DOCSLIB.ORG

Is Robbery Becoming More Violent an Analysis of Robbery Murder Trends Since 1968 Philip J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Is Robbery Becoming More Violent an Analysis of Robbery Murder Trends Since 1968 Philip J CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 76 | Issue 2 Article 4 1985 Is Robbery Becoming More Violent an Analysis of Robbery Murder Trends Since 1968 Philip J. Cook Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Philip J. Cook, Is Robbery Becoming More Violent an Analysis of Robbery Murder Trends Since 1968, 76 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 480 (1985) This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/85/7602-480 "rHEJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 76, No. 2 Copyright 0 1985 by Northwestern University, School of Law hinted in t'S.I. CRIMINOLOGY IS ROBBERY BECOMING MORE VIOLENT? AN ANALYSIS OF ROBBERY MURDER TRENDS SINCE 1968* PHILIP J. COOK** I. INTRODUCTION "Manchild 1984 is the product of a society so rife with violence that killing a mugging or robbery victim is now fashionable." -Claude Brown1 Robbery is an intrinsically violent crime, and, in fact, is defined as theft accomplished by force or the threat of physical injury. In approximately 2,000 cases in the United States each year, robbery violence proves fatal to the victim.2 This is a relatively rare event given that there are more than one million robberies annually.3 Nevertheless, the number of robbery homicides is a major contribu- tor to the public's fear of this crime. From time to time, public concern is enhanced by reports that robbers are becoming more violent. One example from the popular press reports: Another frightening difference in the crime picture is that life now seems pitifully cheap. Law-enforcement officials think they have wit- nessed a shift toward gratuitous slaughter. "It used to be 'Your money or your life,' " says assistant Bronx district attorney William Flack. * This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Justice. David Hintz supplied able programming assistance. This draft benefitted fion Lois Mock's suggestions. ** Professor of Public Policy Studies and Economics, Duke University. Ph. D., Uni- versity of California, Berkeley, 1973; B.A., University of Michigan, 1968. 1 Brown, Manchild in Harlem, N.Y. Times, Sept. 16, 1984 (Magazine), at 36, 44. 2 P. CooK, ROBBERY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT TRENDS AND PATrERNS 5 (Nat'l Inst. ofJustice 1983). 3 Id. at 3. 480 1985] ROBBERY MURDER TRENDS SINCE 1968 481 "Now it's 'Your money and your life.' "4 Claude Brown offers a number of explanations for the vicious- ness of youths in inner cities. One explanation is that these youths were often eyewitnesses at an impressionable age to "the broad- daylight slayings so typical of the urban drug wars of the 1970's. When they were six, seven, eight or so, they saw friends, neighbors, relatives and total strangers brutally murdered, and seldom heard of 5 anyone even being arrested for any of the slayings." Before establishing a culprit for the increase in robbery vio- lence, however, it is necessary to investigate systematically whether robbery violence actually has increased. The central assertion, ex- pressed in the uncolorful language of empirical science, is that the percentage of all robberies resulting in serious injury or death has increased substantially in the recent past. Because suitable data on the incidence of robbery injury are not available, 6 this study focuses on robbery murders. The principal finding is that the estimated ra- tio of robbery murders to robberies shows no consistent increase during the period 1968-1983. This ratio does increase between 1968 and 1973, remains at a relatively high plateau from 1973 to 1979, and drops rather sharply after 1979. This result, if taken at face value, suggests that popular concerns about the increasing bloodthirstiness of robbers are rather dated. Before documenting these results concerning the murder-rob- bery ratio, two related trends in criminal homicide should be ex- plored: (1) the trend in the number of robbery murders and other felony murders per capita, and (2) the trend in the relative composi- tion of criminal homicide in different circumstances. These data help illuminate the common assertion that the nature of homicide has changed dramatically in recent years, with killings resulting from arguments between friends or relations displaced in relative 4 The Plague of Violnt Crime, NEWSWEEK, Mar. 23, 1981, at 46, 48. 5 Brown, supra note 1, at 54. 6 Some data on the prevalence of serious injury in personal (noncommercial) rob- bery are available from the National Crime Surveys (NCS) for the years 1973-1981. U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS ( Formerly the Lw ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMIN.), CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973-1981. Dur- ing this period, the percentage of robbery victims seeking medical treatment at a hospi- tal ranged from 10.6 percent in 1976 to 8.5 percent in 1977. U.S. DEP'T OFJUSTICE, LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMIN., CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1976, at 99; U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMIN., CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION, 1977, at 57. Because the standard error on each of these annual injury rates is about 1.2 percent, and because there is no obvious trend in these statistics, it is plausible that the observed variation is random variation due to sampling error. Unfor- tunately, there are no richer sources of information on national trends in robbery injury. The NCS data are simply too sparse and hence noisy to be useful in the current context. 482 PHILIPJ COOK [Vol. 76 importance by felony murders (particularly in robbery), senseless killings by strangers, and murders that leave the police simply 7 baffled. II. DATA ON ROBBERY AND CRIMINAL HOMICIDE This study is limited to fifty-two of the nation's largest cities- all those, with a few exceptions (due to missing data), that had a population in excess of 250,000 in 1968. This study is thus limited in order to enhance the intertemporal consistency of the data. The bulk of the nation's robberies and robbery murders occurred in these cities. "The 57 cities with populations exceeding 250,000 in 1981 contained only 19 percent of the U.S. population, but reported 61 percent of all robberies. The six largest cities (with eight percent of the population) had 33 percent of the robberies, and New York 8 City alone had 18 percent." Each of these cities reports the number of criminal homicides, robberies, and other "Index" crimes to the FBI on the Return A Form on an annual basis. In addition, each city provides the FBI with a Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) that includes inci- dent based information for each homicide.9 The result is a micro- data file that includes information on each criminal homicide, in- cluding the circumstance of the killing, the relationship between killer and victim, and the type of weapon used. Beginning in 1973 and again in 1976, the FBI substantially changed the coding scheme for criminal homicides, but there is sufficient consistency in these schemes to permit some intertemporal comparisons for the period since 1968. There are other problems with both the Return A data and the SHR data. Police department Return A counts of the number of robberies are known to understate the actual total because many vic- tims never report robberies to the police and the police sometimes do not record reported robberies as such. The likelihood that a rob- 7 See The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, Mar. 5, 1984, at 32 (quoting Franklin Zimring, law professor at the University of California, Berkeley). "[T]he com- position of homicide has changed-domestic homicides have declined as a proportion of the total .... The new American homicide involves 'puzzling' cases and 'stranger' cases." Id. 8 P. CooK, supra note 2, at 11. 9 The Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data did not include information from Houston for the year 1982 and from Jersey City, Akron, and Rochester for the years 1982 and 1983. Estimates for these cities were generated by substituting the Re- turn A homicide count for the SHR total. This total was then allocated among the differ- ent subcategories (robbery-related, unknown circumstances, etc.) by assuming that the distributions of homicides across these categories in the missing years were the same as in the three recent years for which SHR data were available. 1985] ROBBERY MURDER TRENDS SINCE 1968 bery will be reported to and recorded by the police depends in part on its seriousness. Victims are more likely to report gun robberies than other armed robberies, and are more likely to report armed robberies than unarmed robberies. 10 Furthermore, the fraction of all robberies reported to the police (and included in the police de- partments' annual crime reports) differs among cities and varies over time. There is some evidence that the percentage of all rob- beries that are included in police reports has increased from 1973 to 1980. During this period, police-reported robbery rate per capita in the United States increased by 33 percent, while the National Crime Survey's estimate of the robbery rate fell slightly.'I The SHR data also suffer from certain problems. First, a police department's SHR submissions to the FBI often contain a different number of homicides than that department's Return A submissions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Casenotes: Criminal Law—Homicide—Felony-Murder—Felon Is
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 9 Article 9 Issue 3 Spring 1980 1980 Casenotes: Criminal Law — Homicide — Felony- Murder — Felon Is Culpable for Murder in the First Degree under Maryland's Felony-Murder Statute When Police Officer Kills Kidnapped Hostage Used by Felon as Human Shield. Jackson v. State, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979) John A. Roberts University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Roberts, John A. (1980) "Casenotes: Criminal Law — Homicide — Felony-Murder — Felon Is Culpable for Murder in the First Degree under Maryland's Felony-Murder Statute When Police Officer Kills Kidnapped Hostage Used by Felon as Human Shield. Jackson v. State, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979)," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 3, Article 9. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol9/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRIMINAL LAW - HOMICIDE - FELONY-MURDER - FELON IS CULPABLE FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE UNDER MARYLAND'S FELONY-MURDER STATUTE WHEN POLICE OFFICER KILLS KIDNAPPED HOSTAGE USED BY FELON AS HUMAN SHIELD. JACKSON v. STATE, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979). At common law, when one commits homicide while perpetrating a felony, the felony-murder rule raises that homicide to murder.' In Maryland, when a person commits murder in the perpetration of one or more statutorily-enumerated felonies, that murder is in the first degree under the state's felony-murder statute.2 Maryland courts have readily applied this statute when the felon has struck the fatal blow.' Recently, in Jackson v.
    [Show full text]
  • Murder, Torture, Surveillance and Censorship the Recent Nexus of Federal Jurisprudence and International Criminal Law in Alien Tort Statute Litigation
    Murder, Torture, Surveillance and Censorship The Recent Nexus of Federal Jurisprudence and International Criminal Law in Alien Tort Statute Litigation MATTHEW C. KANE 34 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • June 2016 he stuff of nightmares became reality tion at the time of its enactment, perhaps intended as a response to 6 for Falun Gong practitioners in China. contemporary wrongs against foreign ambassadors, and lay dormant for nearly two centuries. 1 A spiritual movement in its infancy, However, in the late 1970s, the ATS was successfully used by Falun Gong became the focus of plaintiffs to obtain a judgment against a Paraguayan police official Tthe Chinese government’s ire. There is no accused of torturing his relative to death in retaliation for the family’s adequate explanation for why the government political activities. There, the Second Circuit determined that the act should be construed “not as granting new rights to aliens, but simply determined that Falun Gong was such a as opening the federal courts for adjudication of the rights already threat. While it did spread with extraordinary recognized by international law.”7 On remand, the district court ulti- rapidity across geographic, generational, and mately awarded the plaintiffs a total judgment of $10,385,364.8 social divides, it appears little different than A quarter century later, as the ATS continued to receive broader application in the lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court first qigong and tai chi, which have been practiced addressed the statute in detail, considering whether the plaintiff for generations. Certainly the increased focus could state a cause of action arising from a CIA-staged abduction on self-cultivation, based on the principles of in Mexico and covert rendition to the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • ~. Provocation As a Defence to Murder
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER VICTORIA , r Working Paper No.6 : -­ I ~. PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE "~I TO MURDER MELBOURNE 1979 '. NCJf:'~~S SEP 261979 ACQUISITIONS, LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER I VICTORIA . " ! . , ". ~. I :'! .~, . ' .. " \ .. ' , Working Paper No.6 _} " ",!, I .. 1:. : . : ~ , PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MUR'D'ER MELBOURNE 1979 / Views expressed in this Working Paper are provisional only and such suggestions as are made are tentative. Comment and criticism are invited and it would be greatly appreciated if these could be forwarded before 1st October, 1979. Law Reform Commissioner 155 Queen Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000. I CONTENTS Paragraph Page Introduction 1 5 What is Provocation? 4 S 19th Century Views 5 6 The Emergence of "The Reasonable Man" and "The Ordinary Man" 9 7 "The Ordinary Man" in Legislation 13 9 "The Reasonable Man" and the Common Law 18 11 The Case of Holmes 20 11 More of "The Reasonable Person" 28 13 Legislative Change 32 15 The New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 37 16 The New Zealand Case 38 16 Victoria Today 41 18 Ever the Problem of "The Ordinary Man" 59 23 A Climate of Reform 64 24 (a) Eire 64 24 (b) England 65 24 (c) U.S.A.- The Model Penal Code . 68 25 (d) South Australia 72 26 Reform for Victoria 76 27 References 31 3 WORKING PAPER No.6 PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER. Introduction 1. By letter dated the 13th day of March, 1979 The Honourable the Attorney-General acting pursuant to section 8 (b) of the Law Reform Act 1973 referred to the Law Reform Commissioner the following reference:- "To investigate and report upon the necessity for reform of the law relating to provocation as a defence to a charge of murder." 2.
    [Show full text]
  • (Refs & Annos) Article I. Declaration of Ri
    § 28. Findings and declarations; rights of victims; enforcement, CA CONST Art. 1, § 28 KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Unconstitutional or PreemptedLimitation Recognized by People v. Robinson, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Sep. 28, 2011 West’s Annotated California Codes Constitution of the State of California 1879 (Refs & Annos) Article I. Declaration of Rights (Refs & Annos) West’s Ann.Cal.Const. Art. 1, § 28 § 28. Findings and declarations; rights of victims; enforcement Effective: November 5, 2008 Currentness <For Executive Order N-49-20 (2019 CA EO 49-20), relating to changes in the discharge and re-entry process at the Division of Juvenile Justice due to the COVID-19 pandemic, see Historical and Statutory Notes under Welfare and Institutions Code § 1766.> Sec. 28. (a) The People of the State of California find and declare all of the following: (1) Criminal activity has a serious impact on the citizens of California. The rights of victims of crime and their families in criminal prosecutions are a subject of grave statewide concern. (2) Victims of crime are entitled to have the criminal justice system view criminal acts as serious threats to the safety and welfare of the people of California. The enactment of comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system fully protecting those rights and ensuring that crime victims are treated with respect and dignity, is a matter of high public importance. California’s victims of crime are largely dependent upon the proper functioning of government, upon the criminal justice system and upon the expeditious enforcement of the rights of victims of crime described herein, in order to protect the public safety and to secure justice when the public safety has been compromised by criminal activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Index Crime Analysis Murder
    Chapter 3 IINNDDEEXX CCRRIIMMEE AANNAALLYYSSIISS 2013 CRIME IN TEXAS INDEX CRIME ANALYSIS URDER 3 M percent of all murders were cleared by arrest or EFINITION D exceptional means. Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, as defined in the UCR program, is the willful killing of one Murder by Month Totals ­ 2013 human being by another. This offense category includes any death resulting from a fight, argument, quarrel, assault or commis­ sion of a crime. Attempted murder and assaults with the intent to kill are not counted as murder, but are included in UCR as aggravated assaults. Sui­ cides, accidental deaths, and justifiable homicides are also excluded from the murder classification. The classification of this offense, as well as for all Index Crimes, is based solely on police investiga­ tion and not upon determinations by courts, medical examiners, coroners, juries, or other judi­ cial bodies. Murder Offenses 2003­2013 ANALYSIS Volume The reported number of murders committed in Texas in 2013 was 1,151. This represented a 0.5 percent increase in the number of murders when compared to 2012. More persons were murdered in Texas in July, while the fewest were killed during February. Property loss during the commission of the crime of murder amounted to $270,825. Rate The murder rate for Texas in 2013 was 4.4 murders for every 100,000 persons, which remained the Nature same as 2012 (0% rate change). Of the 1,151 murders in 2013, 69 percent were committed by the use of firearms. Knives or cutting Clearance Rate instruments were the weapons of choice in 14 per­ Texas law enforcement agencies continue to be cent of the reported cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intentional Murder at Common Law and Under Modern Statutes
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 38 | Issue 3 Article 5 1950 The nI tentional Murder at Common Law and Under Modern Statutes A. Singleton Cagle Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Common Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Cagle, A. Singleton (1950) "The nI tentional Murder at Common Law and Under Modern Statutes," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 38 : Iss. 3 , Article 5. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol38/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE THE INTENTIONAL MURDER AT COMMON LAW AND UNDER MODERN STATUTES* The purpose of this note is to make a survey of the intentional murder statutes, which, n the majority of jurisdictions make inten- tional murder a statutory offense. These statutes will be analyzed and compared to the common law offense of intentional murder in an endeavor to determine whether they are, in the main, a codification of the common law, or whether they present major deviations from it. To this end, the note will be divided into two principal parts. The first will be a brief resume of the common law intentional murder as it existed at the time the American Colonies were forming their judicial systems based upon law drawn directly from England.i The second part of the note will contain a discussion of the various inten- tonal murder statutes as they exist today with an attempt to relate them to the common law, and comments on the more prevalent similarities or discrepancies which appear to exist, together with a suggested model statute applicable to the crime of intentional murder.
    [Show full text]
  • Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988 (Icpl)R 9907)
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Murder in Large Urban COllnties, 1988 By John M. Dawson, sample surve>' of State and county prose­ convicted of murder; overall, 73% were BJS Statistician, cutors' records. The survey covered convicted of some charge. and Barbara Boland disposed charges against nearly 10,000 murder defendants, whose murder cases • Among those convicted of murder, 95% About 81n 10 murder victims were killed accounted for over 8,000 victims. received a sentence of Incarceration or by relatives or acquaintances In murder death: 74% were sentenced to a prison cases disposed ;n the Nation's 75 most Other findings from the survey Include: term, 18% to a life sentence, 2% to a OPUIOUS counties during 1988. Strangers death sentence, and 2% to probation. • illed about 2 In 10 of the victims. These • Among those arrested for murder and findings are drawn from a representative presented for pr~secution, 63% were 1 diverted 8 acquitted 3 sentenced to or 3 r Incarcera!lon 01 roferred other 1 year or less P 42 1\ trials ~34foundguilty 100 murder 81 73 convJc"d 65 sentenced to arrests brought t ,........ carried ...... olsome ...... Incarceration of - S ". by the police for forward crime more than 1 year prosecution 39 , I ..., ,1/ , disposed 8 7 by guilty rejected dismissed plea 5 sentenced at -In " to probation or screening court other contiltlons May 1993 This special report provides a detailed populous counties In the United States crAse - all elements necessary for a analysis of murderers, their victims, the - about half of those arrested for thorough ana.lysl\i of prosecution and circumstances in which they come In murder and just under half of those sentencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: an Overview
    Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law November 14, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL31253 Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview Summary A statute of limitations dictates the time period within which a legal proceeding must begin. The purpose of a statute of limitations in a criminal case is to ensure the prompt prosecution of criminal charges and thereby spare the accused of the burden of having to defend against stale charges after memories may have faded or evidence is lost. There is no statute of limitations for federal crimes punishable by death, nor for certain federal crimes of terrorism, nor for certain federal sex offenses. Prosecution for most other federal crimes must begin within five years of the commitment of the offense. There are exceptions. Some types of crimes are subject to a longer period of limitation; some circumstances suspend or extend the otherwise applicable period of limitation. Arson, art theft, certain crimes against financial institutions, and various immigration offenses all carry statutes of limitation longer than the five-year standard. Regardless of the applicable statute of limitations, the period may be extended or the running of the period suspended or tolled under a number of circumstances, such as when the accused is a fugitive or when the case involves charges of child abuse, bankruptcy, wartime fraud against the government, or DNA evidence. Ordinarily, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the crime has been completed. Although the federal crime of conspiracy is complete when one of the plotters commits an affirmative act in its name, the period for conspiracies begins with the last affirmative act committed in furtherance of the scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, and the Palsgraf Doctrine in the Rc Iminal Law Wilfred J
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 16 | Issue 2 Article 2 Fall 9-1-1959 Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, And The Palsgraf Doctrine In The rC iminal Law Wilfred J. Ritz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Wilfred J. Ritz, Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, And The Palsgraf Doctrine In The Criminal Law, 16 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 169 (1959), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol16/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1959] PALSGRAF AND CRIMES FELONY MURDER, TRANSFERRED INTENT, AND THE PALSGRAF DOCTRINE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW WILFRED J. RITz* Transferred intent is a doctrine common to both tort and criminal law, but it is a fiction-tolerated without enthusiasm.' In torts the doctrine has lost favor, being replaced by the rule expressed by Car- dozo, C. J., in the well-known case of Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.2 In criminal law, even though "there is some difficulty in rationalizing"3 transferred intent, the doctrine is still accepted as the basis for im- posing criminal liability on a defendant whose victim is a different person from the one he intended should suffer from his criminal act. In criminal law the doctrine of transferred intent had a com- mon origin with the felony murder rule, but in the course of time, two separate, and supposedly distinct, rules developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Arson-Homicides: -/ Findings from "A National Study
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. r' 0 "t! I :j r ~ .. .l)$.UepartmcD\nf Justicl~ , ! '-:' ~~ " FCil(;nll BUf~~au (If Invef;ligatio!1 ~'::::-~ ,d, I t 'J I '",".' n c,' rJ " .~,~ .... r ~!I.!_!!J.!!IJ!I!,_'!_~!I.. ,'!L!!)!!I,L!!.1~4.!!t~>~!!_,.I! __!!! .. ,!!!>~L~UU!,__!!. _.~ .. _~_ .. _!I!»~J,~"!I!I.n~.~t~J~_,_~!!_.~!!c'!!,_,!_._~_!I!,,,,I!J __!!J!! .•!_!!,. ~_!!j!..!!_!!_!!!!'RFI!_BrI!!I~I!!.!!11 !I!. !!I .. !!' .. !!!!. !!'!'!f~ \ l l·o\fVlf) I. ,Arson-Homicides: -/ o , o" Findings from "a o 0 ' National Study /) r.l " ' ~ . • 1) I ]I , ,.~ I I . '" . ~ _~"""-'"""---...>o.-"~~_~~",_~",-.",-",-,~_,-",,,,,-.~"""""~~""''''"-_'''''''''. ..... .<._." __ -,-,--,~_.~~_~_.',_L....~ ............. ~~_~_~-'-'_M"'I<i"- • __ =->.-"'_. __ • ____ "_ .. __ ~ __ ._~~_ " ___.. , ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Arson-Homicides: Findings From a National Study Allen Do Sapp, PhoDo Professor of Criminal Justice Central Missouri State University Warrensburg, Missouri Timothy G" Huff, M .. A. Violent Crime Case Analyst • Federal Bureau of Jrnvestigation Arson and Bombing Investigative Services Subunit National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime Quantico, Virginia 156232 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization Originating It. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this 6'" .1 material has been gr.ilnt~d'py.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook
    U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook Revised 2004 EDITORIAL NOTE: The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program staff of the FBI worked for over three years on the revision of the UCR handbook. Individuals from the various units that make up the national UCR Program read, reviewed, and made suggestions during this long endeavor. Our goal was to make the handbook user friendly as well as educationally sound. From a pedagogical standpoint, we tried to present one concept at a time and not overwhelm the user with too much information at once. Consequently, classifying and scoring are presented in two separate chapters. The user can learn first how to classify the Part I offenses and then how to score them. For easy reference, we consolidated explanations of important UCR concepts, such as jurisdiction, hierarchy, and separation of time and place, in one chapter. We retained many of the examples with which users are already familiar, and we also updated many of the examples so they better reflect the American society of the twenty-first century. Further, where possible, we tried to align summary and National Incident- Based Reporting System (NIBRS) ideas and definitions to help emphasize that summary and NIBRS are part of the same UCR Program. Listening to suggestions from users of this manual, we added an Index as a quick-reference aid and a Glossary; however, we were cautious to retain standard UCR definitions. The national UCR Program thanks the many substance review- ers from various state UCR Programs for their time and for their constructive comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy and Consumer Protection Enforcement Under the Biden Administration January 7, 2020
    Privacy and Consumer Protection Enforcement under the Biden Administration January 7, 2020 Panelists Joel Cohen Elizabeth Papez Alexander Southwell Ashley Rogers Ryan Bergsieker Amanda Aycock Winston Chan Victoria Weatherford Mylan Denerstein MCLE Certificate Information • Most participants should anticipate receiving their certificate of attendance via email approximately four weeks following the webcast. • Virginia Bar Association members should anticipate receiving their certificate of attendance six weeks following the webcast. • Please direct all questions regarding MCLE to [email protected]. 2 Panelists Joel Cohen Mylan Denerstein Elizabeth Papez Partner Partner Partner [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] +1 212.351.2664 +1 212.351.3850 +1 202.955.8608 Ashley Rogers Winston Chan Alexander Southwell Partner Partner Partner [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] +1 214.698.3316 +1 303.298.5774 +1 212.351.3981 Amanda Aycock Ryan Bergsieker Victoria Weatherford Associate Partner Associate [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] +1 212.351.2356 +1 303.298.5774 +1 415.393.8265 3 Agenda 1. DOJ and SEC Update – Consumer Fraud 2. FTC Update – Consumer Protection 3. HHS Update – Privacy 4. CFPB Update – Consumer Financial Protection 5. State Attorney General Update – Consumer Protection 4 Legislation & Supervision Rules & Structure DOJ and SEC Transition 2021 Enforcement DOJ and SEC Update – Consumer Fraud Department of Justice • Anticipated Priorities ‒ Renewed focus on preserving the integrity of the department and guarding its investigations and prosecutions from undue partisan influence. ‒ Continued emphasis on combatting fraud against consumers and corporate fraud that victimizes the general public, particularly in the healthcare field.
    [Show full text]