Overview of Criminal Justice in Ohio
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
6 c 'I National Criminal Justice Reference Service '0 " " (: '.' 11, ,,' 0 ~ . c" ................. ;<),' i "} . - " . ".~I . -"', .'0 . 0 , J P . I'l l--"'~ , This microfiche was produced from documents rec:eived for c , ,. o. inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exerCise J~ control over tH~ physical condition ofthe documents submitted, '.' ...., rP . .,. .' ••..... ~RN9R'S ¢mC~OF CRIMINAl.mJjC£SElMCES .the individual ,frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on ~ " . ..". .' . ~~. this frame may be used to evaluate the docu~ent quality. ~,,~ ~,.~~~,," " Cf ' '(! J ••.. IIII LI AN OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE .,~,.. IN OHIO: ~ '" ; OFFENDER BASED o t· :..:.,. 111111.25 1IIIf 1.4 III TRANSACTIONAL~STATISTICS ." Q M,ICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NAnONAL BUREAU OF STAND~RDS·1963·A !) o . .. ... .' o. 0. • ~ • ,) Microfilming prod~dures used to create this fiche comply with CI 11 the standards set forth in 41CFR lOlwl1.504. G PointS' of Yieworopinions stated in this document are ~(\ ,!; those of the author(s) and donot,trepresent the official 'll " positionot policies of the U. S. Departl1)ent of Justice . .'~ f), NatioJl,al Institute QfJU!itice . united Stat~s' Departn.erit .QfcJustice . >WashingiOn,D.e;gQ531.... ...' .,' .. ';to Q. f ••;. tl '. Q cD j! ," '6 P,!';i~'<' l 9 "; ,- 'tL '!' j:l. " . '~~' •. _J:.'!•. ~ <:~ __ ~~:~::!-!!....!....~~--:.:"::~:::;:-'":''!:'~!.~::!_.:.... oAJ~~:~~": a_...-.-,::.. ~.' ------~ ------- - - o " o o .. r) , j U.S. Department of Justice Nationalillstitute of Justice o " (l This document has been reW,'duced exactly as received from the o person or organization origina\lng it. Points of view or opinions stated In this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the officfal position or pollcfes of the National Institute of Justice. Q' Permission to reproduce this ~ted material has been \1,1' granted by • /BJ Public Danam S ---- ' " II S Department of .Tusti ce L\)) to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). G ,-:; " Further rep,'oductlon outside of the NCJRS system requires permis sion of the co~ owner. Q o t.J _\; r: " I, o ! () i I (j AN OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 'to ' f "l' " I IN OHIO: ;i OFFENDER BASED "~l TRANSACTIONAL "STATISTIGS Cl ;.:1i l ! t I 1 o ! ¢ r.C:) i o o _·r,:-:--.~:~~::~~~:,-~:,..!.. ;~~::~:::;..=~~:;::~:::.:::"~ 1\ ~ ,- ~ iJ ,.(5 " ~. " 0 0 .f;. ',Cl ;~ ". i), \f G \I 4 c o o r---~"'''''''''''''''---'-''--'<''-'~--'---.-'''''';-'-''''a.-,-....--..:......-", ........ ,.- " ;I !(li 'I:'" 1\ o " Ii!' a (0 Ii I' I (\ 0 I, i 0 i ) Ii '\ GOVERNOR'S OFFIcE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES I' i, '. t'l " r ;Richard F. CeJ.este, Governor ! Michael J. St~:l.nger, Director t , I Jeffrey J.0 Knowles ;<)Re~earch Administrator Gary L. Burkholder, Principal OBTS Project Researcher I. I, I ! Participating Research Staff I' I Gary Burkholder i Mark Davis i I Jeff Knowles I Linda Moore I Hope Stout, Secretary' I o t.' I 1 f i ,;0 " I I) I, i I <) • J I j. !f f ! This project was funded, in part, by a research grant from the j federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. Special appreciation is ,~, 1, I also extended to Ohio's Clerks of Court, especially in those ) I sixty.. one courts participating in the study. I L l' October, 1984 # 0 \\ , ,I .II '! 11 \~ o .' J II,:'·· ; INTRODUCTION 1,.., A~~erson arrested for a major crime in Ohio stands at the beginn."rng of a road that is lined with abewild~ring array of possibi~ities. Those possibilities constitute the criminal justice system in this state. If it seems confusing to one just entering it;: as Iii defendent who will ultimately take only one route through it, I~ow much more pro~lematic is it for someone trying to understand the entire case flow through the system--to cover all of those routes? The challenge of this latt~r task fell to the Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Ser'Vices CGiOCJS). The tool used was a process called Offender-Based Transactional Statistics, or OBTS. For the past two years GOCJSoresearchers h~~e been involved in a massive OBTS tracking study designed to pr~jvide clear, statistical answers to a myr!td of questions about Ohi'o's criminal. justice ,system. This report is a description of that. effc/rt. There were very few shQlrt cuts available to GOCsS staff. The only way to measure the pra6tice of criminal justice is to follow the paths of hundreds", even thdusands, of caSeS as they proceed through Ohio's criminal ({burts, mal.ting sure to select cases that would be representative of the syst-em as a whole. In the case of this study some "2,500 major felons ftcom 1982 court dockets were tracked through sixty-one separate criminal courts in twenty-eight counties. To accomplish this task £our reDearchers spent ten mont1;ts conducting nearly two hundre<l and fit'ty site visits in local courts, gatheri~g'" upwards of fifty-two pieces of information on each offender being tracked, and combing through the records of as many' as four separate local agencies to complete the tracking cycles. Between data gathering visits GOCJS resea~chers invested. long hours in re~sing interpretations of the data categories, creating computer pro~rams and making plans for how best to exploit this rich and unique data base. The sections in this report are almost exclusively concerned with the structure of, rather than the data from~ ,the OBTS study in Ohio. Subsequeu't reports will shed sufficient light on the data, but this one will serve as documentation for a proj e,Ft which was, in itself, --even apart from the information' ,it generated-,:"a,n educational experience. It is hoped that a wide range of' Ohio's criminal justice system' actors wilQ benefit from the unique overview and §orrelating insights resulting ,from the OBTS study. D Q o " di f) ), . \. ! ~--=- i / =-.---,,-==~ --. ------------ -----,.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,------ ./' I _, __..--.-~ ______ ... ~ __ ~~_~ _____~_.._~_..,...... __, _~~ ... __ ,.;::;:t1:!a;::.._.:zaeC;'" •• _t«M:UZY ,I ,', :'~ "til (.; o .i.1 l:, I) TABLE OF CONTENTS " Q PAGE INTRODUCTION •••••.•••..••.•••• ••• 1;' SECTION I: BACKGROUND TO OHIO'S OFFENDER BASED TRANSACTIONAL STATISTICS (OBTS) STUDy •...•.••.•••••. ,. • . • • . • • .• . .••.• 2 o Defining OBTS ••••••• ,•••• co ••••••••••••••••••• .: ... 2 History of OBTS in Ohio •.•• 0 • o •••• : • 0 ••••••• . ~ ..... 3 Chro~ology for this study ••••.•••••..••.....•.•. • •.••.•. 4 Consensus 'Building Process ~. • • • • • • . • . • . • • . .•••••.. 5 Pre-Study Visits and Pretesting.............. •••.••.. 7 Questionnaire Development~' ..••••.••••.•..••.•••••..•••... 7 Crim.e Classification Methodology •..•• ',',' ••.•••••.•••...... 8 Sample S'election •. ;..' •.•.••••.••••••• ::':''' .• '.•..•.•.•.•.•..• 13 ~ > •• , Data Collection •••••• ••••••••••••..••••.•••••••.••••h 17 ~ c ~. Data Processing ••.•••••~ •••••••••" ••• >..... ~' ............. 21 >;»>"".... ~ ••••••••••••••••••••• o Proje<;:t Costs ,and Funding •••.• 22 Publication and ,Promotion ••••.•..•• ': ••.... , .'~ ••••.•.•.•. 23 SECTION II: VARIABLE NARRATIVE. : ••••••••.• ~' •••.• . ... 24 SECTION III: COURT NOTES ••••.••••.••.•••. "•••. ... .. .. .. ..... 74 () SECTION IV: A. PROFILE OF THE DATA ... ",p • ......... c': .............. 149 ~ -;:.-0 O~ GOCJS RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS •••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 156 " o 1\ 0 II D ;.'\:, o ',] " " ----------~------.--------------------------------------------------- U " ,:\'';;' o \~ -,"-"",:-', U :~ -:j J y)) ~ " SECTION I: f, o BACKGROUND TO OHIO'S OFFENDER BASED TRANSACTIONAL STA~ISTICS (OBTS) STUDY Defining OBTS D Offender-Based Transactional Statistics, or OBTS, is the process of tracki~g offenders~as they pass) through the c~iminal justice system, with a special emphasis on the outcomes of ,key decisions (e.g., arraignment, indictment, sentencing, etc.) made along the way. o From another perspective, it answers th~ question, "What happens to people after they are arrested for major crimes in Ohio?" It is a crucially important means for measuring both quality and efficiency in " the administration of justice, especially with regard to such:tactors as time delays, discriminating fat:tors (e.g., type of offens~", type and amount of bond, de@:9graphiccha,racteristics of offender), varying practices across different jur;sdictions and, ultimatly, the degree to which crimes result in conviction and at least some kind of appropriate action regarding the offend~rs. Ohio's criminal justice system (CJS), like virtuall),,:) every other'!, ' such system in "the country, was not estabI'ished wit1:i1 the goal of 'over~)1l . '-" CJS efficiency as the top priority. Legal rights, the effectiveness '1\\\ :!~"'~'I of individual components (e.g., police, courts, corrections), cos,t \t\\ fact,ors and, in many parts· of the system, the electoral process" ,\ 1\1 ~ , constitute some of the other priorities which compete with Ii (,. ~.-' 'I ~ "crime-solving" efficiency as legitimate CJS obje~tives. "Hence, while I~ -:~~ I a local police department may consider a case "cleared" with the II arrest and charging of an individual",the prosecutor ,,~md mUnicipal court judge are thinking in terms of the 'quality and quantity of evidence, the grand jury in terms of probable cause, the common pleas court in terms of outcome, the appellate court~in terms of adherence to legal principles, and the prison system in terms -of custody and parole hearing dates. ,', At any point in this process a decision-making authority can dramatically alter the action