preventive detention would normally be considered

(with due regard to the special circumstances of the case)

224
Appendix E

Documented Cases on Pre-Trial Release

225
1) oo 00 oo 00 00 oo 00 oo oo 00 00 00 as 00 00 oo oo 00 00 oo o vo vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO o X vO vO vO vO vO VD vO vO c a> Pi- to OO od- «d" LO iH O0 *d- iH CO iH bt> od- CO 00 C3 rsj rH CO to

CD +-> PO rH CO CO

O o to iH o to o to

H es CO CO tH ^H

O CO CO

4-> CC LO vO vO LO rH vO iH OS CO iH CO tH tH to <—f. vO LO OO od- r-. oo

CO

<x

O c o O o o O rH

O o o U- o tH o o es es es o ^1—

co

•H 00 00 OO 00 00 OO 00 00 O0 00 00 00 00 00 OS 00 00 oo oo CO CO 00

+-> vO vO vO vO vO VO VO vO VO VO vO VD vO VD vO vO vO vO vO vo VD vD

•H «d" r^ to 00 «* •od- LO iH OO •od- "St LO

CO

tH

tH as C-- CO r--

O CO tH CO to

to <u CO CM 1—

CO CO es o to iH es

O to CO o CO o rH iH o CO CO o +-> o^- LO vO vO LO iH vO iH OS as OS iH CO CO tH LO LO CO od- C-. 00

in

Q o o O o o es o O

O o o

i°

O o o iH es a.

O es o o

•HQ

to " '" "

GO

rH r^ o *

03 LO cC i3 OS to CO to LO o to ^r •od- o U i LO LO to iH 1 to o iH to •H

+J

t-. o OS o OS OS 1 o o a> o oo vO

u a> es H o > Z o M u O

t/i CD 1 >- Z Z z Z >H >- >H 2: >-" >H >-> Z 2 >H i >H i Z >- z z

Ohm to %

rHO

t5 /-^ Oh Oh 1 LO m to

Eh1 to 1—1 v—

CO r» CO oo •* «* to LO to LO LO I~^ : «* *d- od- to S3 odg ^t od- as

VO \ O CD LO 00 00 1 to to LO r-» to t~^ p- CO ! tO to LO o 0h iH 1 to to od- I . csO to Sh as OS as to o o o OS o as OS as o o as o OS to o o as to

to o rH to

CD cS o ! z as o

CD22 r^~ oo 00 oo r~- 00 »--. r< oo 00 t~- 00 r-. OO c^ r^ 00 C^ oo 00 r-- c- 00 vo vo vO vO vO vO vO vO o vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vD vO vO vO vO

CD OS to to o CO 1—1 VO o t-~

g

vO o* LO to LO vO vO CO LO as LO as VD iH

"4-1

Q i—

<-H o CO CO to iH r|l CO iH iH o rH o rH iH CO o es o H rH o CO 1—1 CO CO CO »tf CVl CO iH CO «* CO rH CO CO iH CO LO rH CO iH to O tH o o o 1—1 O 1—

1 iH O iH o iH O rH iH iH rH o o tH O o PU

•HC 00 00

r

—\ 1—1 CD f~ oo 00 oo oo OO r^ 00 OO 90 00 oo r^ vO 00 vO 00 00 r^ 00 oo P• Oj vO vo vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vD vO vO vO vO vO rH VD vO vo VD vO

C^ to 1—1 o«- i-H 00 o otf iH P*- LO LO to

O odO od- vO as to CO

C0

Q CO o o co o rH tH o o tH es o iH iH

O tH es

O rH o o CD a.

CO 1—1 LO LO rH <* CO rH iH rH iH -rj- CO

O iH iH rH rH CO tH to

1—

o o o o o iH o o O o <r> tH i O l o O tH

O C5 Pn CL, y—

"—

S3 a>

p

p

p P p

t/s P

cd

H s too

too S too

CD

in S s too S too

CDP s S D,

+-1

t/S S S CD S p t/1 en

Oh Oh a. a, Oh CX Oh

O o U o

Oh Oh Oh Oh

CD • i—i tH 00 00 i—i vO VO LO CO LO •od- od- to c- ro to CO as to tH iH CO as LO LO 1—1 1—1 vO OS iH vO C- iH c-~ iH iH C-- 00 00 iH OO <3- as H as CO

co 00 o o 00 OS o OO 00

O 00 o o 00 00 00

O 00O 00O 00 o o 1—1 1—1 iH H tH rH o iH tH tH rH

LO en as

CD • I 2

i—l 1—1 tH i—

rH

H LO LO CO CO ,od- o* C^ r^ to to to as as rH iH CO CO

LO LO LO LO VO VO vO vO r^ c^ c^ c^ r-~ r^ 00 00 00 00 OO as a> as OS 00 00 00 oo 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo 00 00 00 00 00 00

226
227
uC CD 1 00 00 00 00 00 0O 00 00 00 OO I OO 00 CTi OO 00 00 00 O0 CTl CTl CD +-» vO vO vo VO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO

to 4-> CO OO tO (NJ

O o LO LO r-^ CTi vO

g

00 t^

O r-~ to r^ CN) (N| CNI £ Q CN) i-H rH to to o rH rH CNI CN) O rH rH CN) rH rH CN) CD rH rH

0) vO CNJ CN) OO 00 rH to to to to LO to rH

H CTl CTl vO ^s- to to

CT) o CD o O o rH o O o o o o o rH

OO o o o o o

•H

4-> •H OO 00 00 OD 00 00 OO 00 00 OO

vO

OO 00 CTi CTi 00 00 00 00 00 CTi CTl 10 CD vo vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO VO vO vO & vO vO VO VO vO VO VO O 4-> OO tO CN) CTl f-~ LO LO o rH o rH 00 l-~ l< o rH CN) t-~ CN] (N) CN) PL, CO CN) t—

rH rHO rH rH CN) CN] CN] -H o rH

O CN) o rH CN] o rH rH

to

Q vO CN) CN) ** rH to to CNI CN] CN] to to CNI rH rH to 00 VO ^3- to to •H o o o O rH o o o CD o CD o o CD rH o O O o O o Q

to

CDW> CN] to to

(h LO to CN) CO to to O CN) LO LO * o o o to 6

CN] rH rH OO o o vO 1 1 1 to

a o 1 O

O CTl o o o to C-^ to o O 1 to OO to •H o CTl o

l-> u o

<D

H 2 8 £ Sh o O

i—

u V to 2 ) >H 2 >H 2 2 >- 2 >H 2 >H >> 2 2 2 2 >H >- 2 2 >H >- OS CD 1—

CO 3 H to o tO CN] to H • vO rH CNI LO to

E- nd ^ O ? O o o o i £ in l 1 1 1 i—i l—

tO CTl to to to to

!h "-^ CD cni «* o to CN) to

Cm . M I—

LO o to

O o CTi o to CNI CN) LO CN] •sa- LO o CTi o r>- CD o o o

(/) Jh vt" vO 1 rH l to rH rH CN) 00 00 o OO ve t^ 1 CN) 1 OO LO LO 1 1 c CD CO o CTl to O to CTl O o o CTl CTi o CTl o CT^ to o to CTi o o to to o

OhO

to to to to to (O o °> o o o o

CD3 ,twc)

—"-

u CD22 t^ t>. l-~ 00 f^ r-^ 00 r>- 00 r- 00 00 l>- OO 00 OO t>~ OO OO OO OO CTi T3 VO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO VO vO vO vO vO vO

CD CD CO 00 CTi o CN) to 00 00 CTl «=t r>- vO vO CTl to l .^f CTi o LO CN) vO LO rH

+->

m

q 1—

CNI CNI o rH rH CN)

O o CN]

O o O CN) l rH

O to rH rH rH rH o c m CNJ (Nl !—

t—l r>- CNJ 00 O0 CN] CN] CN] CN) vO rH I CN| CTi ^J- CN) CS CN) CN) CNJ CD o i—

I—rH

O o rH o CD o o o o OO l OO o o o CTi o uo m n u

•H

i—i CD ,—\

4-> t~^ OO [^ OO r-. OO f>- t^~ OO t~- OO 00 t-^ OO C^ 00 00 l>> 00 CO 00 00 CTl • CO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vb vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO

to

Q 00 to r-

to 00 CN) 00 CTl CN) rH o o O to to LO CN) rH vO CN] t-~- LO to

CD 1—o CNJ o rH rrl CN]

O rH CN) CN] CNI rH rH CN] rH CN] CN| rH rH rH rH o >-> CN] rH i-H rH 00 CN] 00 OO CN) to CN) CNI VO CN| rH CNJ CD CN) CN] CN] CN) CN] (N)

(Sl, 1—

O rH

OO o o O o o o o

l-H

OO

O o rH rH o> o o o o 3

•P

'"'-

CD

!h to 2 2 2 4-> 2 o

CD 2 -, 2 2 P 4-> CO CD CD CD .10 CD 3 CD CD to CD 2 Cm Cm 2 to

4-1 Sh

u o U rH { fH rH o fH i 1 o

-co Cm cm a, cu Cm Pn CL, Ch Oh Cm 2 2 Cm

cni CD • i 3;§ o LO LO CTl vO vO t^. vO (N) CTl vO vO CTl t^ rH 00 CTl vO to t o LO

O

'd CO 00 CNI 0O o LO o <* VO t-~ vO vO CTl vO C-^ o O rH r>- r~- .OO CTI o § U o CTi o CTi OO LO 00 O LO r-^ LO LO O LO LO 00 00 00 LO LO r-. LO OO * I—

rH rH o rH

t-^ i—

=«= CD • . lo LO CTi CTl vO vO vO CN] CN) vO vO vO [^ r>- rH rH rH to to •* «* LO LO _^ co 2 00 00 OO 00 LO LO LO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO I~^ t^ r-^ t-~ r-^ l>~ i>~ CTl CTi S 2 CTl CTl CTl CTl LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO

228
i—i Pi

*h

E-<i

Sh PhO

t/>

CDOQ ! u ! c a) 00 CTi 00 00 en cti CTl 00 OO oo 00 CO 00 en 00 cn CTl

4-> VO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO

4-1 CTS 1—1 LO CTl CO CTl LO to "H- «* en o vO to to to to to C O CM (SI CSI 1—1 o o CM CSJ CM CM CM CM r-H rH CM rH rH

LO "3- 1—1 vO CTl en ^J- LO LO to to * LO . CM "* CM CM

CO

O o 1—1 o o o O o o CO o COOO o O

O

•H

4-> •H CO 00 r^ CTl O0 00 cn en CTl oo 00 00 OO co 00 t^ 00 00 CO O0 00 CTl

c/1 CD vO vO v© vO VO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO

to vO \o VO

O +-> 1—1 cri vO LO r-~ oo 00 LO 00 i—l i-H i-H CM en o r>- 3" r-H to to to Ph nS CS! CSI O est o I—I CSI o CS] i-H to r-t CM CM CM CM o O rH CM rH rH

to

O LO CO r-H ^f 1—

vO LO en to to LO to to to to i-H to "=* rH sj- rH CM

H CO o i—l o I—I o o o O o o o O COO t-H o o rH o rH

O

Q ,—

v<> ,—\

t/i

<D to W) to

Sh o

C3 1 C a to tO "3- o en O r>- to to r>- to

CM r-~ 11 to to

O to to o lO csi i—l LO to i-H LO o LO i CM o

•H o o CD en o o CTl o O CTl 1 o 1 O CO

4-> cnr o o vO 1 2 °

Sh o o u in

CD >- 2 2 2 >H >H >H >H >-> >- >- 2 >> 2 >- 2 >- 2 >- >- 2 >H >H

to CM '1*lttw*T"'i to LO • o o

Xl ^ 1 1 C to to to to to

t—i >—

to CSI CM CO \ CD 1-0 "* I-. tO to «* o CTl o CSI o to o to en csi r^ o t^ CO to to to . bo to tO UO to to CO to CSI I LO 1 to to i-H i—i LO 00 1 LO 1 <s] tSI to

CO Sh o O CTi o o o en o o CTl CTi o CTl CD o CTi Cti en o to o o o

CD cfi i-H vO vO to £6 O o o CD !

<D2 2

00 00 t-~ t-» 00 00 csi 00 CTl t^ 00 00 00 00 00 r>- 00 00 00 00 00 00

vo vo vO VO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO

CD Cd LO CSI CTl CTl o CO to CSI i—l CTi t-^ t-~. 00 00 f- i-H CM CM LO cn to CTi m o o r-H <sa CSI i-H o CO 1—1 CSJ CSI i-H i—

o CO o O i—rH rH o CM CM

m 1—

1 CM 00 00 CSI to i-H oi CSI i_n CSI CSI i-H 1—1 CM to CSI CM CM to <5f 00 o o o O o o o i—l o o o o CO O CO ° o o O CO o O o

*"- "' -— 1 1

+-> u

•HT3

Pi

r-H CD / N t—\

4-> 00 0© r-~ C-- 00 oo 00 CTl CTi r^ oo 00 OO O0 00 r>~ oo 00 CO 00 00 00 i • r3 vO o vo vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO

LO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO

to

Q 00 to =t to CSI 1—1 «* 00 CS] CTi i-H I—l en rH CM "3- * vO cn CM rH o i—i i—

CO 1—

1—1 i—CS] csi CSI i-H rH CO CM 1—

O o o rH o O rH

Sh rH CS-1 CTl 1—1 CSI to CSI LO CSI LO to to i—i to CM to to to CM toO CM Oh o <3> O 1—1 CO o CO CO

I—l

CO CO o o1—

o Ot—\

PL,

O o o o O o rH rH

CO 2 g s 4-> CO 2 in S

g"

T S 2

§"

;«? +j +j 4-»

l/l </) CO +J ^ Sh o o o (H Jh Sh o o O

CO d, Ch PH Ch PH Ph Oh ^

Ph Ph Ch Ph • c3£

1—1 i-l to to CSI to LO ^f to LO ^t- =* 1—1 i-H r- CM 00 oo CSI rH CTl

O 00 o o o 00 00 o 00 r-~ o CSI CSI i-H rH * rH vO vO l>~ CS] rH CM o r-~ vO vO vO c^ r^ vO r>- o 00 vO vO 00 00 vO OO vO vO vO 00 00 OO o i—i O O o CM cri ^t" C7> t^

=tt= CD • e o i—

rH to to to to LO LO LO **' •*!- ^d- t^ r-^ r-- 00 00 00 CSI CM CSI CM ^ I 2 ovO ovO ovO

CO\o ovO ovO ovO ovO ovO

CMvOCSI vOCSl. vO vO VO vO VO

vO

vOvO

vO

VO vO

t^

vO vO vO

229
CD

ccj •H

fi Hi cd

r< Oho

t/> CD U

CD PS

CDOC CD CO 00 oo 00 00 00 00 CTi CTl 00 00 OO 00 CT) 00 00 00 00 00

<D P o vo vO vo VO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO P CO o cm CTl r~~. to vO rH t^ t^ LO rH LO LO vO to CM r-- 00 CNI C Q cn) CM o (VI T—

CN) CNI <-t r-i

O CN] rH t—

O

O CN] rH CN] CD to to "3- to LO to LO CN] CN] ^ to to to vO <* 00 to *3- to CO o CD o o O CD O rH rH O CD O CD O CoHPH 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a\ cn r- CO 00 cc I CTl 00 00 00 00 00

tfl CD vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vC

r VO vO vO vO vO vO

O 4-> o CN) to r-- to CNI vO LO Ol r^ to rH CN] r- ( l vO to CNI r-~ CO CN)

PL, cd CN) CNI i-H cnj

O CN] r-\ CN] r-H CN] CNI rH 1

'1

OO CNI i-H CM

t/>

Q to to CN) to «* >* to LO CTl rsi

O to rH to ~n vO *t OO to -3- to •H o o O o O O O rH rH O O "> O CD O O a <

^_^ w

<DbO

!h to to

rt rH to 6 o (J) to O to to to LO to to • r to CNI * CT) p. CNI vo to 1 to '1 to to O <-< 1 1 to LO O <-{ o o o o to O O 1 CN] O O O

•H r^ 1 LO P

•H> H

O 1 CTl M bo bO

a P. rt e C o O •H •H •H

C_J T3 H3 Xt

t/> 2 >> >H >H 2 >- 2 >- S

>- >H >H >H >H >-

CC >H >- 2 >- >H >-

<D CD 53 0) >*, Oh 0h Oh to LO LO CN] CNI • to LO LO LO LO

Td r->

O

d t/> 1 1 1 i—i >—

to to to r~- to to

•>s. <D vO vO r-t LO to . bo O ct> o to CNI O CT) to to to CN] O to to CN) CNI * CD

(/) P. 1 CNI to to 1 rH 1 to to to 00 rH 1 to LO LO 1 to LO

O t-\ <D ccJ t~N o ct> o CTl to O CN] CTi O to O CTl to CTl O O O

£6 00 vO rH vO to

CT) o O

O

<D2 2 CO 00 00 00 r^ t-~ t-- 00 r^ 00 a\ a> vO 00 t^. 00 00 00 r-- t^~ r~- 00 00

CD aJ vO vo vO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO

4-1

Q CN) "*

O LO r-^ t~- ^-i to CT) «* vO 00 00 vO t^. rH vO rH 1—

!—

00 to LO

m i-H o r-H 1—

CNI CN] tO rH CN] rH rH rH CNI rH

O

O r-{ CNI to CN] CNI <-{ P CM to rH CM 1—

r-t

O CN] rH fN] vO 00 rH CNI CN] CN] rH CN] CN) CN] rH CN) o o O rH rH i—i O r-{ O O O r-t O r-{ O O I—

rH T-t

O

O

pu3

rt 1—1 CD /—

/ \ t—\

y^-\ ,—\/—\ / \ P 00 00 OO 00 C~^ 00 DO t~- 0O O CTl VO OO f^ 00 00 00 r-~ 00 r~- CO 0O 00 • cfl vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO

</)

Q vO i-H

O vO CO (M *3- C7> LO t~- CTl 00 C~^

O *tf 00 CNI t~~ CNI r-{ t-~. <* vO

0) i—

CM i-H i-H CN]

O rH CNI rH rH rrl CN) rH rH <-< r-i (N) r-* <-H CM rH

r< CNI to r-t (Nl i-H "* CNI rH CN] vO CO T-t CN] CNj CN] T~\ (N) t^ CN) r^ CNI r-^ CM Oh o o o O 1—

O Ov

1 rH O O O rH O ^-i O O O r-i O O O 3P 2 p 2 2 2 P P s 2 2 2 2 2 cd to CD CD Qh CD t/> W 0) CD CD CD CD <D p o in P rH O O r* M U fH Sh Sh go 0h Oh 0h Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh

<D • 3;§

LO

O 00 i^ to to 01 rH <-{

O t"^ CN] to <* rH 00 CN) <* LO LO r-. vO

C^ CTl rH r-^ r-t rH 00 a^ en t~^ t~^ OO

O CTl LO CN] to CTl to CT) LO CTl

u vo t>- 00 vO 00 00Ot~^

vO t-^ vO

OrH

OrHO t--- t^ t~^

O t~~ r~- [^ r-^ t-~- t~~ l>.

C^J

CD • • i o LO LO r~. r^ a% CT) ct>

OO

O

O CNI CN] «* <* 00 CO CN) CN) LO LO C^ r-~ -^ 5 2: t^ r-~ r~- r-~ CO CO CO a> O) CT> CT) O O O CN] CN] to to to to LO LO 2 vO vo \o vO \o vO vO vO vO vO vO t~- t~^ t^ r^ c-~ t~~ t-~ f-. 1^ r--. t~^ t"^

230
<DU oo co 00 00 00 oo 00 Ol OO OO 00 00 00 00 00 CTi CTi CTl OO 00 00 C <D vO vO vO vo vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vb vO vO vO VO ' VO VO VO VO VD

4-> rH 1—1 1—

t~^ LO vO 00 cm to vO O cn O i-H CM r~~ r t^ r-- rH rH H +-> o3 O o o 1—1 i—

CM I—l O l-l CM ~M o to 1—1 CM o i O o rH rH rH C Q to to to to to a> I—l vO CTl t-^ Ol CTl LO t-~. 00 to i CO to l>- r-~ t>~ (D o o o o o o I—l O O O o o o o CD o , o o o o o

co

oH+-> oo 00 00 00 00 O0 00 Ol CO ob 00 oo 00 00 00 CTi OO CTi CTi 00 00 00 H (D vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO VO vO VO

CO +-> t—

1—1—

t^- LO Ol 00 CNI fO vO o 05 o 1—1 CM 00 CTi 00 00 rH rH rH O 03 CD o o 1—

iH o 1—1 o ^H CM I—l o to rH CM CM O CM CM rH rH rH PL,Q to to to to to en 1—1 vO cn r> CTl CTl LO c^ OO i—l O iH rH r-- [^ r~- to •H o o o o O o rH O o o o O o o CD CD rH O O o O o

to mmm

CM

V / rH

CD CTl bo 1 Sh C-~ to LO

CS LO VO rH c 6

r^ LO CTl «5f to 1 LO LO CTl cn r>- to to o to r>- rl

LO o 1 1 1 fr- I~^ l 1 LO to to •H o Ol O o 1 1 1 CTi LO LO o o o 00 t>~ CTi

t~- u CTi . , 1 •H o 1 1

Z mm—a. Sh u O

to Z >H Z |x z 1 Z >• Z >H i z z z z Z z > >H >H >H >- z <D >H

CM CTl tO CM o o • rH O vO iH r-> rH T3 /-s CTl O cn cn cn cn C to 1 1 1 i i IH >—

to LO VO LO LO LO \ <D CD r~- vo r-- t^ rH

• M LO I~^ o LO ^t- LO r-^ LO to to LO O to to CT. LO CTi CTi cn en t^ to to

10 in O to o t^ to t^ 00 t~- i—i o r^ l to .to LO

r-~ 1 i LO to to

CD oS CD o LO CT> o CTl cn Ol o p cn i—l o CD CTi LO LO CD o o

£6 r-H r^ t~- f- O CTi Ol CT.

0)2*

r-~ r-~ 1^ 00 t^ 00 r~- CO "

oo 00 OO oo 5 oo 00 00 00 00 OO t>- 00 00 vO vO VO vO VO vO vO vO E vO vO VO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO

<D o3 to 1—1 CM LO 00 to to vO LO Ol CM OO CD 00 CTl VO

iH -* «* to VO ^t- 00

4-1 Q CM I—

i—l 1—1 1-1 1—1 CM CM c CM O O to CM CM O o CM CM CM rH m vo CM i—

CM a CM cn LO LO vO 00 to LO tooLO H LO LO O cno

to to Q o 1—1 i—

o i-< O o O o o o o o O o o rH o o

+->

""

u

•HT3C

i—i <D /— /-^

\

•!-> r^ f-. 00 5

00 t-^ 00 r-~. 00 00 oo 1 °° 00 00 CO oo O0 c-~ 00 00

• 03 vO VO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO VO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO

CO O to o <3- LO 00 "* to co cn CM CTl Ol 1—1 <I* CTl H LO C^ "* Ol

cd cm CM rH CM 1—1 I—l i—

CM l CM

LO

1—1 o o | CM o 2 CM to o CM

cn CM rH

Sh vO t—

CM i—l CM s

CM Ol r*. 00 to to vO LO r^ rH to to

9* O i—

o i—l o O o o o o 1 o 1 o CD o o rH o o o ^"^

I M 2 2 2 2 2 l-> +-> \ 2 2 2 +-> 03 CD <D CD CD CD w to j cd CD CD p£ CO CD CD CD

+-> Sh Sh Sh Sh Sh o O 1 H Jh h O fH S-i f-c

to

<P PL, Oh PL, a, PL, PL, PL,

i CL, PL, PL, PL, Dh PL, PL,

CD • ^ Sg LO <* 00 LO "3- r^ <* rH CM •* LO 00 to CM * to to vO vO <* "* O rH

T3 iH i—

LO CM vD rH

oo

C-- vO LO LO LO o r-^ t-- 00 00 oo 00 oo 00 cn 00 OO s y 00 00 t~- OO t~^ c^ O CM CM CM LO CM CM CM CM o CM CM o CM o O i—l rH O rH rH rH

C^

=*t= CD • g O

""""""

. 00, 00 00 "3- «* >* "=* CM CM 3- «* <* ^H rH rH rH to to to to rH rH rH -^ S 2 LO LO LO vO vO r-~ r-^ LO LO LO LO LO t>- r^ 00 O0 00 oo 00 00 cn CTl CTl z [-- t-^ c^ r-~ t-^ r^ D^ CM CM CM CM CMJ N

•»^,

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

231
I—

Ph

•H

rH H

rH

.Co

in

t3

0) •P

Pi

92O

c

p

U

C

0) +J

+-> rt C Q

up

- I

00 00 00 © © DO © 00 00 00 oo © 00 © © © 00 00 00 CO CC

vO

I—

vO vD vO vC •£. vD vO vO VL. vO vO o VO o vO vD vO vO ^ VD vD

LO r-^ ^H q- © (Nl CO LO CTl 00 to © >^ (Nl 00 © © 1^ rH oo

r-l i—l T-H i—

tNI (NI (N) CNl c rH © —1 CM l~i CNl © CNl rH •^" r-t ©

I

vO r»- >rj- 5 P- vO © LO vG C~- LO [Nl CM 1—

1—

rH vD © rH

i—l o c c O © © o T-H © © o o -1 rH © CD rH © © rH

o

• H

• H (0

to +J O ct3 O.Q

V)

00vD

t—

i—°

00vo©I—

vOo

oovO

LO

t-H

t~- O

©vO

1—

<*©

©vO

rHO

©

00

vD

(N) C-- ©

©vO

00oLO©

OOvO

(Nl (Nl orH

O0

vO

00

<N1 LOO

00vO

LO©vO©

OOVD

rHvD©

© 00 ©

vD vO VO

LO tO ©

rH rH CNl

•r)- N N

CD rH rH

00

to

CNl or-i

CTl VD

CNl CNJ 1—

CD

00VD

OOo00o

00vO

00or-i

r-\

00

vD©(Nl vO©

00vDor-i ©o

1

00

vD

r-i r-i

CNl

r-i

COvD

«*

rHCO©

•HQ

f—

\

l V)

(Nl O rH i—

© O *~1

1 i OO CNl LO to to "tf rH 6

LO t~~- r^ VC <£ c

tO

too

(NI c~~ to © to to LO o © O © *£• ©

g

•H

4-1

I—l oo to CNj to to rH 1 1 1 1 1 © © o © o © © tovQ©

LO©

LO © [-- rHj O <£

LO©

U o

•H 2

g Si ou

o

t/) >H 2 2 2 2 2 >~ 2 2 2 >-l >H >-> 2 >H >« 2 2 2 2 £ 2

© to

r-( VO

T3 /-n © O

CJ tn

r-i '—

\• tao

(/) Sh

ctf £6

to

too

to

CNl o

tooo

00©

to©

©oof to©o

VD

<*o1 to

rH©

co©

to

to©

©(Nl o

to

to©

to

too

905 |

063-052 LO©

to

rH©l r-LOo

LO©

toooi to

too

©rH©

CNJ too 2

to

to

CD

t LO©

03 H n <-H

00

vDvO

(Nl LO

00

VD

to

t-H LP

00

vO©toLO

00

vO

to

t—

«*•

oo

vO

(NI rH©

00vO

00©to

00VO

VO

rHLO

oo

vO

LO©

00

vO

CNl rH

•=3-

00vO

C^

CNl LO

00VD

(Nl to

00

vO

CNl LO

53068 11069

00

VO

<*

(Nl LO

00

vO

r-t

CNl OO

00VD

(Nl

CNl

(N]

oovO

CNl

CNl

CNl

00vOOCNl too

vO

(Nl

r-i rH %

00

vO

1—

to

LOo

00vO

VO

r-i ©

o O © CD CD © o o o © o o © © ^ © o © ©

4-> uH

1—H

• 05

!/> Q

!h 9<

00 00 00 00 00 00 CO oo OO 00 oo 00 00 © OO 00 OO O0 00 vO

CNl

00vO

rH

CDvO©

00

vo

c~- (N]

vO

,—

vOoto

00

(NI

vO©rvO©ovO©to

vO

vOo

vO

to

(Nl

vO©CNl

vO

00

(Nl

vO

00

CNl

vD vO © r-i tO r-\

vO

r-i ©

vO

CNl

CNl

vO

to

(Nl

vD

CNl

vO

r-i to g rH LO LO LO LO © to LO >* <* LO to LO LO r-i VO 00 CNl © LO rH t*. © © o © © o © o © © o o © r^ o © o o o rH ©

3

cd p

to 2

Ph 2 2 +->

(/) o

a,

rH

PL, 2

rH

PL, U

PL, S

B

Ph 2

o

PL, s !->

(/) o

PL, u

PL, §

2

Oh 2 2 4J

(Ao

Cl,

a; • LO©(Nl

LO©rH(Nl oto

vO©to

CN

LOOrH

to

toto

(Nl to

to

1—

grH

(Nl ©o,-H

OO

to

to

LO

oooI—

<*

to © © Tj- OOto or-i

to

LO

to

CNl 00©rHvO

vOOrH

vO

vOOrH©

(Nl vO

to ©Or-i

r-i ©vDto

vO

t-- to to

to

3=

• I

2

,—

00 00 (NI (NI t^ r^ (Nl CNl CNt 00 oo to to r-^ t^ vO VO vO to to © o

© to

CN] ©(XI ©(Nl oto ©to

(N) to

CNl to

to

to toto

to

to toto

to

to to to to to LO

to LO

to

LO

to VD

to vO

to to

„

u

232
0>o

CO CO CO 00 CO CTl 00 OO 00 CTi CTl 00 co CTi CTl <D +-> vO vO vo vO vO vO VD VO vO vD vO vO VD vO vO 00 CTi 00 OO CTl 00

+-> cS "* LO rH t-^ to' VO CD o CTi to <*

O <£ rj-C to t>- < vO VD vO vO vO vO

dQ rH r-

r-t o o O (Nl (Nl CNl CNl rH rH 2 CM (Nl rH 2 CTi rH LO o r~~ r>~

(1)O

O vD I—

(Nl rH OO OO LO LO (Nl CTl VD CTi VO rH oa o (N] rH rH

co i—

iH

O 1—1 rH

O o o o o o CD

O

O

O t^ o vO vO CNl vO O rH CD O rH O §

•r-( •H <D CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO 00 00 CTi CTl 00 CO CTl CTi 00 CO 00 CO CTi 00 o 03 vo vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VD VO vO vO vO vO VO vo vO vO vO vO P-.Q ** i—

i—

r^ to (Nl CO rH CNl CTl <* CNl

O <3^

O IO < r>- < vO rH LO o to rH

</) 1—1 o rH o o (Nl rH

O o CNl rH CNl rH 2 CNl CNl 2 rH 2 rH (Nl o CNl o rH •H o r-~ vO 1—1 (Nl rH CNl 1^ 00 LO "* rH CTl VO CTl VO t~~ CD VO VO CTi VO Q i—! o O rH iH rH rH CD o o o O O o O o o rH o O O O / N trt

COW)

}h to

03 l 1 to c £ 6

LO CTl l 1 o CTl to to to CNl <£ < < to O vO 1 1 1 vO to to to 00 2 2 2 to o

•H o O ') 1 CTl

O o o o CTl o 1 +-> VO to u o o H "ol o 1 2| O }h o o

(0 >< >- 2 2 2 2 >H >h | >H >H >H >* 2 g 2 2 2 2 2 >H 2 2 2 2 >H

CD >H

.«i~» to ! r~~ to • CNl LO CNl T3 ^ ? o o C (/) i 1 i hH '—

M to to 8

to to x>- \ (D LO tO tO i-i to r- to to to f^ (Nl CNl <t CTl to LO <* CTl to to to CD t-~ LO • W) o O O en rH 00 o to to co 00 to -2, O o o vO CNl to rH rH O CO o

I/) fn o l o i ct. CTi 1 CTi o o CTi CTl o o 1 o CD o CD CD CTl 1 CTl 1 0) 03 CTl to CTi to CTl to £6 vO i—i vO vO o O o O Ol O O o O ° O CO CO CO CO 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 oo 00 I~^ CO OO CTl CTi CTl CO 00 CO CO OO 00 I £2 kO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO VO O VO vO vO VD vO vO VO vO VD vO vO vO vO I o l>. to o r-~ r^ 00 t>~ <tf 00 to 00 "* ^ CTi LO rH r>- LO OO LO CNl t--- LO 00 i S 03 cni (VI (Nl to (Nl (Nl CNl CNl CB CNl CNl CNl ^ rH CNl O o O (Nl rH rH CN1 CD CNl 1 m q **- LO <* LO o rH rH LO to LO LO rH <* LO LO LO LO LO C-- LO LO «* lo ! m o o o o rH O o o o o o rH o o O CD o o o O o CD o o. 4-> u

•H

T3 ! H- oo ; 1 4-> CO 00 CO CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 CO OO t~- CO 00 CTl CTl CTi Jo CO CO CO 00

03 vo VD vO vO VO VO vO vO vO iS VO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO v© VO vO | • O CM t~- vO rH 00 CTi LO 00 LO CTl to OO "* <3^ CTl r^ CNl r-~ r-- CTl LO LO CO LO f*- 10 CNl CN1 (Nl to (Nl (Nl CNl CNl o CNl rH CNl CNl [2 ^H CNl o o rH CNl rH rH CNl CD CN1 0) "<* LO <tf LO o rH "3- LO to LO LO LO rH >* LO LO LO vO LO r^ LO LO <* LO ^ o CD o o rH O o CD o o o CD iH O o o o CD O o O CD CD CD

Oh ;

+-> 33 33 +-> 33 2 33 33 33 +-> +J P S3 4- 33 33

03 CD CD CO CD Oh CD <D CD !/) V)

W (/) cu +J u Sh o M rH u rH >H O o O O fH fH CO Oh Oh Oh Ph Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh

i8^ o en * ^t- LO toLO

to VO LO vO CO r-^ rH i^ VO rH r-~ CTi 00 o rH CTl 00 "* to

CO r-^ t>~ CO t>- LO CTl rH rH CM CNl

O to r-~ LO r-^ r-~ t^- t-^ r-^ r^ r-~ CO 00

U tO NO

O toO o CD to "* •* <* -* rH ^i- o * o o o "3- "=t <* *tf * "*

fi

i—

rH rH rH

CTl rH rH rH rH rH

=tt= i o (Nl CNl vO vO vO VO vO VO CNl CNl to to iH rH «* >st- "* -* ^t CNl CNl CTl ' CTl to to

_iri ra 2 r>- t^ r-^ f- r-. oo 00 00 o o ^H rH CNl CNl to to to to to LO LO LO LO vO vO S 2 to IO to to to to to to "* «* •* -* 3" ^f * -3- * ^~ «* * * >* >* "* *

233
<DU

CTl 00 oo CTl CO CTl oc 00 00 00

a 00 CO 00 00 CTl CTl 00 CTl CTl CD +-> vO VO vo vO vO vO vO VO vO VO v.1 o vO vO vO vO vO vO vO VO M CO vO r-^ t^ to CO r-~ vO CNI to o a rH T-J to rH CNI LO VO OO 00 C Q o cni (V) r-H CNI CO i—( rH rH to O CNI CNI rH CNI CNI O" CNI CNI CD r-

vO r~-

g

vO to CT r^ VO o N f~ t~< t^ VO 00 ** CNI to to

C/3 o <= o CD CO

O o o rH *—< CO co o CO CO CO rH o CD coH4J •H CD 10 +-> CTl OO 00 CTl OO CT1 OO 00 00 00 CTl OO CO 00 00 CTl CTl 00 CTi CTl O cfl vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO Plfl vO r-~ r^ to OO CTl VO CNI to rH "vf rH ^t- vO rH rH •* 00 CO 00 .a o CNI CNI i—

CNI CO i—

i—

rH CNI rH CNI CN1

O rH CNIO o o o rH vO r-» 00 vO i—

CTl r-~ vO CO CO LO p- LO vO "* to rH rH rH

Q o O o o O

OO o O rH rH o o o o o o rH CO CO

CO

bO

Jh CTl 03 O

Pi 6

CNI to to to LO LO o CO LO to CNI to CNJ CNI o o o oo CO rH vO [-- r-~ LO CNI t>. CNI LO to CO r~- 1 to H CTl o o o CTl CTl o : CTl CTi o o o CTl CTl o CTl 4J to OH

gj

O *~" 1 III ! 5O 2

!h 00

Pj •H

M

u

O

CO

CD T3c

CD

>H >- >- 2 >H >H z >" 1 2 >> >H >H 2 >H >- >H 1 >< >< >H >H

>H Ph

CNI LO T3 ^ o C to 1 t—1 >—

/ to o to CTl CNI to

"-*. 0) LO CNI tO rH «* IO LO LO CTi o CTl rH

O rH VO LO LO to CNI o CNI CD o . 00 r- 00 to o to vO t~^ t^ <tf LO <* O CNI CTi O CO o to to o r-~ to to

CO rH CTi CTi o i CTl o CTi CTl CTl o CTl

OrH

CTl I i o 1 O CTl 1 CTl CTl CTl CD cd to LO to CTl o

£6 to t~~ CNI

O o o o CTl CO o LO

CD 00 00 t>- 00 OO 00 00 00 r-- 00 00 00 00 'oo OO OO 00 00vOorHvOO

CTl PO

vb

CNI rHVOO

00

COvO

VO

rH

LOO

00 2£ vo vO ( MD vo vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO

tO <* lo 00 CNI LO 00 CTl 1—

to CNI CNI OO t^ rH vO 00 t--. CTl CNI <D rt o o CN] o O CNI CNI CNI o 1—1 o o o CNI rH o O o CNI rH

<4-i

Q LO CTl rH CNI to LO LO 00 1—

vO CNI CNI vO Tj- VO o

vO 00 CTl \o o O O rH o CO o CO o rH o o o O o CO o CO O o

+-> U

•H-9

I—I CD

+-> 00 [^ 00 00 00 CO 00 OO 00 CTl 00

vO 00 CO 00 0O OO OO OO 00 00 00 OO • OS VO vo vO vO vO vO VO VD vO vO vO vD VO vO VO vO vO vO vO vO VO

co

Q r~- vO I—

r-~ t~~ CTl o «* to LO to to

O t~~ CNI l>-

O ** <* CO t~^ to

CD CN1 CNI rH CNI CNI CNI to

CNI i—

rH CO rH

H CNI rH o rH rH rH to rH rH

f-> LO rH LO LO LO LO OO vO c-^ CNI vO VO *vt- VO «* vO vO vO en LO vO

PhO rH o o o o o o O o ° o O o CO o O CO

O o O o %+-> s P s S S 4-> * S 4-> >~y S S S S +-> S M- 2 03 CO CD CD C/) c/i CD CD CD CO CO

+-> o U

U

O o Sh Ph

U

U o o in

^f

CO Oh a, Ph Ph cu Ph - Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph

3= CD • CO O

oS 2

00 CTl CNI to t—"* LO vO OO ^s- CTl LO CTl ^r CTl o <* 00 r~- *tf to t^ OO <*

-d cti CTl o o o o o 00 LO to CO to LO to [•--. 00 <* 00 * to LO to to LO e

CJ "* «* LO LO LO LO LO o vO o r^ o O CNIO o O o rH • o rH o o rH rH o rH rH rH rH rH

CTl to

=tfc CD • E? o r^ r-- 00 00 00 00 CTl CTl ** -* * LO LO LO OO 00 LO LO CNI CNI 00 OO CTl CTl * « 2 t~~ t-. r^ r-. t~> r^- r^ C-- to to to to to to r-^ r-^ OO 00 ** •* <* "* 3- «* * z <* >* ^i- >* <* «* sfr <* o o o o o 1 O CO o o rH rH rH rH rH rH

234
O CT. CT. CTl 00 00 OO

....

00 OO 00 00 OO CTl 00 OO

a <d vO VO VO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO

+j "* 00 !-H o vO CT. r-^ r-t

O LO CTl CT. l S +->

O 03 cm "H rH I"H o CM <-t CM T-t CM CM CM . CM

aa o CM CM

O ! CT. t^~ CM 00 CM t-^ r-- t-~ 1 00 00

i-H o o rH o O T-i o <-{

O CD o O o co

•H

+-> •H CTl CT! CTl CTl CT. O0 O0 00 00 00 00 00 CTl 00

a -o CT. 00 00

to +-> vo vO vO vO vO vO VO vO vO vO VO vO vO VO vO vO ! vOO

vO

O 03 "* CTl (SI 00 rH L0

O CTl CTl t^- rH

OO 1^ LO CTl CT. o ftO CM rH 1—

i—r-\ og rH cm CM r-i CM to to o CM CM CM CM CM

trt o to LO CM CM r-^ o t^ r-~ CM OO 00 t-~ o t-^ ^- r^ 00 00 •H •Q rH o o o o o rH o o rH o o o 1—

o -o o O o ( ' w^—

to to to

bo o T-t vO 5 H o t-~- to to to to CTl CO 1 CTl

O o OS 1 \o to to to vO l 1 1 o LO

iX CM CTl CO o CO o LO to i o O +- —

CTl CTl rH

CO

1- ^Z1 — pc Si cj o bo bO

to .5 2 >« >" 2 >- ' •z. >- >* >H >- 2: >- >- .5 2 >h 2 i >< 2

TJ >- g

ex

C

Pi . toto T3 /—

vOCM

C

w OO i—i *—

to 1 1 \ to to toto • bO o o CM t--~ LO o to to to to to 00 LO vO vO tOtO CTl CM r^- o o t/5 !h o i r-- vO C~- LO vO to to to VO i-H 1^ CO vO OO o t~^ 00 LO LO

03 LO CTl CTl CTl CT) o O CO o o o O CTl 1 CTl i o CTl CTl o o &6 vOO

tootoCMo

oo CTl O0 00 00 00 O0 00 00 OO 00 OO O0 00- 00 OO OO t^ OO O0 00 vo vO vO vO vO VO vO vQ vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO

o3 o i-H J-j to t-^ «=j- 00

O LO vO to 'd- 1^ "* 00 "* o t-^ •* "3- OO

M-jQ cm

O 1—

<N1 cm r-t CD rH CM CM <-i 1—

o i-H T-i rH ^H T-i

O T-< i-H 4H cm OO vO 00 CM vO O VQ vO LO r-^ vO OO vQ CTl vO t~- CM vO vO t-- O o ° o o i—

O rH o CO CO o O o O O o o o O o o

+-> u

•H

T3C

t—I (U 00 CTl 00 00 00 00 OO 00

+-1 vo vO : vO vO vO vO vO vO 00 <5D 00 op 00 00 00 00 00 00 t-^ 00 00 00 • 03 to vO *d- oo * r~. LO 00 vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO

</5

Q i—

o T-\ CM i—

cm rH o o LO o r^ LO 00 LO LO <* o CTl * >* CTl vO 00 VO 00 vO cm VO CO 1"H CM T-{ r*4 rH o r-( T-\ rH rH i-H rH rH rH

fn

O o O o o lH

O i-H VO vO vO t-~ VO 00 VO vO vO t~- vO vO vO t>- Dh o O O CO O o o o o o O O O O 3+-> OS S +-> S +-> 2 4-> S +-> s +-> S 4-> S +-> S p S 4-> s 2 4-> to to to 10 t/1 V) w to If) !/) +-> o o O O o o o o o fH o co Dh Cl, CL, a, Ph a, a, CL, Ch Ch CL, • vO o CM to r-~ i-H CM vO CTi o i—

CM to >* LO VO t-~ 00 t^- 00 CTl

O

13^

LO 3- vO vO vO * CTl to CTl CO o d o CO o o CD

O i-H rH r-i CM

i-H o 1—

rH rH o rH o r-i CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

CJ i-H rH rH • §3 o i-H i—

r~- t~-

O

O LO LO CM CM to to ** •^)- LO LO vO vo 00 OO t~^ r-^ c^h 8 2 LO LO LO LO vO vO 00 OO CT. CTl CTl CTl CTl CT. CTl CTl CT. CTi CTl CTl CTl CTl 2 i-H rH i-H r-H i—

rH i-H i-H rH i-{ r-t r-i r-i T-\ r-t t-t i-H rH <-t r^ iH rH

235
CDOC CD en 00 00 oo 00

CD P VO vo vO vo vo P 03 r-^ CXI ex] 1—

vo

C

Q i—i I—

.—

to CXI 0) i—i O) CTl o en

CO

O o o 1—1 o coP

•H CD 00 00 00 00 oo 00

10 P vO vo vO vO vO vO O cti i—l cxi cxi vO 1—

vD Cl,Q tO CXI cxi CXI to CXI V) O oo oo t-~ o en •H r-l o o o 1—1 o Q ,—

in

V i cd «*

rf

M o O as CD oo to o

•H * CX) to 1 fJ Cn o o envO • r- ol o 1

21'Kmm c Sh CJ O

>H >H >H 2 >- 2

en

CD >r

TJ^-s C en

i—i >—

\ <D 00 <* • bO CTl CXI K) t~- o to

t/) f-< -* o to 00 c o

CD it! en 1 o en 1 o

£6 00

CN) envo o o

CD

in <D 00 00 oo 00 oo 00 C p vO vo vO vD vO vO

cd cfl t~- o vo LO LO to

M-l

Q 1—1 CN1 o .H 1—

1—1

m CXI CX] 00 "3- >* vO .o o o o o o o poH

PI F—1 <D 00 00 00 oo 00 oo P vO vo vo vo vo vO • a) x>- vt- t^ lo vO to

in

Q 1—

rH o 1—1 CXI r-l CD CXI vO 00 3- t-- vO U o o o o o o

-a, 3P

cd

p

p s P CD in in CD CO u o o >H ^ CU cu Oh Ph 3

CD • %g i—l CXI to *d- "3- LO

CXI CXI CXI exj CXI CXI JU CXI CXI cxi exj CXI CXI o

>*

en

at

CD • t-^ r-^ r^- 00 00 00

v^ 8 2 o o CD o o o 2 r

CXI cxi cxi CXI CXI

236 4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 431-989/4



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20230

OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMEKC1