Arrest Trends in Milwaukee, 1980-2011 — Part Two

In the first post in this series, I compared black and white arrest rates in Milwaukee over time. In this post, I present arrest data by offense type.

In 2011, the seven leading arrest offenses were disorderly conduct, “other assault” (i.e., not aggravated assault), drug possession, theft, vagrancy, vandalism, and weapons possession.  Together, these seven offenses accounted for more than 53 percent of all Milwaukee Police Department arrests.  This amounts to almost exactly ten times the number of arrests for the violent “index crimes” — the most serious violent offenses that dominate media coverage of the criminal justice system (homicide, robbery, forcible rape, and aggravated assault).  To get a more realistic sense of the day-in-day-out work of the system, it may be helpful to appreciate that for every homicide arrest you see in the news, there are 123 arrests for disorderly conduct and 47 arrests for simple drug possession — nearly all of which fly well below the media radar screen.  It is an interesting question to what extent these lower-level arrests contribute to public safety.

These offense distributions do not differ much by race.  The first pie chart below indicates the distribution of the Big Seven arrest offenses among blacks; the second provides the distribution among whites.  

Continue ReadingArrest Trends in Milwaukee, 1980-2011 — Part Two

Are There Three Factions on the United States Supreme Court?

SCtThe way that the media reports on the Supreme Court, one gets the impression that the Court is divided into two intractable four-justice blocs, with Justice Anthony Kennedy deciding most of the cases by swaying back and forth between the two blocs.

(Under this interpretation, the conservative block is made up of Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas, while the liberal bloc includes Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor.)

Using data compiled from the SCOTUS blog regarding the Court’s 5-4 decisions since the appointment of Chief Justice Roberts, the Court actually divides into three three-justice blocs:

An all-female, “liberal” bloc including Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor, who agree with each other virtually all the time; an all-male, three judge “conservative” bloc made up of Justices Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, who agree with each other in the vast majority of cases, but without quite the same degree of uniformity as their liberal counterparts.  This leaves a three justice bloc in the middle, composed of Justices Breyer, Kennedy, and Scalia, who are less likely to agree with the members of the other two blocs.

In the first bloc, Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have never disagreed with each other in regard to the result in a case that was decided by a 5-4 margin.  Justice Sotomayor, in contrast, has agreed with both Ginsburg and Kagan a mere 95% of the time.

In the second block, Justices Roberts and Alito have reached the same result 95% of the time in 5-4 decisions.  Thomas and Alito have agreed 91% of the time, while the figure for Thomas and Roberts is 87%.

The justices in the middle group are, in many ways the most interesting.  They are grouped together not because they agree with each other (which they do not), but because their voting patterns often fail to align with either of the other two groups.  Justices Kennedy and Breyer have reached the same result in 43% of the cases, while Kennedy and Scalia have been together 52% of the time.  Perhaps the most remarkable statistic, however, is that Scalia and Breyer have voted with each other in only 4% of the court’s 5-4 decisions since 2006.

As the following table indicates, Justice Breyer votes much more frequently with the “liberal” first group, while both Kennedy and Scalia side with the “conservative” second group approximately two-thirds and three-fourths of the time, respectively.

Voting with Ginsburg Kagan Sotomayor Thomas Roberts Alito
BREYER 78% 78% 73% 26% 26% 23%
KENNEDY 30% 30% 36% 61% 65% 73%
SCALIA 26% 265 23% 74% 78% 73%

The pairings least likely to vote together in 5-4 cases are Alito-Ginsburg; Alito-Kagan; and Roberts-Sotomayor.  The two justices in those pairings have never voted with each other in a 5-4 decision.  Also normally disagreeing are Breyer-Scalia (4% agreement, discussed above); Alito-Sotomayor (5%); Thomas-Ginsburg (9%); Thomas-Kagan (9%); and Thomas-Sotomayor (14%).

Continue ReadingAre There Three Factions on the United States Supreme Court?

Evidence-Based Decision Making: The Increasing Use of Research in our Criminal Justice System

There is a growing trend in the criminal justice field to integrate evidence-based decision making, or EBDM, into local justice systems.  At its simplest, EBDM can be described as the practice of using what has been proven to work.  It places the primary reliance upon current and sound research, rather than upon anecdotal information, guesswork, or solely the experience of an individual.  While the use of evidence-based decision making is relatively new to the field of criminal justice, the healthcare industry has embraced EBDM for sometime.
The promise of evidence-based decision making is that it produces more consistent and better outcomes, as confirmed by the underlying research.  In the criminal justice system, the benefits include the implementation of policies and practices that meet the goals of maximizing public safety, reducing the risk of reoffending, more appropriate allocation of limited resources, and reducing costs.

Wisconsin is at the forefront of the trend towards the introduction of EBDM into its criminal justice systems.  

Continue ReadingEvidence-Based Decision Making: The Increasing Use of Research in our Criminal Justice System