CJA
NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY
Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director
TRENDS IN CASE AND DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS, AND CRIMINAL COURT PROCESSING AND OUTCOMES, OF PROSECUTED ARRESTS FOR MISDEMEANOR AND LESSER-SEVERITY OFFENSES IN NEW YORK CITY
Project Director Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow
FINAL REPORT December 2001
52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007
(646) 213-2500
TRENDS IN CASE AND DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS, AND CRIMINAL COURT PROCESSING AND OUTCOMES, OF PROSECUTED ARRESTS FOR MISDEMEANOR AND LESSER-SEVERITY OFFENSES IN NEW YORK CITY
Project Director Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow Project Staff Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Taehyon Kim Junior Research Programmer
December 2001
This report can be downloaded from www.nycja.org\research\research.htm
© 2001 NYC Criminal Justice Agency
TABLE OF CONTENTS _________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
PART I COMPARISON OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CASES AND DEFENDANTS IN PROSECUTED MISDEMEANOR AND LESSER-SEVERITY ARRESTS IN THE 1989 RANDOM SAMPLE AND 3rd QUARTER 1998 DATA SETS...................................... 10 Citywide Arrest Characteristics in Prosecuted Cases of Defendants Held for Criminal Court Arraignment in Misdemeanor and Lesser-Severity, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Sets..................... 13 Citywide Characteristics of Defendants in Misdemeanor and Lesser-Severity, NonVTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Sets ........................................................................................................................... 22 Case Processing: Change in Charge Severity Between Arrest and Criminal Court Arraignment .............................................................................................................. 30 Case Processing: Criminal Court Arraignment Outcomes....................................... 31 Case Processing: Final Criminal Court Dispositions................................................ 33 The Use of Jail in the Sentencing Decision.............................................................. 37 Summary of Citywide Comparisons Between Cases and Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Sets .................................................................................................................. 43
PART II COMPARING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CASES AND DEFENDANTS IN PROSECUTED MISDEMEANOR AND LESSER-SEVERITY SUMMARY ARRESTS IN 1989 AND 1998 USING ESTIMATED ANNUAL VOLUMES ...................................... 45 Citywide Arrest Characteristics in Prosecuted Cases of Defendants Held for Criminal Court Arraignment in Misdemeanor and Lesser-Severity, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized Data for 1989 and 1998 ................................................... 46 Citywide Characteristics of Defendants in Misdemeanor and Lesser-Severity, NonVTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized Data for 1989 and 1998 ............... 48 Case Processing: Criminal Court Dispositions......................................................... 51 Case Processing: Charge Change in Cases with a Conviction Outcome ............... 53 The Use of Jail in the Sentencing Decision.............................................................. 55 Summary of Citywide Comparisons Between Cases and Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized Data for 1989 and 1998 ...... 57
PART III BOROUGH COMPARISONS OF CASE AND DEFENDANT ATTRIBUTES, AND COURT OUTCOMES, IN MISDEMEANOR AND LESSER-SEVERITY SUMMARYARREST CASES IN 1989 AND 1998 .......................................................................... 60 The Composition of Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases Among the Boroughs in 1989 and 1998 ..................................................................................... 60 Defendant Characteristics in Prosecuted Non-Felony Summary-Arrest Cases Among the Boroughs ............................................................................................................ 64 Criminal Court Outcomes Among the Boroughs ...................................................... 65 Borough Comparisons in Charge Change Between Arrest and Conviction Charge Severities .................................................................................................................. 66 Borough Comparisons in the Use of Jail in the Sentencing Decision...................... 67 Summary of Borough Comparisons of Case and Defendant Characteristics, and Court Outcomes, in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized Data for 1989 and 1998............................................................................................ 69 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 71
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project could not have been completed without the able assistance of Mr. Taehyon Kim, Research Programmer, and Mr. Raymond Caligiure, Graphics and Production Specialist, who created all of the illustrations contained in this report as well providing assistance in the report’s production. Mr. Jerome E. McElroy, the New York City Criminal Justice Agency’s Executive Director, and Dr. Richard Peterson, Chair of the Research Department, provided invaluable review and comments throughout the project. Many current and former members of the Criminal Justice Agency’s Research and Information Systems’ Departments participated in the creation of the data sets analyzed in this study. Among them special mention is due to Dr. Qudsia Siddiqi, Senior Research Analyst, who directed the 1989 data set project, assisted in the creation of the 1998 data set, and has continued to provide both methodological assistance and guidance in regard to the construction of data elements in each. Ms. Barbara Diaz, Director of the Information Systems’ Department, and members of her staff, were instrumental in the development of the data sets, created for other research purposes, which were used in this study. Mr. Robert Shea, formerly of the Information Systems’ Department, was the principal programmer for the 1989 data set project, and Mr. Wayne Nehwadowich, Senior Programmer/Analyst, was responsible for the 1998 data set. Special thanks also are due to Dr. Mary A. Eckert, formerly CJA’s Research Director, who actively participated in the creation of the 1989 and 1998 data sets, and who helped in the development of this project. While this project benefited greatly from the assistance of others, the author alone is responsible for the study’s design, analysis and conclusions, as well as any errors or omissions.
INTRODUCTION Over the course of more than a decade there have been a number of changes in the criminal justice system in New York City. These changes have been brought about by a confluence of events that have occurred in almost all component organizations of the criminal justice system. Prominent among these changes are those that have occurred in policing, ranging from expansion of the size of the New York City Police Department, the use of new technologies that permit better tracking of crime patterns and allow for expedited pre-arraignment processing of arrestees thereby increasing the numbers of arrestees who can be held for court arraignment, and different deployment policies such as renewed attention to disorder crimes. At the other end of the criminal justice system have been changes in the targeting and delivery of alternative-toincarceration programs, while increasing incarcerative sentences for some types of offenses and offenders. In the middle is the enormous impact of the changes in arrest policies and practices on the criminal courts, and how these have led not only to an increased volume of arrests, but also to substantial changes in the composition of the caseloads and characteristics of defendants being brought into the criminal courts for prosecution. As more cases involving defendants charged with lesser-severity, non-felony offenses have been brought into the City’s criminal courts, issues have emerged about how best to organize the courts and their procedures, and how to fashion appropriate sanctions for this offender population. The criminal law defines the boundaries of permissible and impermissible conduct for all members of a society governed by the law’s geographic jurisdiction. Following millennia-old ideas of justice, degrees of seriousness are accorded different types of criminal acts. In turn, the extent and severity of the permissible punishment are assigned commensurate and proportionate to the severity category of the crime. For example, murder and other forms of aggravated violence are uniformly considered among the most egregious criminal acts warranting the most severe sanctions available. At the other end of the spectrum are those behaviors, not perceived to be inherently wrong, that a society may choose to regulate based on evolving community standards of conduct. In our modern legal system, the public delegates to government agencies the arrest, prosecution, adjudication, and punishment of those who engage in criminal behavior. In regard to punishment, modern penology has largely defined the severity of punishment (short of capital punishment) in terms of the length of time a person may be kept under criminal justice supervision, principally through imprisonment. In this scheme, crimes defined as felonies are considered the most serious types of criminal conduct and, depending on the felony severity category, in New York State carry a risk of imprisonment of at least one year at the low end, with life imprisonment or even capital punishment as the maximum penalty for those felony crimes defined as the most severe. Defendants accused of felony offenses also often are accorded enhanced procedural rights than those charged with lesser, non-felony offenses in recognition of the possible punishment upon conviction. Non-felony offenses, by contrast, comprised of misdemeanor crimes and lesser-severity charges, carry a maximum period of incarceration in local jail facilities of no greater than a year, and to jail time measured in
-2 -
days for the least severe offense. Periods of non-incarcerative criminal justice supervision, if available, also differ by the severity category of the conviction charge. Maximum monetary fines that can be imposed similarly are statutorily set commensurate to the severity of the conviction charge. How the criminal justice system handles non-felony offenders and their cases, and spotlighting the work of lower criminal courts, is a topic that episodically is brought to the fore in both academic scholarship and public debate. Often organized as separate entities designated as courts of inferior and limited jurisdiction, lower criminal courts are normally accorded less status and fewer resources than felony-jurisdiction courts, although they commonly handle a substantial part, even the majority, of the criminal caseload. For non-felony defendants, the lower severity of the charges under statutory schemes of punishment frequently means being processed as part of large numbers of defendants in a routinized, managerial fashion, and with most convictions resulting from quickly negotiated guilty pleas. For the non-felony defendant who is convicted, judges often have few if any meaningful sanctioning choices between probation and jail. In addition, the arrest-to-arraignment process for defendants held in custody can be sufficiently unpleasant as to be seen as constituting sufficient punishment for the charged offense. “The process is the punishment” is the way one social scientist summarized, and titled, his investigation into the workings of lower criminal courts.1 The 1967 release of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice found the conditions in lower courts to be among its most “disquieting” findings, and said in part: The commission has been shocked by what it has seen in some lower courts. It has seen cramped and noisy courtrooms, undignified and perfunctory procedures…. It has seen dedicated people who are frustrated by huge case loads, by the lack of opportunity to examine cases carefully, and by the impossibility of devising constructive solutions to the problems of offenders. It has seen assembly-line justice.2 One can also look back to this presidential commission as marking what would be a more than thirty-year period in which the issue of crime and social order would remain a point of focus of American national and state politics, result in an enormous expansion of criminological research by the academic community, and lead to a sustained period of federal and local governmental activity in the criminal justice field. All of these elements continue to this day. But by the late-1970s the principal focus on crime and criminal justice turned to addressing felony-severity crimes as concerns mounted about rising rates of violent crime and the effect of drugs in American society. In response, most criminal justice system initiatives during the early 1980s and into the 1 2
Malcolm M. Feeley, The Process Is The Punishment, (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1979).
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Courts, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), excerpted in part from David W. Neubauer, America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System, sixth edition, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999), pp. 465-466.
-3 -
early 1990s focused on investing the greatest resources in the apprehension, adjudication and punishment of offenders charged with felony-severity drug and violent crimes. These events are well mirrored in an examination of the New York City criminal justice system. As shown on Table 1, from the mid- to late-1970s, felony arrests increased from 40 percent of all arrests to over half of all arrests made by the New York City Police Department, with a drug crime being the most serious arrest charge in ten percent or fewer of all reported arrests.3 From the early through the mid-1980s felony arrests once again were in the 40 percent range of all arrests, and drug crimes began to make up an increasing proportion of the top arrest charges, rising from about 15 percent of all arrests in 1982, to over 20 percent of all arrests in 1985. In 1987, the year in which arrest volume would exceed 300,000 for the first time in New York City’s history, a drug charge was the most severe arrest charge in over 25 percent of all arrests. At the end of the 1980s, and in the midst of drug-enforcement initiatives aimed at the disruption of street-level drug markets, the top arrest charge was of felony severity for over half of all arrests in 1989, with drug arrests accounting for over 30 percent of the arrests in that year. 4 Beginning in the early 1990s the percentage of all arrests that were of felony severity began to fall, although still comprising over half of all arrests in 1992. The percentage of all arrests that involved a drug charge also fell in 1992. In the mid-1990s, as arrest volume increased, the percentage of arrests that were felonies continued to decline, while the percentage of all arrests involving a drug crime began to rebound. 5 The relative proportions of misdemeanor and felony severity drug arrests, of total arrests on drug charges, are illustrated on Exhibit 1. By the mid-1990s changes in law enforcement strategies for addressing issues of crime in New York City were underway. Both overall arrest volume and drug arrests continued on the rise, but a shift in emphasis began to dramatically change the relative distribution between felony and non-felony severity charges. The rise in the volume of arrests being brought into the criminal courts for prosecution, and the changes in the composition of the caseload entering the courts, most especially the enormous shift toward addressing an increased volume of cases involving non-felony crimes, also can be seen from information provided in the New York City Criminal Justice Agency’s (CJA) Semi-Annual Reports. 6 For example, in
3
These calculations are derived from the published statistics of the Police Department of the City of New York found in, Statistical Report: Complaints and Arrests, Office of Management Analysis and Planning, Crime Analysis Unit, 1975-1979.
4
Ibid., 1982, 1985, 1987 and 1989.
5
Ibid., 1991, 1992 and 1993.
6
The New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA), is a not-for-profit organization that provides a variety of criminal justice services under a contract with the City of New York. In order to perform these functions CJA maintains a computerized database containing arrest and defendant information, and caseprocessing and court-outcome data. As part of its routine reports, CJA provides semi-annual information
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 1 Arrest Volume in New York City in Selected Years Between 1975 and 1998*
Year
Total Arrests
Felony Arrests
Percent Felonies
Total Drug Percent of Arrests All Arrests
1975
253,324
102,390
40.4%
17,207
6.8%
1977
237,311
115,121
48.5%
21,922
9.2%
1979
204,982
104,415
50.9%
18,079
8.8%
1982
217,807
106,439
48.9%
33,296
15.3%
1985
257,627
112,995
43.9%
56,017
21.7%
1987
300,591
139,657
46.5%
78,688
26.2%
1989
308,164
163,385
53.0%
94,490
30.7%
1992
269,191
135,484
50.3%
64,895
24.1%
1994
328,782
139,228
42.3%
83,056
25.3%
1998
376,316
129,359
34.4%
121,661
32.3%
* Source: Police Department of the City of New York, "Statistical Report: Complaints and Arrests," Office of Management Analysis and Planning, Crime Analysis Unit.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1977
1979
1982
Felony Drug Arrests
1985
1987
1989
Misdemeanor Drug Arrests
1992
Total
1994
1998
* Source: Police Department of the City of New York, "Statistical Report: Complaints and Arrests," Office of Management Analysis and Planning, Crime Analysis Unit.
1975
Thousands
Felony and Misdemeanor Drug Arrest Volume in Selected Years Between 1975 and 1998*
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Exhibit 1
-4 -
1989, CJA reported a total of 263,274 prosecuted cases, of which about 91 percent (238,310) were the cases of defendants held in custody pending Criminal Court arraignment, (i.e., ‘summary’ or ‘on-line’ arrest cases), with the remaining cases being arraignments of defendants issued Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs). In 1994, the volume of prosecuted cases had risen to 272,292 cases, 79 percent (215,065) of which were summary arrest cases. In 1998, CJA reported a volume of 368,478 prosecuted cases of which 86 percent (315,897) were cases of defendants held for arraignment. Using both the published CJA Semi-Annual Reports, and unpublished database reports used in the preparation of the semi-annual report series, Table 2 presents: the citywide volume of prosecuted summary arrests in 1989, 1994 and 1998; the number and percent of summary-arrest cases (i.e., cases only of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment) in each year by the severity classification of the most serious charge at Criminal Court arraignment; and the percentage change in the distribution of arraignment charge severities between the years.7 This table shows both how the volume of summary-arrest cases in 1998 was substantially larger than in 1989 or 1994, and the change in the severity of prosecuted charges at Criminal Court arraignment. Unfortunately, volume comparisons with 1994 are problematic because of missing information in CJA’s computerized database for all cases arraigned at the Midtown Manhattan Community Court in that year. Because this Manhattan courtroom is designed to arraign only non-violent cases with an arrest and prosecution charge less severe than a felony, the percentage increases of non-felony cases after 1989 is somewhat underestimated.8 In addition, this table only illustrates patterns in regard to summary-arrest cases, thereby excluding the different numbers of cases in each of these years in which defendants were issued DATs, almost always for non-felony arrest charges. As shown on Table 2, in 1989, the volume of prosecuted summary-arrest cases was about evenly divided between cases arraigned on a felony-severity, and non-felony severity, charge. In 1994, more than half of all prosecuted summary-arrest cases had an arraignment charge less severe than a felony, and in 1998 the proportion of cases with a non-felony arraignment-severity charge had increased to almost three-fourths of total citywide arraignment volume of cases of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment. Conversely, where in 1989 about half of all summary-arrest cases had a about trends in prosecuted arrests and Criminal Court arraignment outcomes in New York City’s Criminal Courts. 7
The volume figures reported by CJA in its semi-annual reports are based only on prosecuted cases, and categorize those cases based on court, not arrest, charges. In addition, CJA does not receive information for a small percentage of cases in any given year. For these reasons, volume and case characteristics will differ from those reported by the New York City Police Department, and other official sources of information on arrests and prosecution of criminal cases in New York City. 8
CJA provides pretrial services to defendants at the Midtown Court, that began operation in October 1993, but computerized court processing and case outcome data were not available to CJA from this Manhattan arraignment courtroom until 1996. For this reason the data for 1998 are unaffected by missing Midtown Court information, as are the data for 1989 that predates the creation of this arraignment court part.
N 119165 86142 12582 5830 104554 14591 238310
% 50.0% 36.1% 5.3% 2.4% 43.9% 6.1% 100.0%
N 94020 84405 12042 10685 107132 8372 209524
% 44.9% 40.3% 5.7% 5.1% 51.1% 4.0% 100.0%
1994* % change from 1989 -21.1% -2.0% -4.3% 83.3% 2.5% -42.6% -12.1%
N 83211 152523 38674 22599 213796 18890 315897
1998 % change % change % from 1994 from 1989 26.3% -11.5% -30.2% 48.3% 80.7% 77.1% 12.2% 221.2% 207.4% 7.2% 111.5% 287.6% 67.7% 99.6% 104.5% 6.0% 125.6% 29.5% 100.0% 50.8% 32.6%
** This category is exclusively Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) offenses.
* Total number of prosecuted cases excludes 5,541 defendants held for arraignment at the Midtown Community Court for which data were unavailable.
Charge Severity Subtotal Felonies A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor** Subtotal Misdemeanors Violation/Other/Unknown Total Arraigned
1989
Citywide Percentage Change of Volume by Arraignment Charge Severity
Table 2
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
-5 -
felony severity charge at Criminal Court arraignment, only slightly more than one-fourth had an arraignment charge of felony severity in 1998. In examining the figures shown on Table 2 it is important to remember that what is represented is the severity classification of the most severe charge at arraignment, regardless of the severity of the top arrest charge. However, even if patterns in prosecutorial decisions in regard to the appropriate severity of court charges in relation to arrest charges were different in each of the three years shown, the arrest information already discussed strongly suggests that a larger portion of the criminal courts’ caseload was being derived from arrests for conduct of less than felony severity. Table 2 also shows that while the proportion of prosecuted summary-arrest cases arraigned on a felony charge was smaller in 1994 and 1998 in comparison to 1989, the percentage of all arraigned cases with an A-misdemeanor severity charge was increasing. In 1994 the total number of cases arraigned on a felony severity charge was about 25,000 fewer than in 1989, and was about 10,000 fewer in 1998 than in 1994. By contrast, the number of cases with an arraignment charge of Amisdemeanor severity was less than 2,000 cases smaller in 1994 than in 1989, and then almost doubled in volume in 1998. In 1998, the total number of all cases arraigned on an A-misdemeanor charge, 152,523, was greater than the number of all summaryarrest cases with a felony charge at arraignment in that year, 83,211, or the number of all cases arraigned on a felony charge in 1989, 119,165, a year in which half of all summary-case arraignments were for a charge of felony severity. In terms of percentage change comparing 1994 and 1998 with 1989, the largest proportional increases in the severity classification of cases by the prosecuted charge at Criminal Court arraignment were for charges less severe than A-misdemeanors, although the numbers of such cases were far smaller than either all cases of felony severity, or those arraigned on an A-misdemeanor severity charge. For example, the number of cases arraigned on a B-misdemeanor severity charge were only several hundred fewer in 1994 than in 1989, but in 1998 the number of such cases was threetimes larger than in either of these two previous years. Textbook descriptions often use a funnel analogy to illustrate the flow of cases through the criminal justice system, explaining how the component parts of the system must find ways to modulate the flow as arrests begin to pour into the system. This is an apt analogy as one examines how New York City’s criminal justice system confronted changing circumstances in the 1980s and into the early 1990s. In this period, the City’s criminal justice system was faced with a dramatic increase in arrests at both the felony and non-felony severity levels, legal challenges to lengthening arrest-to-arraignment times, a changed composition in the caseload of the courts from the rise in lawenforcement activity aimed at the sale and possession of controlled substances, a court system under stress and without an infusion of resources to meet the courtroom workgroup needs, and a rising jail population of both pretrial detainees and convicted defendants serving local jail time or awaiting transfer to state prison. The numbers of convicted offenders being sent into the state prison system was exacerbated by New York State’s mandatory sentencing provisions previously put in place in the early 1970s as part of the Rockefeller administration’s legislative initiatives regarding drug and recidivist felony offenders.
-6 -
When faced with the need to move more cases through the criminal justice system, the response from the gatekeepers at each critical decision point is to search for ways to redirect resources toward the more serious cases and offenders. For the police, this may mean greater use of Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs), a statutory means by which defendants may be released from police custody with a summons to appear for a scheduled arraignment at a later date, rather than keeping arrestees in custody pending criminal court arraignment. Prosecutors may create screening mechanisms leading to increased rates of declined prosecutions or motions to dismiss, or more generous plea offers for low-level offenses and offenders. More defendants in pending cases may need to be released from pretrial detention in order to relieve jail overcrowding and to preserve limited trial courtroom space to meet speedy-trial law requirements for detained defendants deemed more serious or facing the more serious charges. One can find examples of all of these mechanisms being used in New York City at various times. But what underlies all these strategies is that offenders who engage in what is perceived to be less serious criminal conduct are the most likely to be treated leniently and expeditiously in the process. While the spotlight for most of the last quarter of the twentieth century was on the pursuit of offenders engaged in violent and drug crime activities usually of felony severity, conditions of disorder and fear of crime were leading to a call for other types of community-oriented initiatives to address the plethora of behaviors perceived as disruptive to neighborhoods but eclipsed by crimes defined as more severe by the penal laws. Out of this movement came community policing in the 1980s, and following in its wake a whole emerging community-justice movement in the early 1990s. As a backdrop to these more recent events, one can look to a body of literature that sought to review criminal justice developments that had emerged out of the 1960s’ civil rights movements. In this earlier era, questions were raised about the ordermaintenance function of police, especially the police role in addressing “victimless crimes,” (what we today think of as “quality-of-life offenses”). How police handled situations involving what were perceived as relatively harmless crimes was seen as a principal source of unfettered police discretion inconsistent with the emerging emphasis on individual rights and due process. This gave rise to professional policing’s emphasis on a crime-control model of law enforcement, which better fit procedural rules and rising concerns about violent crime. Revisiting these developments, a new body of work began to emerge that questioned whether law enforcement had lost sight of the nexus between disorder and crime. Two formative works that illustrate this connection were those written by Hermann Goldstein, and by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. Goldstein, in his 1979 article, “Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach,” argued that in the course of focusing on means—on improving patrol and arrest strategies, and improving the professionalism of departments through better internal management, training and equipment— police departments had begun to lose sight of the end product, namely solving the community problems they are called upon to handle.9 For Goldstein, among 9
Herman Goldstein, “Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach,” Crime and Delinquency 25 (1979), pp. 236-258.
-7 -
the problems to be addressed by police were not only incidences of serious crime, but also the types of disorderly behaviors that give rise to a fear of crime. In this regard he further asserted that it would be misguided policy to divest the criminal justice system, and the police in particular, of dealing with categories of victimless crimes such as prostitution, gambling, vagrancy, and possession of small quantities of drugs. Decriminalization was not an effective solution as these were problems communities wanted solved and to which neighborhood residents would continue to look to the police for assistance. Nonetheless, the problems would not be solved simply by relying on the criminal justice system. Instead, he argued that police agencies must identify the potential problem-solving contributions that could be made by other public and private entities, and elicit their collaboration on the neighborhood and city level. This theme of the continuing need for an order-maintenance function for police can be found in the Wilson and Kelling article, “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.”10 Like Goldstein’s writing several years earlier, these authors argued that citizen anxiety about crime stems from both a fear of serious, violent crime and a fear generated by a sense of disorder in streets and other public spaces. In the opinion of Wilson and Kelling, one should not overlook the fact that a source of fear in public spaces comes from “the fear of being bothered by disorderly people. Not violent people, nor necessarily criminals, but disreputable or obstreperous or unpredictable people: panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed.”11 In addition, they emphasized the need to recognize the relationship between disorder and crime. Analogous to the situation where an unrepaired broken window invites further vandalism, Wilson and Kelling contended that when disorder begins to affect public spaces, if left untended a breakdown begins to occur in community controls over acceptable behavior. This in turns leads to a perception that crime is on the rise and people adjust their behavior accordingly, further abandoning public spaces and creating the conditions for even more serious crime to flourish. For some who began to advocate renewed police involvement in order maintenance, the goal was for police to help communities find solutions to neighborhood problems, without necessarily relying solely on the formal institutional structures of the criminal justice system. For others, it meant actively focusing the lawenforcement role inherent in policing on low-level offenses. It is largely this latter strategy, what might be characterized as order maintenance through strategic law enforcement, which was adopted in New York City in the mid-1990s. Among the elements in this law-enforcement strategy were announcements of unacceptable behavior and a more visible police presence intended to have a deterrent effect, backed by concerted, visible police activity directed at specific types of behaviors or in specific geographic areas. Using all existing penal laws and city ordinances police sought to reclaim public spaces abandoned from fear generated by a sense of disorder; focusing 10
James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” which originally appeared in The Atlantic Monthly, 249 (March, 1982), pp. 29-38. Reprinted in Community Policing: Classical Readings, edited by Willard M. Oliver, (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2000). 11
Kelling and Wilson, as reprinted in Community Policing: Classical Readings, (op. cit.) p. 4.
-8 -
on minor law violations also gave police a procedural means for proactively seeking to deter those who might otherwise be emboldened to engage in more serious crimes. The philosophy of targeted, proactive policing was aided by the use of new computer technologies that helped police better manage information about crime and local command responses, and also handle the pre-arraignment processing of defendants more efficiently. While these changes in police policies and practices often are credited with a citywide reduction in reported incidences of serious crime, these policies created a substantial increase in arrest volume and its attendant implications for the work of the criminal courts. In New York City’s two-tiered court system, the lower, Criminal Court has original jurisdiction over most prosecuted cases but the power to try, convict and sentence defendants only in cases involving misdemeanor or lesser-severity charges. Cases sustained with felony-severity charges after preliminary Criminal Court review must be transferred to the superior, Supreme Court for adjudication. Current events suggest that there once again is an emerging focus on the work of the criminal courts, a debate emerging as a result of dissatisfaction from both within and outside the court system over existing policy and practices in responding to the influx of defendants accused of lesser-severity crimes. For some, existing sanctions have been inadequate to deter repeat offending, leading to calls for lengthening periods of incarceration for recidivist misdemeanants. For others, existing sanctions are inappropriate for many within the offender population, and unresponsive to the harm done to communities by what used to be seen as “victimless” crimes. As has already been shown, it is undisputed that the New York City Criminal Court system has been confronted by increased caseload volume, the result of increasing enforcement of behaviors statutorily classified as being of less than felony severity. But beyond documenting the pattern of increasing volume of cases, one of the first issues to be addressed in this research is an examination of the composition of these cases, by charge severity and crime type. A second issue is the impact changes in both volume and case composition may have had on both Criminal Court processing and case outcomes for misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases. In this study, the focus of investigation is only on cases of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment, referred to throughout the report as “summary-arrest cases,” and in which both the arrest and prosecuted charge at Criminal Court arraignment were of misdemeanor or lesser severity. Drawing on the funnel analogy, did an increase in prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases lead to changes in the proportion or types of dispositions in non-felony cases at Criminal Court arraignment, thereby modulating the flow of cases beyond this critical decision point? Did the overall pattern of Criminal Court outcomes in misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases change? Have there been changes in the types of sentences imposed after conviction, especially jail sentences? Another issue is to more closely examine the extent to which the nonfelony arrestee population has changed, especially within crime categories, in regard to demographic characteristics such as age or sex, or in regard to criminal history. The report materials following this section are divided into several parts. Part I uses two CJA data sets, one from 1989 and the other from 1998, to examine
-9 -
proportional (percentage) changes in case and defendant attributes, and court processing and outcomes. This is done because the data sets from 1989 and 1998 each contains different percentages of their respective year’s caseload of prosecuted summary-arrest cases of non-felony severity. In areas where differences are found between cases, defendants, and court decision making in the two years, Part II examines these findings using estimated total volume by weighting the data to approximate annual volume in each year. Part III then seeks to examine the comparability in each borough’s Criminal Court of differences in case and defendant attributes, and case processing and outcomes, that may have occurred in comparing prosecuted summary-arrest cases in 1989 and 1998 citywide. The final section of each of these parts of the study report provides a brief summary of major findings. Finally, the project report ends with a concluding section that attempts to highlight major findings about differences in these two very different criminal justice periods in New York City, as well as identifying a number of issues raised by this study’s analyses that suggest fertile areas for further research.
-10 -
PART I COMPARISON OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CASES AND DEFENDANTS IN PROSECUTED MISDEMEANOR AND LESSERSEVERITY ARRESTS IN THE 1989 RANDOM SAMPLE AND 3rd QUARTER 1998 DATA SETS In order to compare changes in the citywide characteristics of cases and defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment after an arrest for misdemeanor and lesser-severity crimes, analysis was conducted on two existing CJA data sets.12 For a variety of reasons there were dissimilarities in the two data sets, including that each was created for other research purposes, and in the intervening years there were changes in the penal laws, and changes in the way CJA collected both arrest and court information. The 1989 data set is a random sample of cases found in the CJA database of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment (referred to as summary-arrest cases). This data set contains 14,934 prosecuted cases, representing a 6.3 percent random sample of all prosecuted summary arrests in calendar year 1989.13 The 1998 data set was created by selecting all recorded prosecuted arrests in the CJA database in the third quarter of 1998 (July 1 through September 30, 1998). This quarterly data set originally contained the cases of 89,504 defendants, of which 85,657 were summaryarrest cases, and 3,847 of which were arraigned cases of defendants issued Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs).14 By randomly sampling cases over the course of an entire year, the 1989 data provide an overview of characteristics of prosecuted arrests and defendants, capturing but also potentially masking changes in arrest, prosecution or court decision-making during the twelve-month period. By contrast, the 1998 data provide a snap shot of the characteristics of all prosecuted arrests and defendants in the third quarter of that year, but may not be representative of arrest, prosecution and court decision-making at other times in the year. In order to make the two sets of data as comparable as possible, only prosecuted cases of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment were selected, where both the 12
CJA maintains an arrest-based (rather than a defendant-based) database, collecting information about defendants and court-case processing, when available, for each arrest eligible for prosecution in the Criminal Court. For this reason the same defendant may appear in more than one case in each study period. Because this occurred in a very small percentage of these cases, and because case attributes and many defendant characteristics in each arrest event are unique, the term defendants and cases are used interchangeably. 13 14
New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Semi Annual Report, First Half and Second Half of 1998.
A Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) is a written notice issued by the NYPD or another authority for the defendant to appear in the Criminal Court for arraignment at a future date. Under the New York State Criminal Procedure Law (CPL 150.20) a DAT may be issued for any non-felony and some non-violent Efelony arrest charges. The NYPD imposes some additional restrictions, for example denying DATs to defendants found to have outstanding warrants, or to most defendants arrested on any of a class of charges known as photographable offenses.
-11 -
top arrest and arraignment-affidavit charges were of misdemeanor or lesser- severity, excluding Vehicle and Traffic Law cases. It remains important to remember that it is the proportional distribution, rather than the number of cases, that are comparable because the 1989 data represent less than six and one-half percent of the annual volume of summary-arrest cases, while the 1998 data include all qualifying cases in a three-month period, (or roughly twenty-five percent of the annual volume). However, because of the increase in prosecuted arrest volume, especially for non-felony charges, it would be reasonable to assume that in most crime categories the actual number of cases would be greater in 1998 than in 1989 were the percentages applied either to an equivalent sample or the full population of summary-arrest cases in each year. In addition, changes in police practices in regard to the issuance of DATs affect the volume and distribution by charge severity and crime type of prosecuted summaryarrest cases. This is an important factor in a study of non-felony case processing and court outcomes because almost all DATs are issued for misdemeanor or lesser-severity offenses, and changes in police practices regarding the issuance of DATs led to a considerable reduction in their use in the period prior to the third quarter of 1998. In 1989, an additional 9.5 percent of Criminal Court volume citywide was the arraignment of Desk Appearance Ticket cases, while in the third quarter of 1998 DAT cases were only 4.3 percent of the citywide arraignment volume of the Criminal Court. By excluding DATs in both time periods this research provides an examination of the case and defendant characteristics of those arrested on non-felony charges and detained until brought into the Criminal Court for arraignment, but is not representative of all nonfelony cases and defendants arrested and prosecuted in the respective time periods. Comparing data from two points in time almost a decade apart, 1989 and the 3rd quarter of 1998, does not provide a longitudinal picture of changes occurring over time. But these time periods do permit an opportunity to examine arrest, court-processing and case-outcome patterns, under greatly changed circumstances in criminal justice policy in the City of New York. In 1989, the development of police initiatives designed to disrupt street-level drug markets, principally through undercover buy-and-bust operations, and address violent and weapon crimes frequently associated with the illegal drug trade, were well underway. The concentration of programmatic efforts by police in these areas primarily resulted in felony-severity arrests. In 1998, by contrast, New York City had a developed criminal justice policy characterized by strategic, concentrated enforcement of quality-of-life offenses, frequently involving arrests on charges of misdemeanor or lesser severity. In the 1989 data set, a total of 58.9 percent (8,798) of all sampled prosecuted arrests of persons held for Criminal Court arraignment had a felony severity charge as the top arrest charge, and 36.4 percent (5,440) had a misdemeanor or lesser-severity top charge at arrest and at Criminal Court arraignment. The remaining 4.7 percent (706) of the sampled cases involving defendants arrested or prosecuted for an unclassified misdemeanor charge under the Vehicle and Traffic Laws (VTL), where a non-felony arrest charge had a felony charge at Criminal Court arraignment, or where the arrest charge was unknown. In the 3rd quarter 1998 data, 34.8 percent (29,798) of the summary-arrest cases had a top arrest charge of felony severity, and 55.8 percent (47,813) were cases in which the defendant was arrested and prosecuted for a
-12 -
misdemeanor or lesser-severity offense.15 The remaining 9.4 percent (8,046) were unclassified misdemeanor VTL arrests, cases with unknown arrest and court charges, or cases in which a non-felony arrest had a felony prosecuted charge at arraignment. Including VTL cases, most of which are designated of misdemeanor-equivalent severity but often carry punishments that differ from penal law misdemeanors, was beyond the scope of this research. However, the difference in the proportions of unclassified misdemeanor VTL cases in the 1989 and 1998 data most likely reflect to some extent changes in law-enforcement practices in the two time periods. In the later period trafficlaw enforcement was certainly one of the tools used by the police in its ordermaintenance efforts. In addition, although this study selected for analysis only cases in which both the top arrest and Criminal Court arraignment charge were of non-felony severity, it is of some interest that in the full 1989 random sample data set the rate of severity charge reduction between a felony arrest and non-felony Criminal Court arraignment charge was noticeably lower than similar charge reduction in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set. In the 1989 data set 16.8 percent of all cases of defendants arrested on a felony-severity charge and held for arraignment had an affidavit charge at the Criminal Court arraignment less severe than a felony, while in the 1998 dataset 30.5 percent of all cases in which a defendant was arrested on a felony charge and held for arraignment had an arraignment-affidavit charge less severe than a felony. These figures indicate that in comparison with 1989, in 1998 the proportion of non-felony cases processed in New York City’s Criminal Court system was even greater than would be suggested by an examination of non-felony cases selected by the severity characteristics of arrest charges.
15
CJA’s database is programmed to identify and characterize by crime type and severity each charge found in the statewide Penal and Vehicle and Traffic Laws, but not the array of offenses in local law sources such as the City’s Administrative Code that are processing in the City’s Criminal Court. For those charges CJA developed a separate coding system that identifies the local law source of the charge and whether it carries the equivalent of violation, or lesser-severity charge penalties. In the 1989 data set this coding scheme permitted a distinction between cases with an arrest charge that either was truly missing or unidentifiable, distinct from arrests for offenses in local law codes. However, beginning in 1992, CJA began to electronically receive notification of arrests from the New York City Police Department from which neither the source nor charge severity can be identified for arrests for violations of local laws. In the 1998 data set, therefore, all such arrests appeared without categorization as to the charge type or severity. For the purposes of this research project all such prosecuted summary arrests were included in the analysis if, based on an examination of the Criminal Court arraignment-affidavit charge on the docket with the most severe arraignment charge, the case appeared to have an unidentified or missing arrest charge because it was based on a local law code.
-13 -
Citywide Arrest Characteristics in Prosecuted Cases of Defendants Held for Criminal Court Arraignment in Misdemeanor and Lesser-Severity, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Sets As discussed earlier in this report, in non-capital cases imprisonment is considered the most severe punishment for crime, and the relative severity of different types of crimes, and charges within a crime category, are measured by the maximum period of incarceration that can be imposed. In New York State’s Penal Law, misdemeanor crimes are classified as being of either A- or B-severity, and conviction for an A-misdemeanor crime can result in a jail sentence of up to one year, while conviction for a B-misdemeanor crime can result in a jail sentence no longer than three months. Violation severity charges in the Penal Law, and lesser-severity offenses classified in law sources such as City codes and ordinances, which are outside the Vehicle and Traffic Laws or the Penal Law, may carry a maximum period of incarceration of no more than fifteen days and, because such charges are not considered “crimes,” conviction for such offenses does not result in a criminal record of conviction. Maximum fine amounts, and other financial penalties, also vary in relation to the severity of the charge, with A-misdemeanor crimes carrying the highest potential penalties. Among prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in the two data sets, arrest charges of A-misdemeanor severity were the most common although proportionately less in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set than in the sampled cases in 1989, and charges of B-misdemeanor severity were far more prevalent in the1998, than in 1989 data. As shown in Table 3, in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set more than two of every three summary arrests (68.4%) for a non-felony, non-VTL, offense involved a penal law charge of A-misdemeanor severity and almost one of every four (24.7%) such arrests involved a charge of B-misdemeanor penal law severity. In comparison, more than three of every four summary arrests (77.0%) in the random sample from 1989 had a top arrest charge of A-misdemeanor severity while somewhat more than one of every ten (10.6%) had a B-misdemeanor severity arrest charge. Arrests for charges of violation severity, or for behaviors of lesser charge severity proscribed in local laws, such as the New York City’s Administrative Code (AC) or Alcohol Beverage Control Act (ABC), in which the defendant was held for Criminal Court arraignment, were proportionately greater in 1989 than in 1998. Violation-severity offenses comprised 3.0 percent and lesser-severity non-penal law charges comprised 9.4 percent of arrests of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment in the 1989 data set, in comparison to 2.4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, for comparable offenses in the 1998 data set. This is a somewhat unanticipated finding for several reasons. First, one might hypothesize that with proportionately more defendants held for arraignment in 1998 than in 1989, a greater proportion would be defendants arrested on the least severe types of charges. Second, as part of the programmatic efforts of the police to use all available law sources in the campaign against quality-of-life offenses one might anticipate a proportionate increase in arrests based on local law sources such as unlawful merchandise peddling or violating the City’s ordinance regarding carrying open liquor containers. While the sheer numbers of such arrests increased in the mid- to late-1990s these data suggest that, at least entering the second half of
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 3 Arrest-Charge Severity Distribution in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation Lesser Severity/ Unknown
1989 (N=5,440) %
1998 (N=47,962) %
77.0% 10.6% 3.0%
68.4% 24.7% 2.4%
9.4%
4.5%
-14 -
calendar year 1998, they proportionately were dwarfed by arrests based on penal law misdemeanor charges. Changes in arrest-charge severity patterns may be a reflection of programmatic efforts to enforce laws against different types of crimes, or may be the result of different charges emerging from the same categorical type of crime enforcement. A comparison of the data from the two time periods suggests a combination of these factors. The prosecuted arrests resulting from enforcement efforts in regard to non-felony, non-VTL crimes differed in the two time periods as reflected in the distribution of summary-arrest cases among ten CJA crime categories. In a number of instances there were changes in the relative proportion of cases among the crime categories, the distribution of summary-arrest cases by charge within categories, and in the distribution among charge-severity classifications. (Table 4) In a few crime categories a portion of the change might be attributed to changes in the penal laws in the intervening years in which there were new charges, additional types of specific behaviors added to existing charges, and changes in the severity classification for some crimes, but this would not appear to explain most of the differences, most of the time. As will be discussed in greater detail shortly, the proportional difference between A- and B-misdemeanor severity arrests in the two time periods appears largely to be a result of the huge volume and changed charge pattern in drug arrests in the 1998 data, where a substantial increase in the B-misdemeanor marijuana possession charge, in comparison with the A-misdemeanor non-marijuana possession charge, greatly affects the overall citywide distribution of arrest charges between these two misdemeanor-severity classifications. Comparisons of severities for charges are based on the statutory definition in the Penal Law, but offenses based on local law codes are, of necessity and with the exception of a few violation-severity offenses, categorically assigned to “other/unknown severity� which is understood to carry sanctions less onerous than either misdemeanor or violation penalties. The other/unknown severity category also includes some cases, mostly prostitution-related offenses in the 1989 data, where the specific severity designation was absent in the data for penal law charges that vary in severity level based on the nature of the offense or prior record of the defendant. Descriptions of crime types are based on a long-standing internal CJA system of grouping the vast array of individual charges into ten discrete crime categories (excluding in this research the additional, separate category for VTL charges). In the course of this report a discussion of the most frequently occurring charges within a crime category will be provided. In the data from the 1989 random sample of cases of non-felony, non-VTL summary arrests, and in the 3rd quarter 1998 population of comparable prosecuted arrests of persons held for Criminal Court arraignment, drug charges comprised a fairly similar percentage of arrests, 41.4 percent in 1989 and 42.0 percent in 1998. But in the 1989 data set over 95 percent of all non-felony drug arrests were of A-misdemeanor severity and only about 3 percent were B-misdemeanor charges, with the remaining percentage being of violation severity. In the 1998 data set only about 56 percent of the non-felony drug arrests had an A-misdemeanor severity charge while approximately 43 percent were of B-misdemeanor severity with the remaining arrests being for a violation
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 4 Distribution of Non-Felony Summary-Arrest Cases, by CJA Crime Category and Arrest-Charge Severities in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data 1989 (N=5,440)
Crime Category Drugs Property Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Misconduct Obstructing Justice Other Weapon Fraud Harm-to-Personsand-Property
Total % 41.1% 15.7% 11.6% 9.4% 9.1% 4.0% 3.8% 2.7% 2.5% 0.1%
A B Misdemeanor Misdemeanor % % 96.0% 3.2% 100.0% -5.2% 48.4% 96.7% 3.3% 36.9% 33.9% 94.0% 6.0% --100.0% -89.8% 2.2% 100.0%
--
Violation % 0.8% ---29.0% -1.9% ---
Unknown/ Other % --46.4% -0.2% -98.1% -8.0%
--
--
Violation % 1.3% -0.1% 18.6% -0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2%
Unknown/ Other % -----99.7% ----
--
--
1998 (N=47,813)
Crime Category Drugs Fraud Harm to Persons Misconduct Property Other/Not Available Sex Crimes Obstructing Justice Weapon Harm-to-Personsand-Property
Total % 42.0% 13.9% 12.3% 9.8% 9.0% 4.5% 4.4% 2.8% 1.2% --
A B Misdemeanor Misdemeanor % % 56.0% 42.7% 98.7% 1.3% 95.1% 4.8% 53.0% 28.4% 99.1% 0.9% --32.8% 66.7% 95.8% 3.9% 99.6% 0.2% 77.8%
22.2%
-15 -
severity drug offense, all of which in both periods involved the lowest level marijuana possession charge. This was the only crime category in the data for the more recent period in which the proportion of A-misdemeanor arrest charges noticeably declined in relation to B-misdemeanor and lesser-severity charges, and was in sharp contrast to patterns in most of the other crime categories examined in this research. The CJA drug crime category consists of all charges in Penal Law (PL) Articles 220 (all non-marijuana controlled substances) and 221 (exclusively marijuana charges). In both data sets almost all prosecuted non-felony summary drug-category arrests were for one of seven charges. Among only A-misdemeanor severity drug cases over threefourths of the defendants were arrested for Penal Law charge 220.03, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 7th degree, while in the 1989 data 10.7 percent, but in the 1998 data 17.5 percent, of the remaining A-misdemeanor severity drug arrests involved a charge of PL 221.40, criminal sale of marijuana in the 4th degree. (Data not shown) However, as a proportion of all summary non-felony drug arrests, the PL 220.03 charge was 74.6% of all drug-category arrests in the 1989 random sample data set but only 43.9% of comparable arrests in the 3rd quarter of 1998, while the PL 221.40 charge was 10.3% and 9.8%, respectively, of all drug arrest in the 1989 and 1998 data sets. (Table 5) Arrests on the B-misdemeanor severity PL 221.10 marijuana charge, criminal possession in the 5th degree, accounted for 41.9 percent of all prosecuted summary non-felony drug arrests in the studied period in 1998, in comparison to only 2.6 percent of the non-felony drug charges in 1989. It is this dramatic increase in the proportion of B-misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests, supplanting the concentration of A-misdemeanor possession arrests for nonmarijuana substances, which would appear to account for the proportional rise in Bmisdemeanor drug arrests in the 1998 period in comparison with the earlier, 1989 period. In the 1989 random sample data set, charges in CJA’s property crime category had the second largest percentage (15.7%) of prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL summary arrests, which by contrast was the fifth largest crime category, with 9 percent of the cases, in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set. In both time periods virtually all of the prosecuted non-felony arrests involved one of seven charges, all of which were Amisdemeanors, and the majority of such arrests in both data sets involved the petit larceny charge (i.e., shoplifting), PL 155.25. (See Table 6) However, the distribution among the common charges varied. In 1989, 60.8 percent of all prosecuted non-felony summary cases had a shoplifting top arrest charge while 73.8% of cases in this crime category in the 1998 data set had petit larceny as the top arrest charge. In the 1989 random sample data, the second most common charge in the property crime category was possession of burglar’s tools (PL 140.35), and the third most common charge was possession of stolen property in the 5th degree (PL 165.40), 15.0 percent and 11.6 percent, respectively. By contrast, in the 3rd quarter 1998 data the second most common charge in this crime category, with 14.0 percent of arrests, was criminal mischief (PL 145.00), statutorily defined as damaging another person’s property including participating in the destruction of an abandoned building. Possession of stolen property was the third largest group of arrest charges, as it was in the 1989 data, but at a much lower rate of 4.4 percent.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 5 Penal Law Charge Distribution and Severity of Non-Felony Summary-Arrest DRUG Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
Charge Description
1989 (N=2,237) %
1998 (N=20,141) %
Possession Controlled Substance 7 Criminal Possession Hypodermic Needle Using Drug Paraphernalia 2 Sale of Marijuana 4
74.6% 7.2% 2.9% 10.3%
43.9% 0.9% 1.1% 9.8%
95.0%
55.7%
2.6% 0.5%
41.9% 0.8%
3.1%
42.7%
0.8%
1.2%
Subtotal
0.8%
1.2%
Other: Subtotal
1.2%
0.4%
Total*
100.1%
100.0%
Penal Law Charge
A Misdemeanor: 220.03 220.45 220.50 221.40 Subtotal B Misdemeanor: 221.10 221.35
Possession of Marijuana 5 Sale of Marijuana 5
Subtotal Violation: 221.05
Marijuana-Possession
* Total may not equal 100% due to rounding.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 6 Penal Law Charge Distribution and Severity of Non-Felony Summary-Arrest PROPERTY CRIME Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
1989 (N=852) %
1998 (N=4,299) %
60.8% 11.6% 7.0% 0.9% -15.0% 2.1%
73.8% 4.4% 14.0% 2.6% 1.2% 1.8% 1.1%
Subtotal
97.4%
98.9%
Other: Subtotal
2.7%
1.1%
Total*
100.1%
100.0%
Penal Law Charge
A Misdemeanor: 155.25 165.40 145.00 145.15 145.60 140.35 110-155.30
Charge Description
Petit Larceny Possession of Stolen Property 5 Criminal Mischief 4 Criminal Tampering 2 Making Graffiti Possession of Burglar's Tools Attempted Grand Larceny 4
* Total may not equal 100% due to rounding.
-16 -
One of the most notable changes that occurred between the two time periods relates to the proportion of cases in the CJA fraud crime category, which in the 1989 data constituted the ninth and next to the smallest category, (with 2.5% of the cases), but in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set had the second largest volume, (13.9%), of nonfelony, non-VTL, summary arrests. The vast majority of cases in this crime category had an arrest charge of A-misdemeanor severity, 89.8 percent in 1989 data set and 98.7 percent in the 1998 data set, and the vast majority in both time periods involved an arrest for the single A-misdemeanor charge of PL 165.15, theft of services. (See Table 7) In the fraud category in the 1989 random sample data, defendants in over threefourths (77.4%) of the non-felony, non-VTL, summary cases were arrested for a theft-ofservices charge, in comparison to over ninety percent (92.3%) of the cases in this crime category in the data for the 3rd quarter of 1998. Among the crimes encapsulated by this charge the most frequent is colloquially known as turnstile jumping (but applies as well to the other ways of avoiding paying for public transportation). Other subsections of this charge include knowingly paying or attempting to pay for goods using stolen credit or debit cards, or using a variety of means, such as tampering with company-installed connections, to illegally obtain utilities or other services such as cable television. However, provision is made that theft of cable television service of a modest monetary amount and committed by a defendant without a prior conviction for theft of services, is to be considered only of violation severity. In the 1989 data in the fraud crime category an additional 8 percent, but none of the cases in the 1998 data, were for arrests for the violation-severity classification of the 165.15, theft-of-services, charge. Conversely, in 1992 a provision was added to PL 165.15, increasing from misdemeanor to E-felony severity the theft of phone services in excess of $1,000 by a defendant with a previous theft-of-services conviction within the previous five years. In addition, in 1992 another subsection was added to the theft-of-services charge specifically relating to a variety of illegal means by which payment can be avoided for telephone calls, but the addition of this subsection would appear woefully inadequate to explain the magnitude of the increase in arrest volume for a theft-of-services charge in 1998 in comparison to 1989.16 Another law change that occurred in 1992 that affects the distribution of charges in the fraud category was the passage of an A-misdemeanor severity crime of Trademark counterfeiting in the 3rd degree (PL 165.71). Arrests for this charge contributed 3.5 percent of the cases in the fraud crime category in the 1998 data for which there was no comparable charge in the earlier, 1989 period. By contrast, in the 1989 data, defendants in 11.7 percent of the misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases, in comparison with only 1.4 percent in the 1998 data, were charged with the A-misdemeanor severity crime of criminal impersonation in the 2nd degree (PL 190.25), where a defendant knowingly provides false identification (such as name or date of birth) to the police. Overall, law changes that occurred in the configuration of charges in the CJA fraud crime category between 1989 and 1998 appear inadequate to explain the 16
For an interesting discussion of New York State’s theft-of-services statute see, Abraham Abramovsky, “Theft of Services: Current State of the Law,� New York Law Journal, October 31, 1996, p. 3.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 7 Penal Law Charge Distribution and Severity of Non-Felony Summary-Arrest FRAUD Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
Penal Law Charge
A Misdemeanor: 165.15 * 165.71 ** 170.20 190.25 Other Charges
Charge Description
Theft of Services Trademark Fake 3 Possession Forged Instrument 3 Criminal Impersonate 2
Subtotal B Misdemeanor: 190.23 *** Other Charges
False Personation
Subtotal Lesser Severity: 165.15 * Subtotal Total
*
Theft of Services
1989 (N=137) %
1998 (N=6,661) %
77.4% N/A 0.7% 11.7% --
92.3% 3.5% 1.0% 1.4% 0.5%
89.8%
98.7%
N/A 2.2%
1.3% --
2.2%
1.3%
8.0%
--
8.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
The severity classification of this charge varies by the nature of the behavior. In addition, there were changes and additions to the conduct covered by this statute in the intervening years. ** This charge was added to the Penal Law in 1992. *** This charge was added to the Penal Law in 1997 and became effective January 1, 1998.
-17 -
proportional shift in the percentage of misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases falling into the fraud category in the two time periods, nor the enormous increase in the volume of cases in this category in which defendants were arrested for the PL 165.15, theft-ofservices charge. Because the CJA database does not contain subsections of charges it was not possible to determine how the increased volume was distributed among the various components of the PL 165.15 charge. However, public pronouncements by the mayor and law-enforcement officials would strongly suggest that much of this increase should be attributed to an increase in the arrest of turnstile jumpers, the type of public disorder behavior targeted by the ‘quality-of-life’ initiative in law enforcement, and also the type of behavior cited as being done by offenders likely to engage in other, and more serious criminal activity. Sex crimes, all of which at the misdemeanor or lesser-severity level in this study are prostitution-related charges, was the third largest category of cases in the 1989 data set, constituting more than one of every ten of the non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases. (See Table 8) Among non-felony summary arrests in the 3rd quarter of 1998, sex crimes was the seventh largest crime category and accounted for less than one of every twenty-three prosecuted arrests in the later time period. Discussion of changes in the distribution of arrest-charge severity patterns in this crime category is problematic because, in the 1989 random sample, the severity classification for cases involving the charge of loitering for the purposes of prostitution (PL 240.37) was not specified in most instances. However, an examination of the distribution of the charges indicate differences in the nature of prostitution-related activity involved in prosecuted arrests in the sex-crime category in the two time periods. In the 1989 random sample data, almost two of every five (38.9%) prosecuted summary sex-crime arrests was for the charge of prostitution (PL 230.00), and more than one of every two (58.1%) involved a charge of loitering for prostitution. This latter charge, PL 240.37, can be charged at different severity levels, depending on the nature of the offense and offender. The B-misdemeanor and violation-severity versions of this charge apply to both prostitutes and customers, and the violation-severity level is charged if the defendant has not previously been convicted for either the crime of prostitution or patronizing a prostitute, while the higher severity is charged when the defendant has one previous such conviction. The A-misdemeanor classification of the PL 240.37, loitering for prostitution, charge applies only to those seeking to solicit customers. In comparison, in the data for the 3rd quarter 1998, about three of every ten (29.4%) of the prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in the sex-crimes category involved an arrest charge of prostitution (PL 230.00), and fewer than two of every five (39.0%) were for the charge of loitering for prostitution (PL 240.37). In the 1998 data in this crime category almost one of every four cases (24.0%) involved the Bmisdemeanor severity crime of patronizing a prostitute, PL 230.03, where in the 1989 data this charge had constituted less than one percent of the arrests in the sex crime category. While in the later time period prostitution-related arrests were a proportionately smaller component of misdemeanor and lesser-severity arrest activity, police tactics more likely involved the type of undercover operations that resulted in a larger proportion of arrests of those seeking patronize prostitutes, and proportionately fewer arrests for those engaging in, or soliciting customers for acts of, prostitution.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 8 Penal Law Charge Distribution and Severity of Non-Felony Summary-Arrest SEX CRIMES Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
1989 (N=632) %
1998 (N=2,104) %
3.8% 1.4%
31.5% 1.3%
5.2%
32.8%
38.9% 0.8% 7.9% 0.6% 0.2%
29.4% 24.0% 7.5% 5.3% 0.5%
48.4%
66.7%
46.4% --
-0.4%
Subtotal
46.4%
0.4%
Total**
100.0%
99.9%
Penal Law Charge
A Misdemeanor: 240.37 * Other Charges
Charge Description
Loitering/Prostitution Offense
Subtotal B Misdemeanor: 230.00 230.03 240.37 * 245.00 Other Charges
Prostitution Patronize Prostitute 4 Loitering/Prostitution 2nd Offense Public Lewdness
Subtotal Violation: 240.37 * 245.01
Loitering/Prostitution 1st Offense Exposure of a Person
* The severity classification of this charge varies by the nature of the behavior and/or prior conviction record of the offender. ** Total may not equal 100% due to rounding.
-18 -
The CJA harm-to-persons crime category formed the fourth largest group of prosecuted cases of summary arrests for non-felony, non-VTL charges in the 1989 random sample data set, and was the third largest crime category in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set. And, in both time periods over ninety-five percent of all charges were of A-misdemeanor severity. (See Table 9) Historically the A-misdemeanor charge, PL 120.00, assault in the 3rd degree, has dominated this crime category when non-felony cases are examined. This remained the case in the data sets for both time periods examined in this research, with this single assault charge accounting for 87.9 percent of the cases in the 1989 data and 72.4% in the 1998 data. However, in the intervening years between 1989 and 1998, largely driven by attention to the issue of domestic violence, statutory and other changes occurred in the charges captured in this CJA crime category. In 1992 these changes resulted in the addition of a new A-misdemeanor severity charge of menacing in the 2nd degree (PL 120.14), and modification to the B-misdemeanor charge of PL 120.15, menacing in the 3rd degree, principally designed to strengthen sanctions for violations of protection orders. In addition, the A-misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child (PL 260.10), which rose from 3.9% in the 1989 data to 7.1% of the charges in the harmto-persons category in the 1998 data set, also is a component in criminal justice strategies for addressing family violence, whereby interpersonal violence between adult intimates when done in the presence of children is understood to have a harmful affect on the child. To some extent the proportional increase in, and differences in the charge distribution among, cases in the harm-to-persons category found in the 1998 data are likely attributable to the introduction of a new and more serious menacing charge and, more generally, mandatory arrest and other policy changes in domestic violence situations. The CJA misconduct crime category contains a more substantial array of charges from different parts of the Penal Law than previously discussed crime categories, and many of these charges, such as different forms of criminal trespass found in Article 140; loitering, disorderly conduct and harassment, all of which are in part of the “Offenses Against Public Order� Article 240 of the Penal Law; and gambling charges in Article 225; would be expected to be part of the arrest charges in any attempt to address community disorder. In the 1989 data set, the misconduct category was the fifth largest, and in the 1998 data set the fourth largest group of non-felony summary arrests, comprising 9.1 percent and 9.8 percent respectively of all non-VTL cases in which defendants were charged with misdemeanor crimes or lesser-severity offenses. Once again there was a contrast in the distribution of arrest-charge severities betweenon-felony summary arrests in this category in the 1989 random sample data set and in the data for the 3rd quarter of 1998. (See Table 10) In the 1989 random sample less than two fifths (37.2%) of summary non-felony arrests in the misconduct category were of A-misdemeanor severity in comparison to over half (53.1%) in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set. The proportion of misconduct cases involving B-misdemeanor arrest charges was about a third in the 1989 data (33.8%) but less than thirty percent (28.4) in 1998, and violation severity charges were about ten percentage points less in the 1998 data than in the 1989 data; 29 percent in the 1989 data to 18.5 percent in the 1998 data.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 9 Penal Law Charge Distribution and Severity of Non-Felony Summary-Arrest HARM TO PERSONS Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
1989 (N=511) %
1998 (N=5,863) %
87.9% N/A 3.3% 3.9% 1.6%
72.4% 11.9% 2.4% 7.1% 1.3%
96.7%
95.1%
2.0% 1.0% 0.4%
2.8% 1.6% 0.4%
Subtotal
3.4%
4.8%
Total***
100.1%
99.9%
Penal Law Charge
A Misdemeanor: 120.00 120.14 * 120.20 260.10 Other Charges
Charge Description
Assault 3 Menacing 2 Reckless Endangerment 2 Endanger Child Welfare
Subtotal B Misdemeanor: 120.15 ** 130.55 110-120.00
Menacing 3 Sexual Abuse 3 Attempted Assault 3
* Charge added to the Penal Law in 1992 ** Charge modified in 1992 *** Total may not equal 100% due to rounding.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 10 Penal Law Charge Distribution and Severity of Non-Felony Summary-Arrest MISCONDUCT Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
1989 (N=493) %
1998 (N=4,665) %
9.1% 1.2% 0.6% 8.9% 7.3% 1.4% 4.5% 2.6% 0.4% 1.2%
27.1% 1.2% 0.5% 5.6% 0.8% 2.2% 4.9% 10.2% 0.2% 0.4%
37.2%
53.1%
17.2% 15.6% N/A -0.6% 0.4%
22.4% 2.0% 1.5% 1.4% 0.6% 0.5%
33.8%
28.4%
6.7% 15.8% 2.4% -3.9% 0.2%
1.6% 14.9% N/A 0.9% 1.1% --
Subtotal
29.0%
18.5%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
Penal Law Charge
A Misdemeanor: 140.15 165.05 165.30 195.05 225.05 225.15 225.30 240.30 * 240.55 Other Charges
Charge Description
Criminal Trespass 2 Unauthorized Use Vehicle 3 Fraudulent Accosting Obstructing Government Admin 2 Promote Gambling 2 Possess Gambling Records 2 Possess Gambling Device Aggravated Harassment 2 Falsify Report Incident 2
Subtotal B Misdemeanor: 140.10 ** 240.10 240.25 *** 240.36 240.50 Other Charges
Criminal Trespass 3 Unlawful Assembly Harassment 1 Loitering 1 Falsify Report Incident 3
Subtotal Violation and Lesser Severity: 140.05 240.20 240.25 *** 240.26 240.35 Other charge
Trespass Disorderly Conduct Harassment 1 Harassment 2 Loitering
* Changed in 1992 to include defendants previously convicted of lesser-severity charge of PL 240.25 ** Changed in 1992 and 1997 to expand behavior included in this charge *** Severity classification of this charge was increased in 1992.
-19 -
Different types of criminal trespass found in Article 140 of the Penal Law were a substantial part of summary-arrest cases in the CJA misconduct category in both time periods, and changes in the definition and severities of several of these charges explain part, but not all, of the distribution change among criminal trespass charges in the two time periods. For example, in 1992 a subsection was added to the B-misdemeanor crime of criminal trespass in the 3rd degree (PL 240.30), specifically making this charge applicable to non-tenants in public housing buildings who remained after being asked to leave. This may partially explain why the PL 240.30 charge, the most common charge in this crime category in the 1989 random sample at 17.2 percent, increased to 22.4 percent (and the second most common charge) in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set. What this does not explain is why the A-misdemeanor criminal trespass charge, PL 140.15, was the most frequent arrest charge in the misconduct category in 3rd quarter 1998 data set, constituting more than a quarter (27.1%) of all non-felony arrests in this crime category, while it was less than a tenth (9.1%), and the fourth most common charge, in the earlier, 1989 data set. There also was a change in the proportion of criminal trespass arrests made at the violation severity level (PL 140.05), which was 6.7 percent of the arrest charges in summary cases in the misconduct category in 1989, but was only 1.6 percent of arrests in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set. It may be that the context of criminal trespass arrests targeted by law enforcement was different in these time periods, or that the police decision regarding the appropriate severity of the criminal trespass charge changed over time. The distribution of arrest charges and severities in the CJA misconduct category also was affected by changes made in 1992 and 1994 to charges in the “Public Order� Article (240) of the Penal Law. One such change that occurred raised the severity of harassment, PL 240.25, from a violation to a class B misdemeanor. Another related charge change was in regard to behaviors constituting aggravated harassment in the 3rd degree, PL 240.30, which now stipulates that a person arrested for the upgraded Bmisdemeanor charge of harassment in the first degree (PL 240.25), who previously has been convicted of the 240.25 charge, is to be charged with the A-misdemeanor crime of aggravated harassment in the 3rd degree. In the 1989 random sample, 2.6% of the prosecuted non-felony summary arrests in the misconduct category were for the Amisdemeanor aggravated harassment charge, which was 10.2 percent of the summaryarrest cases in this crime category in the 3rd quarter 1998 data. What was common to both periods was that somewhat less than one of every seven non-felony summaryarrest cases in the misconduct category in each time period involved a defendant arrested for the violation-severity offense of disorderly conduct, PL 240.20, which was the second most common charge in the 1989 data (15.8%), and the third most common charge (14.9%) in the 1998 data set. What was not common to both time periods was the use of the B-misdemeanor crime of Unlawful Assembly, (PL 240.10), used when four or more persons engage in conduct creating public alarm, which at 15.6% was the second most common charge in the misconduct category in the 1989 data, but was an arrest charge found in only 2 percent of the non-felony summary-arrest cases in this crime category in the data for the 3rd quarter of 1998. Misdemeanor crimes and lesser-severity offenses in the CJA misconduct crime category would appear to have been a part of law enforcement efforts to maintain public order in both time periods examined in this research, constituting the fifth largest
-20 -
category in 1989, and the fourth largest category of prosecuted non-felony arrests of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment in the data set for the 3rd quarter of 1998. In misconduct category cases in both the 1989 and 1998 data, arrests for criminal trespass occurred frequently, but the A-misdemeanor severity charge was proportionately far more prevalent in the later time period, while the less severe Bmisdemeanor and violation-severity statutory configurations of this crime were more prevalent in the 1989 data set. Because of a series of statutory changes made in the Penal Law in 1992, some of the differences in arrest charge patterns for criminal trespass, and also for public order offenses in Article 240, undoubtedly can be attributed to these law changes, but this alone would not seem a sufficient explanation. The sixth largest concentration of non-felony, non-VTL, charges in summaryarrest cases in the 1989 data, and the eighth largest in the 1998 data, were to be found in CJA’s obstruction-of-justice category. Almost all of the non-felony charges in this CJA crime category are of A-misdemeanor severity, and most charges are for a limited number of crimes relating to behaviors that interfere with the operation of components of the criminal justice system, such as resisting arrest (PL 205.30), or criminal contempt (PL 215.50). In 1989, 94 percent, and in 1998, 95.8 percent, of all prosecuted nonfelony arrests in this crime category had an A-misdemeanor severity arrest charge, and the greatest percentage of cases in each time period involved defendants charged with resisting arrest, 53.7 percent in 1989 and 45.5 percent in the 1998 data. (See Table 11) Almost all of the difference in the proportion of A-misdemeanor severity charges can be accounted for by a commensurate difference in the B-misdemeanor charge of criminal nuisance in the 2nd degree, (PL 240.45), which was 6 percent of the cases in the obstruction-of-justice crime category in the 1989 random sample data but only 3.6 percent of the cases in this crime category in the 3rd quarter 1998 data. However, in the 1998 random sample data a greater percentage of defendants in the non-felony summary-arrest cases in the obstruction-of-justice crime category were to be found arrested on the A-misdemeanor, PL 215.50, charge of criminal contempt, with this charge comprising somewhat over one-third (36.2%) of arrests in the 1989 data in comparison to over two-fifths (41.9%) of arrests in this crime category in the 3rd quarter 1998 data. The criminal contempt charge specifically involves behaviors that disrupt courtroom or courthouse activities, or that occur in violation of a court mandate. CJA research on domestic violence using the 3rd quarter 1998 data set suggests that a likely explanation for the larger presence of the criminal contempt charge in the 1998 data lies in both arrest and court processing policies in regard to domestic violence cases because the criminal contempt charge is part of the body of laws actively being used in this policy area.17 (Unfortunately, and as noted previously, the CJA database does not include the subsections of Penal Law charges so that it cannot conclusively be determined whether this proportional change occurred because of a concentration of arrests for the particular subsection application to court orders, or a more general arrest
17
Richard R. Peterson, Comparing the Processing of Domestic Violence Cases to Non-Domestic Violence Cases in New York City Criminal Courts, Report to the Mayor’s Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator, (New York City Criminal Justice Agency, October 2000).
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 11 Penal Law Charge Distribution and Severity of Non-Felony Summary-Arrest OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
1989 (N=218) %
1998 (N=1,343) %
53.7% 36.2% -4.1%
45.5% 41.9% 5.7% 2.6%
94.0%
95.7%
6.0% --
3.6% 0.4%
Subtotal
6.0%
4.0%
Violation: Other charge
--
0.2%
Subtotal
0.0%
0.2%
100.0%
99.9%
Penal Law Charge
A Misdemeanor: 205.30 215.50 215.55 Other Charges
Charge Description
Resisting Arrest Criminal Contempt 2 Bail-Jumping 3
Subtotal B Misdemeanor: 240.45 Other Charges
Total
Criminal Nuisance 2
-21 -
increase spread across the subsections of this charge. Another difference in charges in this crime category between the two time periods, that may reflect programmatic changes in law enforcement activities, was that in the quarterly 1998 data 5.7 percent of non-felony summary-arrest cases in this crime category were for arrests on the Amisdemeanor charge of bail jumping in the 3rd degree (PL 215.55), where no such arrests were found in the sampled cases in 1989. CJA’s “other” charges crime category had the seventh largest category of charges in the 1989 data, and the sixth largest in the 1998 data. Defendants in almost all the charges in summary-arrest cases in this category are arrested on charges found in local law sources, such as the City’s Administrative Code or Alcohol Beverage Control Act, and almost all such offenses are the least severe among the classifications of non-felony charges. (Data not shown) In addition, because it is not possible to identify even the law source of the arrest charge in the 1998 data, as explained in footnote 15 supra, the only comparison that can be made is that in the 1989 data set 3.8 percent of the non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases fell into this category, in comparison with 4.5 percent of similar cases in the 1998 data set. In the 1989 random sample data, the CJA weapon category had 2.7 percent of all prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases, the eighth largest group of cases, while this category had 1.2 percent of the non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data, making it the ninth crime category among the ten categories used in this research. The A-misdemeanor severity charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the 4th degree, PL 265.01, accounted for all non-felony summary-arrest cases in this crime category in the 1989, and all but two cases (all but four-tenths of one percent) in this category in the 1998 data. (Data not shown) Charges falling into CJA’s harm-to-persons-and-property crime category are almost exclusively violent, felony crimes such as robbery, so it is to be expected that in both time periods charges in the harm-to-person-and-property category would be the tenth and smallest percentage of summary cases with a non-felony arrest charge, and in both the 1998 and 1989 data analyzed in this study this crime category constituted only a fraction of a percent in the distribution of studied arrests among the crime categories.
-22 -
Citywide Characteristics of Defendants in Misdemeanor and Lesser-Severity, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Sets In addition to differences in the citywide distribution of arrest charges among crime categories, and in the severity of arrest charges both overall and within some crime categories, there also were differences in demographic and adult criminal history characteristics of defendants in the cases in the 1989 and 1998 data sets. The defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment in the non-VTL misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases in the 1989 random sample were somewhat younger, but also proportionately more likely to have an adult conviction record, than defendants in the comparable cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set. In the 1989 random sample data, the mean (mathematical average) age of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment after an arrest for a misdemeanor or lesser-severity, non-VTL charge, was 30.1 years of age, and the median (midpoint) age was 29 years of age. In the 3rd quarter 1998 data, the mean age of all defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment in comparable misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases was 31.6 years, and the median age was 31 years. However, there was some variation in the mean and median ages of defendants in the studied cases, for which age was known, among the crime categories, and in the same crime categories between the two time periods. As can be seen in Table 12, in almost all crime categories the mean and median ages of defendants in misdemeanor and lesser-severity, non-VTL, summaryarrest cases were higher in the 1998 cases than in the cases in the same crime categories in the l989 data. When this occurred, the differences between the 1989 and 1998 data tended to be fairly small and, except in the sex-crime category, the difference in the mean and median ages for defendants arrested in the same crime category did not exceed three years. Only in the harm-to-persons-and-property, and the weapon crime categories, with relatively small percentages of cases in both time periods, were the mean and median ages of defendants in 1989 older than in 1998. CJA staff interview most defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment to determine if there are sufficient community ties, barring exclusionary factors, to make a release-on-recognizance (ROR) recommendation.18 Part of the pre-arraignment interview process includes a review of the New York State Division of Justice Criminal Justice Services’ (DCJS) criminal history report (i.e., “rap sheet�) from which is tabulated how many times, if any, the defendant has been convicted as an adult for a crime of misdemeanor-severity, convicted of a crime of felony-severity, and the number of cases shown to be pending in the adult court system at the time of the interviewed
18
CJA receives arrest and court information, but does not interview defendants arrested solely on prostitution-related charges who are being held for arraignment in the downtown Manhattan Criminal Court, nor does CJA ordinarily interview defendants arrested solely on warrants, those arraigned in the hospital without going through a police department central booking facility, or those arrested in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 12 Comparison of Mean and Median Ages, in Years, of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Crime Category: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
Crime Category
1989 (N=5,440) mean median
1998 (N=47,712) mean median
Drug
30.3
29.0
31.0
30.0
Property
29.8
29.0
31.0
31.0
Fraud
29.3
28.0
30.6
30.6
Sex Crimes
26.9
26.0
30.7
30.0
Harm To Persons
31.6
30.0
32.0
31.0
Misconduct
30.9
28.0
33.0
33.0
Obstructing Justice
31.2
29.0
32.8
32.0
Other Crimes
32.2
31.0
36.0
36.0
Weapon
31.5
30.0
30.2
28.0
Harm-to-Personsand-Property
29.3
26.5
28.4
25.0
All Cases
30.1
29.0
31.6
31.0
-23 -
arrest.19 Criminal history information was not known for 11.1 percent of defendants in the examined cases in the 1989 random sample data, principally due to cases of defendants charged with prostitution-related crimes not interviewed by CJA20 and those arrested in the “other-unknown” crime category that contains a high percentage of nonprintable offenses for which no rap sheet was available. There was no adult criminal history information for defendants in 6.6 percent in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases, the largest percentage of which were cases of defendants arrested on non-printable charges in the “other-unknown” crime category. Examining only those cases for which defendant criminal history was available, 49.4 percent of the defendants in the prosecuted 1989 misdemeanor and lesserseverity cases had no prior adult convictions for crimes of either misdemeanor or felony severity, in comparison to 54.1 percent of the defendants in the prosecuted non-felony summary arrests in 1998 having no previous convictions for crimes of misdemeanor or felony severity. As shown on the top half of Table 13, there were other differences in criminal history records in the two time periods. A greater percentage of defendants in the cases in the 1989 random sample data were more likely than their counterparts in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases to have been previously convicted as adults only of misdemeanor crimes, whereas a relatively greater proportion of defendants in the 1998 cases had been previously convicted only for a felony-severity crime, or had an adult criminal history of convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. As discussed above, a greater percentage of the defendants in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases than in the 1989 random sample had no prior adult record of a criminal conviction for misdemeanor- or felony-severity crimes. However, when examining only those with prior convictions, one finds a somewhat different picture of the differences in the composition of types of prior adult criminal convictions, as illustrated on the bottom half of Table 13. Among those in each data set with an adult criminal record, there was a substantially higher proportion of prosecuted summary-arrest cases of defendants with prior convictions only for crimes of misdemeanor severity in the 1989 random 19
Under New York State Law, the “NYSID” fingerprint identification number only may be retained when a fingerprint-eligible arrest is pending prosecution or completion of court action, or when the arrest leads to a conviction for a crime of misdemeanor or felony severity. Arrests concluded in favor of the defendant, or when the conviction charge is less severe than a misdemeanor, result in the sealing of the record. In addition, NYSID numbers assigned to juveniles expire with adulthood after which a different, adult NYSID number is created upon arrest after the age of fifteen. As a result, the DCJS criminal history report does not measure the totality of prior contact of adult defendants with the criminal justice system; an adult defendant whose only prior contacts were as a juvenile, who had no pending or ongoing cases for a printable offense, and who had no prior adult criminal convictions, would appear from the rap sheet to be a first-time adult arrestee. 20
In 1989 almost all defendants arrested, charged with prostitution-related offenses, and held for arraignment in Manhattan would not have been interviewed. However, CJA does interview defendants held for arraignment on prostitution-related charges at the Midtown Manhattan Community Court (MCC) that began operation in 1993. As a result of this court development in the years between the two study periods, there is criminal history information, collected as part of the CJA pre-arraignment interview process, for the majority of defendants in Manhattan prostitution-related arrests in the sex-crimes category in the 1998 data set, but not in the 1989 data for this crime category.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 13 Criminal History of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
No Prior Convictions Only Misdemeanor Convictions Only Felony Convictions Both Felony and Misdemeanor Convictions
Prior Convictions Only Misdemeanor Convictions Only Felony Convictions Both Felony and Misdemeanor Convictions
1989 (N=4,833)
1998 (N=44,679)
49.4% 26.7% 4.7%
54.1% 18.7% 5.8%
19.2%
21.4%
(N=2,445)
(N=20,524)
52.8% 9.3%
40.8% 12.6%
37.9%
46.6%
-24 -
sample, and a substantially higher proportion of summary-arrest cases of defendants in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases who had an adult criminal record of prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severities. Although the smallest category in both time periods, a greater proportion of those in the 1998 data set had an adult criminal history of conviction consisting only of conviction for felony-severity crimes in comparison with defendants in the 1989 data set. Tables 14A, B and C, examine respectively the mean and median number of prior convictions, for interviewed defendants in the cases where criminal history information was available, for three categorical types of adult criminal history — those with prior convictions only for crimes of misdemeanor severity, only of felony severity, and for the total number of prior adult convictions for crimes of misdemeanor and felony severity combined. The means and medians shown on these tables are based on counts of prior adult convictions, when known, for all defendants in the study cases in the 1989 random sample but, for methodological reasons, the means and medians discussed here are based on a randomly selected subset of defendants in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases. 21 Additionally, each table displays the mean and median number of prior convictions by the crime category of the arrest charge, for selected crime categories, and for all cases. (No comparison can be made about the types of crimes involved in these prior adult convictions because only a count of prior convictions by the severity of the conviction charge is available in the data.) For defendants in the prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases who had prior convictions for crimes only of misdemeanor severity, the overall mean and median number of prior misdemeanor convictions was quite similar in both time periods. There were, however, variations between the two time periods among crime categories. For example, in the drug, fraud and the obstruction-of-justice crime categories the mean number of prior misdemeanor convictions was higher among defendants in the 1998 subset, than in the 1989 data set cases, while the mean number of prior misdemeanor convictions was lower in the sex, misconduct and property crime categories. The difference in the mean number of prior misdemeanor convictions between the two time periods, for those with prior convictions for crimes only of misdemeanor severity, was statistically significant at the .05 level for the sex, fraud and the
21
Tests of significance are used determine whether or not an obtained difference between the means of rd two samples represents a true difference between the populations. Because the 3 quarter 1998 data set contained all cases rather than a sample, a randomly selected subset of this data set’s population was created for the statistical analysis discussed in this section of the study report. Based on CJA’s reported volume of cases of defendants held for arraignment in 1998, it was calculated that a 23.2% sample of the rd 3 quarter 1998 data set would be approximately the numerical equivalent of a 6.3% random sample of the full year. However, one needs to interpret statistically significant findings in this study with care because the comparison is between a 6.3% random sample of a full year’s population of cases (1989), while the other (1998) is an approximated 6.3% sample of the full year’s population drawn from only one quarter of the year.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 14A Mean and Median Number of Prior Misdemeanor Convictions for Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases With Only Prior Convictions of Misdemeanor Severity: 1989 Random Sample and 1998 Subset 1989
1998
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Drugs
4.9
2.0
5.4
3.0
Property**
8.7
5.0
7.2
4.0
Fraud*
4.9
3.0
8.9
4.0
Sex Crimes*
15.2
7.5
10.2
5.0
Harm to Persons
3.9
2.0
3.7
1.0
Misconduct
8.2
4.0
6.4
3.0
Obstruction of Justice*
3.8
3.0
9.7
3.0
Other
3.9
3.0
5.0
4.0
Weapon
3.8
2.0
3.7
1.5
1
1
1
1
6.9
3.0
6.5
3.0
Crime-Type Category
Harm to Persons and Property All Cases 1
Insufficient cases for comparison
* Significant at or below .05 level ** Significant at the .07 level
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 14B Mean and Median Number of Prior Felony Convictions for Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases With Only Prior Convictions of Felony Severity: 1989 Random Sample and 1998 Subset 1989 Crime-Type Category
1998
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Drugs
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.0
Property
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
Fraud
1
1
1.4
1.0
Sex Crimes
1
1
1.1
1.0
Harm to Persons*
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.0
Misconduct
1.3
1.0
1.5
1.0
Obstruction of Justice
2.1
1.0
1.6
1.0
Other
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.0
Weapon
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.0
1
1
1
1
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.0
Harm to Persons and Property All Cases 1
Insufficient cases for comparison
* Significant at the .05 level
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 14C Mean and Median Number of Prior Convictions for Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases With Prior Convictions of Both Misdemeanor and Felony Severity: 1989 Random Sample and 1998 Subset 1989
1998
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Drugs*
8.4
6.0
10.0
7.0
Property*
12.1
9.0
15.3
11.0
Fraud
9.6
6.0
12.5
8.0
Sex Crimes
11.1
6.0
10.4
7.0
Harm to Persons
6.3
4.0
6.6
5.0
Misconduct
9.0
5.0
10.3
6.0
Obstruction of Justice
8.4
6.0
9.1
5.0
Other
10.8
8.0
9.9
7.0
Weapon
8.6
6.0
8.3
5.0
1
1
1
1
9.3
6.0
10.7
7.0
Crime-Type Category
Harm to Persons and Property All Cases* 1
Insufficient cases for comparison
* Significant at or below .05 level
-25 -
obstruction-of-justice crime categories. 22 In addition, the median number of prior misdemeanor convictions varied between the data for the two time periods in some but not all the crime categories, which in these instances would suggest that the differences found more likely were a result of a shift in patterns among a substantial proportion of the defendants. When the median remained the same between the two time periods, the difference in the means more likely was a result of a small percentage of defendants with substantially more (or less) prior convictions. Among defendants with an adult criminal history, the proportion who previously had been convicted only for crimes of felony severity was smallest in both the 1989 and 1998 data sets of non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases, although as previously discussed the proportion of defendants with prior convictions for crimes only of felony severity was larger in the 1998, than in the 1989, data set cases. As Table 14B shows, the average number of prior felony convictions varied little between the two time periods, and only in the harm-to-persons category was the difference in the mean number of recorded prior felony convictions statistically significant at the .05 level between the analyzed cases in which the defendants had only prior felony-severity convictions. In addition, the median was 1.0 for every category for which there were sufficient cases for comparative purposes.23 This indicates that the vast majority of defendants in the studied cases in this criminal history category had only one prior felony conviction at the time of the arrest for the misdemeanor or lesser-severity offense in the studied case. In the 1989 data approximately 77 percent, and in the 1998 data about 70 percent, of the defendants with a felony-only adult criminal history had only a single prior felony conviction; cumulatively, 97 percent of defendants in this criminal history category in both time periods had three or fewer prior adult convictions for crimes of felony severity. (Data not shown) Not only were there a larger proportion of cases in the 1998 data of defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severities, but there also was a shift in both the mean and median number of prior convictions among defendants in this criminal history category. As shown in Table 14C, the overall mean and median number of the combined total number of prior adult convictions was greater 22
The term “statistically significant� means that the differences as large as were actually found in the data would rarely be found if one were to randomly draw samples, with this many cases, from an infinite population in which there really was no such group difference. The .05 confidence, or significance, level is most commonly used in social science research, and indicates that an obtained difference might occur by chance or sampling error five or fewer times out of 100 or, conversely, that we can be confident that the obtained difference is not a result of chance or sampling error 95% or more of the time. Because of the proportionately greater volume of prosecuted non-felony arrests in the 1998 data, and differences in the proportions of cases in the different crime categories between the two years’ data, statistical measures were used that control for the difference in size of each data set or category as appropriate. 23
rd
The full complement of cases in the 3 quarter 1998 data set was greatly reduced by analyzing only a 23.2% subset of the these data for statistical comparisons with the randomly sampled 1989 data set cases. This affected the number of cases for comparison, especially in the several crime categories with already small percentages of cases involving non-felony charges. In addition, because of the relatively small proportion of cases in which defendants had criminal histories only of prior conviction for felonyseverity crimes, there sometimes were insufficient cases for meaningful discussion or for presentation on the accompanying tables.
-26 -
among defendants in the cases in the 1998 subset than in the 1989 random sample, and the difference between the means was statistically significant at the .05 level. In addition, both the mean and medians were different, and in most crime categories larger in the 1998 subset than in the 1989 random sample cases, suggesting a shift in the criminal histories between the two time periods among defendants in the prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in which defendants previously had been convicted of crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. Interestingly, these differences were statistically significant at the .05 level only in the property and drug crime categories. Although not significant in statistical terms, the larger total number of prior convictions among the cases of defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity in many crime categories, suggested by the 1998 subset data, may be of substantive importance in case-processing and court-outcome decisions. (Conversely, it is useful to remember that items of statistical significance may not be of substantive importance.) Table 14D shows separately the mean and median number of prior misdemeanor convictions, and the mean and median number of prior felony convictions, for cases of defendants who had prior adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severities in the 1989 random sample and 1998 subset. As already discussed, there was a larger percentage of cases in the 1998 data in which defendants had prior convictions for crimes of misdemeanor and felony severity, and more such convictions, than defendants in the 1989 cases. As shown in Table 14D, defendants in cases in the 1998 subset averaged more prior convictions for misdemeanor and for felony crimes separately than in the 1989 random sample cases of defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity, overall and in most crime categories. The left side of this table provides a comparison of the mean and median numbers of prior misdemeanor convictions, and shows that among the 1989 cases, defendants with prior misdemeanor and felony severity convictions averaged 7.8 prior misdemeanor convictions with a median of 4.0, in comparison to defendants in the 1998 cases in which there was a mean of 8.9 prior misdemeanor convictions and a median of 5.0, differences that were statistically significant at the .05 level. The right side of Table 14D compares the mean and median number of prior felony convictions for defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity, and shows that in the 1989 random sample cases there was a mean of 1.6 prior felony convictions, compared with a mean of 1.9 prior felony-severity convictions in the 1998 subset, a difference that also was statistically significant, (although the median was 1.0 in both years). In the property crime category, the difference in the mean number of prior misdemeanor convictions, and in the mean number of prior felony convictions, were each statistically significant between the 1989 and 1998 cases in which defendants had prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. Table 14D also allows for a comparison between the average number of prior misdemeanor convictions and the average number of prior felony convictions, for defendants with both types of prior adult convictions, with the mean numbers of prior convictions in cases of defendants with only prior convictions of misdemeanor severity (as previously shown on Table 14A), or only prior convictions of prior felony severity
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 14D Mean and Median Number of Prior Misdemeanor and Prior Felony Convictions for Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases With Prior Convictions of Both Misdemeanor and Felony Severity: 1989 Random Sample and 1998 Subset Misdemeanor 1989 1998 Mean Median Mean Median
Crime-Type Category Drugs
*
6.7
4.0
8.1
4.0
Property
*
10.7
7.0
13.4
9.0
Fraud
8.4
4.0
10.7
Sex Crimes
9.9
5.0
Harm to Persons
4.7
Misconduct
Felony 1989 1998 Mean Median Mean Median 1.7
1.0
1.9
2.0
*
1.4
1.0
2.0
1.0
6.0
*
1.2
1.0
1.9
2.0
8.7
5.0
*
1.2
1.0
1.7
1.0
2.5
4.8
3.0
*
1.5
1.0
1.9
2.0
7.5
3.0
8.5
5.0
*
1.5
1.0
1.8
1.0
Obstruction of Justice
6.9
5.0
7.2
2.0
1.6
1.0
1.9
1.0
Other
9.3
7.0
8.2
5.0
1.5
1.0
1.7
1.0
Weapon
6.8
3.5
6.5
3.0
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7.8
4.0
8.9
5.0
1.6
1.0
1.9
1.0
Harm to Persons and Property All Cases 1
*
*
Insufficient cases for comparison
* Difference of means is statistically significant at or below .05 level.
-27 -
(previously shown on Table 14B). In both the 1989 and 1998 cases, defendants with convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity averaged more of each type of prior conviction than defendants with either only prior convictions of misdemeanor severity, or only prior convictions of prior felony conviction. For example, defendants in the 1989 random sample cases with only prior misdemeanor convictions averaged 6.9 prior convictions while the mean was 7.8 prior misdemeanor convictions for defendants with both types of prior convictions. In the 1998 subset cases, the mean number of prior convictions for defendants with only prior misdemeanor convictions was 6.5 compared with a mean of 8.9 prior misdemeanor convictions for cases of defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. This pattern was replicated in almost every crime category in both years as well. Similarly, the average number of prior felony convictions was greater for cases of defendants with both prior misdemeanor and felony convictions than for defendants with only prior convictions of felony severity, for all cases in each of the years and in most crime categories as well. Age and criminal record are interdependent and, because criminal careers develop over time, older defendants in general would be expected to be more likely to have adult convictions, and more of them, than the younger portion of the offender population. This pattern can be found in each period examined separately. That is, a greater percentage of defendants in the studied cases who were in their mid- to latetwenties had a record of prior adult criminal convictions, than the percentage found with prior adult convictions in the cases of defendants between the ages of sixteen, the age of adult criminal responsibility for all crimes under New York State law, and twenty. (Data not shown) The explanation for why in the 1998 data, where a greater percentage of the defendants in the studied cases had no prior adult criminal convictions, the mean and median ages would be older than in the 1989 data, (although for the most part these differences are small), would appear not to be easily attributed to a single factor. Part of the explanation may lie simply in demographics. In 1990, the earliest year for which U.S. Bureau of Census population-estimate data are available online, the mean (mathematical average) age of the New York State population was 33.7 years and increased to 36.4 years in 1998. Also according to Census Bureau data, the population in each of New York City’s four largest counties was older in 1998 than in 1990, with Richmond County, the fifth and smallest of New York City’s boroughs being the sole exception to this trend. In all five counties combined, an estimated 10.6 percent of the New York City population was between eighteen and twenty-four years of age in 1990, but fell to 8.8% of the City’s population in 1998. There was a smaller decrease between these two time periods for the population in the twenty-five to forty-four age bracket, decreasing from 33.9 percent of the City’s population in 1990 to 32.7 percent in 1998.24 However, this demographic change is insufficient to explain the shifts in age among defendants in prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases arraigned in the criminal courts in the 1989 and 1998 data sets. As was shown in Table 12, the 24
Census data were taken from http://www.census.gov and related Census Bureau sites visited on February 28, and March 5, 2001.
-28 -
average age of defendants in non-felony summary-arrest cases in the harm-to-personsand-property and the weapon categories did not increase between the 1989 and 1998 data examined in this study. In the remaining categories the average age did increase, and the statistical test for differences in mean age was significant at the .05 confidence level for each crime category except harm to persons. Another part of the explanation may lie in differences in the distribution of misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases by crime type and types of charges within crime categories, resulting from different choices about the deployment of law enforcement resources directed at non-felony offenses in the two time periods. This might better help explain why the average age of defendants in non-felony, non-VTL, summaryarrest cases in 3rd quarter 1998 was older than for defendants in the 1989 randomly sampled non-felony cases for each type of criminal history, even though a greater proportion of prosecuted defendants in the non-felony cases in the 1998 data had no prior adult criminal convictions for crimes of misdemeanor or felony severity. Although understandable that the average age of defendants with prior adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity would be older in 1998 than in 1989 because in the later time period these defendants averaged more prior convictions, the average age of defendants without a record of prior adult criminal convictions also was greater in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases than in the 1989 random sample. In examining Table 15, that shows the percentage distribution among age groups of defendants in all cases and within different crime categories, by type of criminal history, one finds that in almost every crime category defendants in the 1998 cases were more likely to be in the younger age groups (16-25), or the oldest age groups (36 and older), while comparatively larger percentages of defendants in the studied cases in the 1989 data were found in the middle age-group categories (26-35). Averaging the ages of defendants in all cases, or in crime categories, mask the very different distribution patterns of the ages of defendants in the non-felony, non-VTL, summaryarrest cases in the 1989 random sample and in the 3rd quarter of 1998 data sets. In reflecting on the relationship between age and criminal history, as shown on Table 15, several themes emerge. It is clear from the analysis to this point that changes in enforcement policies between 1989 and 1998 led to a far greater percentage of young defendants, especially among those without prior adult convictions, being brought into the adult criminal justice system in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Far smaller percentages of defendants in the non-felony, summary-arrest cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set were in the young adult years, especially in the twenty-one to twenty-five age group in almost every crime category and every type of criminal history category in comparison to defendants in the 1989 random sampled cases. However, in the 1998 cases there were a greater percentage of defendants in the older age groups, especially among those with prior convictions. This leads one to wonder, given the nine years between the arrests in the two data sets, the extent to which prosecuted cases involving older defendants with prior criminal histories in the 1998 cases are recidivist defendants from the earlier period, arrested yet again for the same or similar types of crimes. Alternatively, they may represent a different type of recidivist offender population being caught up in the criminal justice system in 1998 as a result of different enforcement strategies. Unfortunately this is not a research issue that can be
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 15 Distribution of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Age Group and Criminal History in Selected Crime Categories: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions ChargeType Category
No Prior Convictions 1989 1998
Prior Misdemeanor Only 1989 1998
Prior Felony Only 1989 1998
Combined Priors 1989 1998
Total 1989 1998
Drugs: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
11.9% 33.6% 6.2% 7.7% 7.3% 9.5% 1.6% 2.0% 8.4% 20.3% 21.9% 21.5% 19.8% 13.2% 19.1% 23.4% 21.6% 7.7% 21.2% 17.0% 24.2% 12.3% 28.0% 12.8% 23.6% 17.8% 24.6% 14.9% 25.1% 13.3% 20.5% 10.3% 22.8% 17.8% 23.6% 18.6% 24.9% 22.4% 22.1% 14.9% 11.1% 9.4% 14.7% 18.9% 18.2% 13.4% 15.5% 23.8% 13.1% 14.6% 10.3% 12.9% 8.5% 29.6% 8.2% 17.4% 11.7% 29.1% 10.1% 19.8% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 52.8%
53.1%
22.9%
17.8%
5.0%
6.5%
19.3%
22.6%
100.0% 100.0%
Property: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
15.2% 38.0% 7.6% 8.0% 17.9% 13.8% 2.8% 1.0% 9.3% 20.8% 24.9% 17.3% 20.7% 10.6% 21.4% 12.2% 15.6% 4.8% 20.9% 12.3% 26.3% 14.9% 27.3% 14.7% 25.0% 21.1% 29.4% 15.7% 27.4% 15.3% 18.0% 10.6% 24.3% 21.3% 10.7% 24.4% 25.2% 29.3% 21.9% 18.4% 8.0% 7.5% 11.5% 22.6% 17.9% 15.4% 19.3% 23.8% 12.5% 15.4% 7.6% 11.7% 8.6% 22.8% 7.1% 13.0% 7.8% 25.3% 8.0% 17.8% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 34.4%
48.4%
36.2%
22.0%
3.3%
3.0%
26.0%
26.6%
100.0% 100.0%
Fraud: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
1 10.6% 43.5% 5.7% 7.9% 7.3% 10.3% 1.2% 9.7% 24.8% 1 34.8% 19.2% 17.1% 10.2% 21.5% 17.2% 4.8% 26.1% 14.1% 1 27.3% 10.9% 37.1% 8.8% 20.1% 10.3% 12.9% 25.4% 11.4% 1 19.7% 9.4% 22.9% 20.0% 20.8% 24.1% 24.9% 21.6% 15.7% 1 4.5% 7.2% 2.9% 20.7% 15.6% 27.6% 24.7% 9.7% 14.4% 1 14.6% 10.3% 31.5% 7.5% 19.6% 3.0% 9.9% 14.3% 32.4% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%)
49.3%
52.3%
26.1%
18.7%
3.0%
4.6%
21.6%
24.5%
100.0% 100.0%
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 15 (continued) Distribution of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Age Group and Criminal History in Selected Crime Categories: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions ChargeType Category
No Prior Convictions 1989 1998
Prior Misdemeanor Only 1989 1998
Prior Felony Only 1989 1998
Combined Priors 1989 1998
Total 1989 1998
Sex: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
1 10.5% 16.4% 7.0% 12.9% 2.9% 8.9% 0.4% 8.7% 12.9% 1 22.1% 22.6% 25.4% 24.1% 23.5% 42.4% 6.0% 36.6% 20.9% 1 27.9% 14.5% 40.4% 17.5% 20.6% 29.7% 26.3% 31.5% 17.1% 1 23.3% 15.6% 18.4% 20.3% 23.5% 14.1% 27.2% 16.0% 18.7% 1 12.8% 12.4% 6.1% 13.4% 2.9% 4.4% 24.6% 5.9% 14.1% 1 26.5% 0.5% 15.5% 1.3% 16.2% 3.5% 18.5% 2.6% 11.8% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%)
13.6%
53.9%
18.1%
30.8%
0.6%
2.0%
67.7%
13.3%
100.0% 100.0%
Harm To Persons: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
12.5% 18.1% 6.2% 7.6% 12.5% 8.8% 4.5% 1.3% 10.4% 14.0% 20.4% 18.4% 22.2% 14.1% 25.0% 24.5% 15.2% 9.6% 20.2% 17.3% 19.8% 17.1% 19.8% 12.4% 41.7% 18.6% 28.8% 16.5% 22.0% 16.5% 17.1% 16.4% 23.5% 18.4% 12.5% 20.3% 22.7% 25.2% 18.6% 18.0% 12.5% 11.8% 17.3% 18.1% 8.3% 12.7% 13.6% 22.0% 13.2% 13.9% 17.7% 18.1% 11.1% 29.3% 0.0% 15.0% 15.2% 25.3% 15.4% 20.2% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 65.7%
67.7%
16.2%
13.0%
4.8%
7.3%
13.2%
12.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Misconduct: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
22.3% 26.4% 5.8% 9.2% 7.4% 8.9% 2.4% 1.2% 13.1% 15.9% 21.4% 15.7% 21.2% 9.9% 29.6% 24.2% 23.2% 6.3% 22.1% 12.9% 19.5% 12.8% 24.1% 12.8% 29.6% 18.1% 22.0% 14.0% 21.9% 13.4% 14.1% 14.1% 13.1% 18.8% 14.8% 18.1% 24.4% 23.3% 15.7% 17.5% 8.6% 12.0% 11.7% 18.2% 7.4% 13.5% 13.4% 25.2% 10.3% 16.4% 14.1% 18.9% 24.1% 31.0% 11.1% 17.1% 14.6% 30.0% 17.0% 23.8% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 47.2%
49.9%
29.4%
20.5%
5.8%
6.6%
17.6%
23.0%
100.0% 100.0%
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 15 (continued) Distribution of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Age Group and Criminal History in Selected Crime Categories: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions ChargeType Category
No Prior Convictions 1989 1998
Prior Misdemeanor Only 1989 1998
Prior Felony Only 1989 1998
Combined Priors 1989 1998
Total 1989 1998
Obstruction of Justice: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
16.7% 22.4% 7.1% 7.3% 8.3% 10.7% 5.7% 2.2% 11.7% 15.2% 20.6% 17.6% 19.6% 11.1% 25.0% 22.7% 14.3% 9.3% 19.5% 15.2% 16.7% 15.1% 28.6% 12.8% 33.3% 16.0% 28.6% 15.9% 22.9% 14.9% 16.7% 14.2% 19.6% 14.1% 0.0% 16.0% 22.9% 27.0% 17.6% 16.6% 15.7% 11.8% 14.3% 22.2% 25.0% 8.0% 11.4% 18.1% 15.1% 14.7% 13.7% 18.8% 10.7% 32.5% 8.3% 26.7% 17.1% 27.4% 13.2% 23.4% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 49.8%
57.0%
27.3%
18.8%
5.9%
6.0%
17.1%
18.2%
100.0% 100.0%
Other: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
5.8% 11.0% 0.0% 2.9% 12.5% 8.9% 0.0% 1.0% 3.4% 6.4% 17.3% 16.1% 13.5% 8.7% 12.5% 16.7% 4.5% 3.5% 13.4% 11.1% 21.2% 13.8% 27.0% 7.0% 37.5% 17.8% 18.2% 10.6% 23.5% 11.5% 28.8% 15.0% 27.0% 16.2% 0.0% 16.7% 31.8% 22.2% 26.9% 17.1% 9.6% 17.3% 10.8% 25.6% 12.5% 8.9% 22.7% 21.9% 12.6% 20.1% 17.3% 26.7% 21.6% 39.6% 25.0% 31.1% 22.7% 40.8% 20.2% 33.7% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 43.7%
44.2%
31.1%
25.6%
6.7%
5.6%
18.5%
24.6%
100.0% 100.0%
All Cases: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
13.4% 30.6% 6.4% 8.1% 9.3% 9.4% 2.6% 1.6% 9.3% 18.9% 22.3% 19.5% 20.6% 12.7% 22.0% 22.5% 19.1% 6.8% 21.2% 15.7% 23.1% 13.3% 28.1% 12.5% 27.8% 18.5% 25.8% 14.9% 25.2% 13.8% 19.2% 12.0% 21.8% 18.5% 17.2% 19.4% 24.3% 24.0% 20.8% 16.2% 10.6% 9.9% 12.5% 19.4% 15.4% 13.1% 16.5% 23.7% 12.5% 14.9% 11.4% 14.6% 10.6% 28.8% 8.4% 17.2% 11.7% 29.0% 11.1% 20.5% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 49.4%
54.1%
26.7%
18.7%
4.7%
5.8%
19.2%
21.4%
100.0% 100.0%
-29 -
investigated in the current study, but it is an issue that has implications for future offending by those without prior adult convictions, especially in the 1998 data, if the enforcement policies in place in 1998 were to continue for some years into the future. There also were some differences in the sex and ethnic distribution among defendants in the summary-arrest cases for misdemeanor or lesser-severity offenses in the two time periods. Although a majority of defendants in the misdemeanor and lesserseverity summary-arrest cases in both time periods were Black and male, there were a greater percentage of female defendants in the 1989 data, while there was a greater proportion of Hispanic defendants, and a smaller proportion of White defendants, in the cases in the 1998 data than in the 1989 data. As shown in Table 16, in the 1989 random sample data, over three-fourths (77.5%) of the cases involved a male defendant, but male arrestees were over fourfifths (82.6%) of the defendants in the cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data. In both time periods Black defendants were found in about half of the studied cases in which the ethnicity of the defendants were known,25 52.0 percent in 1989 and 51.5 percent in the 1998 data, but the proportion of White defendants declined while the proportion of Hispanic defendants increased in the later period. In 1989, 18.9 percent of non-felony, non-VTL, summary cases had a White defendant and 26.8 percent had a Hispanic defendant, in comparison to 12.9 percent White defendants and 31.8 percent Hispanic defendants in the cases in the 1998 data. In the examples of sex and ethnicity, demographic changes contribute little to explaining the differences between groups of defendants in the studied cases in the 1989 and 1998 data. Women have long been under represented in the criminal justice system, and Black defendants over represented, relative to their respective representation in the general population.26 In addition, the proportion of men and women, and of Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, in the New York State population showed only small changes in 1998 from Census Bureau population estimates for 1990, even though Hispanics are an increasing percentage of the State’s population. Differences in arrest patterns by sex and ethnicity also may reflect different rates of participation by defendants in these categorical groups in specific crimes or types of crimes. For example, women tend to be a majority of defendants in prostitution-related arrests and the larger proportion of arrests in this crime category, and the infrequent arrests of those soliciting acts of prostitution, in the 1989 data in comparison with the 1998 data, may contribute to an explanation of the larger representation of women defendants in the studied cases in the earlier time period. Drug use patterns, and
25
Ethnicity was known for all the studied cases in the 1989 data, but was missing for about one-half of a percent of the defendants in the 1998 cases, too small a percentage to account for the differences in ethnicity between the two time periods. 26
See for example Fox Butterfield’s article, “More Blacks in Their 20’s Have Trouble With the Law,” New York Times, October 5, 1995, p. A18.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 16 Comparison of Sex and Ethnicity of Defendants in the Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases, in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data 1989 (N=5,372) %
1998 (N=47,505) %
Male Female
77.5% 22.5%
82.6% 17.4%
Ethnicity
(N=5,440)
(N=47,564)
Black White Hispanic Other
52.0% 18.9% 26.8% 2.3%
51.5% 12.9% 31.8% 3.7%
Sex
-30 -
control of types of drug distribution networks, also have been shown to differ among ethnic groups.27 Because of the many differences found in the distribution of arrest-charge severities among non-felony cases overall and in the separate crime categories, and the differences in defendant attributes such as age, sex and ethnicity, tests of significance were conducted comparing each of the attributes, for all study cases for which these items of information were known, in the 1989 random sample with the 1998 subset. The tests of statistical significance between each of these attributes in the two time periods were then conducted for each crime category. Table 17 shows in summary form the extent to which the arrest-charge severities, and the age, sex, and ethnicity of defendants in the non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in the 1989 random sample data were statistically different from those in the 1998 subset data. Each of these attributes was statistically significant between the two time periods for all of the analyzed cases, and also of statistical significance in almost every one of the crime categories. (On this table the actual computed level of statistical significance is shown for each item for which statistical significance was found at or below the .05 confidence level.) These findings would appear to support the conclusion that both the nature of prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases, and attributes of defendants prosecuted in these cases, were different in the 3rd quarter of 1998 from cases and defendants prosecuted in non-felony arrests represented in the 1989 random sample data set. The extent to which court processing and case outcomes differed are explored in the next sections of the citywide comparison of cases in the 1989 random sample and the 3rd quarter 1998 data sets. Case Processing: Change in Charge Severity Between Arrest and Criminal Court Arraignment Upon review of arrest materials, including the charge or charges deemed applicable to the situation of an arrest as described by the arresting police officer, prosecuting attorneys determine the charge or charges to be filed in prosecuted cases. In this study the selection criteria required that both the most serious charge at arrest and at Criminal Court arraignment be less severe than a felony, excluding all cases with a VTL charge at either of these decision points regardless of charge severity. This criterion also excluded cases in which an arrest with a top charge of felony severity was prosecuted with a misdemeanor crime as the most serious charge at Criminal Court arraignment, and the relatively small proportion of cases in which a misdemeanor arrest might have been upgraded to a felony-severity prosecution at the time of the arraignment in the Criminal Court. The key indicator used here is whether there was a change in the severity between the top arrest charge and the most serious prosecuted charge at the Criminal Court arraignment. While it is possible that when the severities remain the same the 27
Freda F. Solomon, TNT Report Series: End-of-Year Report, (New York City Criminal Justice Agency, December 1989).
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 17 Summary of Tests of Statistical Significance Between Arrest-Charge Severities and Selected Demographic Characteristics, by Crime Category, for Defendants Prosecuted in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 1998 Subset Test of Significance Arrest Charge Severity
Age
Sex
Ethnicity
Drugs
.000
.000
n.s.
.000
Property
.005
.000
.000
.000
Fraud
.000
.000
.029
n.s.
Sex
.0001
.000
.000
.000
Harm to Persons
n.s.
.005
.000
.010
Misconduct
.000
.000
n.s.
n.s.
Obstruction of Justice
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.021
Other
2
.000
n.s.
.000
Weapon
2
.001
n.s.
.031
Harm to Persons and Property
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
All Cases
.000
.000
.000
.000
Crime-Type Category
1
This finding should be interpreted with caution because part of the differences found was due to the absence of severity designations in the 1989 data for most of the cases with the multiple severity charge of loitering for the purposes of prostitution.
2
No basis for comparison because virtually all cases were of the same arrest charge severity.
-31 -
charges are different, and even in a different crime category, this occurs infrequently. When severity change between the top arrest and arraignment charge occurs, it most commonly reflects a prosecutorial decision to reduce the top arrest charge to one of lesser severity within the same crime category, but in a small percentage of cases the arraignment charge may reflect the decision to prosecute for a different charge in a different crime category. In both time periods, defendants in a majority of cases were arraigned in the Criminal Court for a charge of same severity classification as the top arrest charge. In addition, prosecutors were more likely to retain A-misdemeanor severity arrest charges entering arraignment, in comparison to cases in which the defendant was arrested on a B-misdemeanor or violation severity charge. Because the overwhelming percentage of cases selected for this study had an A-misdemeanor severity charge at arrest, and because the vast majority of cases had the same severity top charge at both arrest and Criminal Court arraignment, examination of charge change focuses on comparisons keyed to arrest-charge severity. However, the percentage of cases in which there was a change between the severity of the top arrest and arraignment charge was smaller in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases, at all severity levels, than occurred in the 1989 random sample data. (Data not shown) In the 1989 data, summary cases of defendants arrested for a crime of Amisdemeanor severity were arraigned in the Criminal Court for a crime of Amisdemeanor severity 93.0 percent of the time, in comparison to 96.6 percent in the 1998 data in which there had been an A-misdemeanor severity arrest charge. In cases in which the top arrest charge was of a B-misdemeanor severity, 82.0 percent of the cases in the 1989 data, and 91.3 percent of the cases in the 1998 data, also were arraigned in the Criminal Court on a B-misdemeanor severity charge. In the summaryarrest cases with a violation-severity charge, 60.0 percent were arraigned on a violationseverity in the 1989 data in comparison with over 70.0 percent in the 1998 data. Case Processing: Criminal Court Arraignment Outcomes There were noticeable differences in Criminal Court arraignment decision-making in non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in the 1989 random sample and in the data for the 3rd quarter of 1998. In the 1998 data a greater percentage of the cases had a determinative disposition at the arraignment in the Criminal Court. Overall, 61.9% of the cases in the 1989 data had a resolution at the Criminal Court arraignment, in comparison with 72.7% of the cases in the 1998 data, a more than ten percentage point increase in arraignment dispositions. In addition, while cases in the 1998 data were more likely to have a determinative disposition at the arraignment appearance, a somewhat smaller percentage had a conviction outcome, and a substantially larger percentage were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) than in the 1989 cases. In 1989, defendants in 53.8 percent of the misdemeanor and lesser-severity, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases pled guilty at the arraignment appearance, while 6.3 percent had their cases adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, 1.8 percent had their case dismissed, while 37.8 percent of the cases were continued for post-arraignment adjudication, with a fraction of a percent having another outcome. In comparison,
-32 -
defendants in the comparable cases in the 1998 data pled guilty at Criminal Court arraignment in 46.6 percent of the cases, while 24.5 percent had their cases adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, 1.6 percent had the case dismissed, 27.2 percent were continued for post-arraignment adjudication, and other outcomes constituted less than a fraction of a percent. Once again it may be important to keep in mind that, while only proportional comparisons are being made, the percentage changes in outcomes affect large numbers of cases because of the substantial increase in volume in non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in 1998 in comparison to 1989. In making a pretrial release recommendation, CJA’s recommendation basis considers both the strength of a defendant’s community ties, and exclusionary factors. The exclusionary factor most applicable to a misdemeanor population is whether there is an outstanding bench warrant from a pending case, because this exclusionary category takes precedence over an evaluation of the sufficiency of a defendant’s community ties as a matter of Agency policy. 28 Other defendants who meet CJA’s community-ties criteria may be given one of two types of a recognizance-release recommendation based on whether or not CJA interviewers are able to verify the information. Defendants with insufficient ties are not given a recommendation for release due to such factors as a lack of the required number or combinations of criteria to indicate sufficient roots in the community, a residence outside of New York City and surrounding counties within the state, or when defendants provide incomplete information or information inconsistent with responses by third-parties contacted for verification. Among defendants in cases not disposed at the Criminal Court arraignment, the proportional distributions among the conditions of release were almost identical in the two time periods. In the 1989 cases, defendants in 67.1 percent of the continued cases were released, 66.1 percent on recognizance and 1.0 percent by making the set amount of bail immediately upon the completion of the arraignment. In the 1998 cases, 67.2 percent of the defendants in continued cases were released, 65.3 percent on recognizance and 1.9 percent by making the set amount of bail immediately upon the completion of the arraignment appearance. Approximately a third of the defendants in continued cases were held on bail at the completion of Criminal Court arraignment, 32.2 percent in the 1989 cases and 32.3 percent in the 1998 cases, while the remaining fraction of a percent in each time period were cases in which the defendant either was held without bail (i.e., remanded) or for which release status was unknown. (Table 18A) However, CJA was proportionately more likely to have recommended defendants to be released on recognizance, based on sufficient community ties (and absent exclusionary factors such as a bench warrant), in the studied cases in the 3rd quarter 28
Other exclusionary factors that would be specifically relevant to a study that included felony cases would be the presence of a murder or attempted murder charge, or whether the defendant was younger than sixteen years of age and being brought into the adult court system under the Juvenile Offender Law. Because no non-felony charges are included in the state’s Juvenile Offender Law all defendants in this study were at least sixteen years of age, and therefore changes implemented in the mid-1990’s in CJA’s recommendation basis for the Juvenile Offender population did not affect the distribution of recommendation categories reported in this study.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 18A Release Status Leaving Arraignment in Continued Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data 1989 (N=2,052)
1998 (N=12,994)
ROR Bail Made Subtotal Released
66.1% 1.0% 67.1%
65.3% 1.9% 67.2%
Bail Set, Not Made Remand Subtotal Held
32.2% 0.6% 32.8%
32.3% 0.3% 32.6%
0.1%
0.2%
Release Status
Missing
Table 18B CJA Release-Recommendation Category for Defendants in All Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data 1989 (N=5,440)
1998 (N=47,813)
Recommended
30.2%
43.7%
Insufficient Community ties
33.5%
37.3%
No Recommendation due to Bench Warrant
22.2%
12.8%
Other Recommendation Category
5.3%
2.9%
Not Available/Missing
8.8%
3.4%
Recommendation Category
-33 -
1998 data set than in the 1989 random sample data set. (Table 18B) Among all prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases, defendants in 30.2 percent of the 1989 random sample cases were recommended for recognizance release, and 33.5 percent were determined to have insufficient ties for a release recommendation. In comparison, in 43.7 percent of the 3rd quarter 1998 cases defendants were recommended for recognizance release, and 37.3 percent were found to have insufficient ties for a release recommendation. Almost twice the percentage of defendants in the 1989, than in the 1998, cases were precluded from a CJA recommendation due to an outstanding bench warrant at the time of the study arrest, 22.2 percent versus 12.8 percent, respectively. The larger percentage of defendants with an outstanding bench warrant in the cases in the 1989 data affects the ability to compare the strength of community ties between defendants in the two time periods. However, part of the explanation for the similarity in release rates for cases continued after the arraignment appearance may lie in differences in both strength of community ties as well as the presence of an outstanding bench warrant, and in the different distribution of cases among crime categories in the two time periods. Table 18C shows CJA’s release recommendation categories for defendants only in cases continued after the arraignment appearance for all cases, and by selected arrest-crime categories. (Again including cases of defendants for whom no interview data were available.) In almost every category shown a greater proportion of defendants in continued cases in the 1998 data were recommended for recognizance release, and in every category defendants were less likely to have a bench warrant, than defendants in continued cases in the 1989 data. However, in almost every category the lower bench warrant rates among defendants in the 1998 data set cases was offset by a substantially larger proportion of defendants not recommended for release by CJA due to insufficient community ties, such as can be seen in the property crime category. The proportionately higher rates of insufficient community ties is particularly noticeable in the sex and fraud crime categories, which also are among the few categories in which defendants in continued cases in 1998 were less likely to have sufficient ties for a recognizance release recommendation or a bench warrant, than interviewed defendants in the continued cases in the 1989 data. Case Processing: Final Criminal Court Dispositions Differences found in non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest case dispositions at Criminal Court arraignment between the 1989 random sample and 3rd quarter 1998 data sets also were found when final Criminal Court outcomes were compared in the data for the two time periods. At the time each data set was created most cases had a final Criminal Court outcome, and the likelihood of conviction was proportionately greater for the defendants in the cases in the 1989 data. (Table 19) This pattern consistently was found in almost every crime category examined in this study, although the percentage point differences in conviction rates between the two time periods varied by crime category. (See Table 20) However, because of far more extensive use of adjournments in contemplation of dismissal (ACDs) in the 1998 cases, the likelihood of an outright dismissal was less in the later time period than in the 1989 cases.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 18C CJA Release Recommendation Category for Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases Continued at Criminal Court Arraignment by Arrest Crime Category
Recommended
Insufficient Ties
Bench Warrant
Other*
Total
1989 1998
37.0% 45.9%
35.1% 39.9%
25.5% 12.0%
2.4% 2.2%
100.0% 100.0%
Property 1989 1998
25.8% 48.1%
27.3% 36.7%
43.6% 5.1%
3.4% 10.1%
100.0% 100.0%
Fraud 1989 1998
34.6% 11.5%
26.9% 53.8%
30.8% 19.2%
7.7% 15.4%
100.0% 100.0%
Sex Crimes 1989 1998
26.5% 21.7%
47.1% 65.2%
23.5% 4.3%
2.9% 8.7%
100.0% 100.0%
Harm To Persons 1989 1998
52.6% 59.9%
27.9% 29.9%
14.2% 8.9%
5.3% 1.3%
100.0% 100.0%
Misconduct 1989 1998
39.0% 54.0%
28.3% 26.4%
25.8% 14.9%
6.9% 4.6%
100.0% 100.0%
Obstruction of Justice 1989 1998
50.4% 50.0%
25.2% 45.5%
13.4% 4.5%
11.0% 0.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Weapon 1989 1998
45.0% 55.6%
31.0% 33.3%
18.0% 5.6%
6.0% 5.6%
100.0% 100.0%
All Cases** 1989 1998
38.2% 51.0%
30.4% 35.6%
25.2% 9.8%
6.2% 3.5%
100.0% 100.0%
Crime-Type Category Drug
* 'Other' includes cases of interviewed defendants for whom no release recommendation was made because the criminal history record was unavailable or the interview was incomplete. ** Includes cases in all crime categories including those not shown.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 19 Criminal Court Outcomes: Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data 1989 (N=5,440)
1998 (N=47,813)
Conviction Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal Convictions
53.8% 18.2% 72.0%
46.6% 12.5% 59.1%
ACD Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal ACDs
6.3% 5.1% 11.4%
24.5% 5.5% 30.0%
Dismissal Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal Dismissals
1.8% 9.7% 11.5%
1.6% 7.3% 8.9%
Other Dispositions Warrant Order Pending Other/Unknown* Subtotal Other Dispositions
4.5% 0.1% 0.4% 5.0%
1.2% 0.6% 0.1% 1.9%
OUTCOMES
* Other dispositions include all transfers to other court jurisdictions, such as the Family Court, which may have occurred at or subsequent to the Criminal Court arraignment appearance.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 20 Criminal Court Outcomes, by Arrest Crime Category, in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Crime Category
1989
1998
Drugs: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
(N=2,237) 78.3% 8.4% 8.3% 4.9%
(N=20,141) 61.8% 33.3% 3.9% 0.9%
Property Crime: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
(N=852) 79.2% 5.6% 9.0% 6.2%
(N=4,299) 76.2% 16.7% 4.7% 2.5%
Fraud: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
(N=137) 79.6% 13.9% 4.4% 2.2%
(N=6,661) 63.3% 34.7% 1.5% 0.5%
Sex Crimes: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
(N=632) 91.3% 4.3% 3.6% 0.8%
(N=2,104) 77.4% 18.0% 2.5% 2.1%
Harm to Persons: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
(N=511) 29.7% 29.0% 34.4% 6.9%
(N=5,863) 33.6% 24.1% 36.9% 5.4%
Misconduct: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
(N=493) 63.1% 18.7% 14.8% 3.4%
(N=4,665) 57.8% 29.8% 10.4% 1.9%
Obstruction of Justice: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
(N=218) 57.8% 20.2% 16.5% 5.5%
(N=1,343) 47.6% 28.2% 18.8% 5.3%
Other Crimes: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
(N=208) 68.8% 10.6% 9.1% 11.6%
(N=2,172) 51.3% 42.8% 4.8% 1.0%
Weapon: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
(N=146) 46.6% 20.5% 23.3% 9.6%
(N=555) 52.1% 21.1% 22.0% 4.9%
(N=6) 83.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%
(N=9) 66.7% 22.2% 0.0% 11.1%
Harm to Persons and Property: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other
* "Other" outcome in each crime category includes non-disposed cases, most of which had a warrant ordered for the defendant, as well as cases transferred to other court jurisdictions for final disposition.
-34 -
In the 1989 random sample data, there was a conviction in 72.0% of the cases, and an ACD in 11.4%. In comparison, in the 3rd quarter 1998 data, 59.1% of the cases had a conviction outcome while 30.0% had an ACD. In an ACD, the defendant does not admit criminal responsibility as occurs in a conviction by plea or trial, and if the case ultimately is dismissed the defendant does not have a criminal conviction. However, the defendant may have conditions imposed during the statutory pendency of the adjournment, usually of six months’ duration. In addition to the threat of the case being restored to the Criminal Court calendar for prosecution for a new arrest during the period of the adjournment, by the 3rd quarter of 1998 the criminal justice system had introduced into its sanctioning routines for an ACD the requirement of other conditions, especially community service. What this means is that in the 3rd quarter of 1998 a far greater percentage of defendants in non-felony cases had sanctions imposed, other than jail or fines associated with conviction penalties, and potentially remained subject to the continuing threat of criminal prosecution for substantially longer periods of time, than did defendants in the cases in the 1989 random sample data. Not only were ACDs more frequent in the 1998 cases, but they also were far more likely to occur at the Criminal Court arraignment; almost one quarter (24.5%) of all the misdemeanor and lesser-severity, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in the 3rd quarter of 1998 were resolved by an ACD at arraignment, while only 5.5 percent of the Criminal Court outcomes were a post-arraignment ACD. In the 1989 random sample cases, an ACD court outcome was only slightly more likely to occur at, versus post, arraignment; in the non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in the 1989 random sample, 6.3 percent were resolved by an ACD at the Criminal Court arraignment appearance while another 5.1 percent were disposed by a post-arraignment ACD. Historically, ACDs most commonly are found in misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases in which the nature or circumstance of the offense are perceived as minor, and in which the defendant has either no or only a limited prior record of criminal convictions. Because a proportionately greater percentage of defendants in the 3rd quarter 1998 data, in comparison to defendants in the 1989 random sample data, had no prior adult convictions for misdemeanor or felony crimes, one could anticipate that this would be a factor in explaining the higher rate of ACDs in the data for the later period. Indeed, in both time periods the cases in which defendants had no prior adult criminal convictions were the most likely to have been disposed by an ACD, and those with an adult criminal record containing convictions for both misdemeanor and felony crimes were the least likely to have been disposed in this manner. In addition, there was a substantially higher rate of ACDs in cases of defendants without prior criminal convictions in the cases in the 1998 data in which defendant criminal history was known, than in the 1989 data set cases. As shown in the “all cases� category at the end of Table 21, among all the 1989 random sample cases for which the prior criminal history of defendants was known, there was an ACD outcome for 19.1 percent of the cases of defendants without prior criminal convictions, in comparison to an ACD outcome in 4.1 percent of the cases in which defendants had prior adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. In the 3rd quarter 1998 data set, 47.2 percent of the cases of defendants without prior adult criminal convictions were disposed by an ACD, while there was an
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 21 Criminal Court Outcomes by Criminal History of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in Selected Crime Categories: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions ChargeType Category
No Prior Convictions 1989 1998
Prior Misdemeanor Only 1989 1998
Prior Felony Only 1989 1998
Combined Priors 1989 1998
Total 1989 1998
Drugs: Conviction 74.2% 39.5% 87.9% 86.8% 77.3% 76.7% 79.1% 90.3% 78.5% 61.8% ACD 13.4% 56.2% 1.6% 8.6% 3.6% 15.0% 2.3% 3.9% 8.1% 33.3% Dismissal 6.6% 3.5% 7.1% 3.7% 13.6% 6.5% 13.4% 4.5% 8.4% 4.0% Other 5.7% 0.7% 3.4% 0.8% 5.5% 1.8% 5.2% 1.2% 5.1% 0.9% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) Total
52.8%
53.1%
22.9%
17.8%
5.0%
6.5%
19.3%
22.6%
100.0% 100.0%
Property: Conviction 61.3% 74.2% 90.5% 87.9% 76.4% 77.3% 91.0% 79.1% 76.1% 78.5% ACD 31.1% 13.4% 2.7% 1.6% 8.9% 3.6% 3.0% 2.3% 16.7% 8.1% Dismissal 4.9% 6.6% 4.6% 7.1% 11.4% 13.6% 3.8% 13.4% 4.7% 8.4% Other 2.8% 5.7% 2.2% 3.4% 3.2% 5.5% 2.2% 5.2% 2.4% 5.1% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) Total
48.3%
52.8%
22.0%
22.9%
3.0%
5.0%
26.7%
19.3%
100.0% 100.0%
Fraud: Conviction 69.7% 37.2% 85.7% 91.6% (100.0%) 85.1% 93.1% 95.3% 79.9% 63.8% ACD 25.8% 60.3% 2.9% 7.0% 13.5% 3.4% 3.3% 14.2% 34.3% Dismissal 3.0% 1.9% 8.6% 1.1% 0.3% 3.4% 1.0% 4.5% 1.4% Other 1.5% 0.7% 2.9% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.5% 0.5% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) Total
49.3%
52.3%
26.1%
18.7%
3.0%
4.6%
21.6%
24.5%
100.0% 100.0%
Sex Crimes: Conviction 73.3% 63.8% 97.4% 91.8% (100.0%) 76.5% (100.0%) 90.1% 88.2% 76.1% ACD 17.4% 32.0% 0.0% 4.6% 17.6% 4.3% 6.8% 19.6% Dismissal 7.0% 2.0% 2.6% 1.9% 2.9% 3.4% 4.1% 2.2% Other 2.3% 2.2% 0.0% 1.7% 2.9% 2.1% 0.9% 2.1% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) Total
38.9%
54.0%
51.6%
30.8%
1.8%
1.9%
7.7%
13.3%
29.6% 28.9% 36.2% 5.3% (100.0%)
40.7% 22.2% 33.3% 3.7% (100.0%)
41.6% 15.4% 37.2% 5.8% (100.0%)
33.3% 20.8% 45.8% 0.0% (100.0%)
37.4% 15.4% 42.5% 4.6% (100.0%)
48.5% 13.6% 34.8% 3.0% (100.0%)
45.9% 11.5% 36.9% 5.6% (100.0%)
67.7%
16.2%
13.0%
4.8%
7.3%
13.2%
11.9%
100.0% 100.0%
Harm to Persons: Conviction 23.2% ACD 34.5% Dismissal 34.1% Other 8.2% (100.0%) Total
65.7%
29.9% 29.1% 34.7% 6.4% (100.0%)
33.7% 24.1% 36.9% 5.4% (100.0%)
100.0% 100.0%
* "Other" outcome in each crime category includes non-disposed cases, most of which had a warrant ordered for the defendant, as well as cases transferred to other court jurisdictions for final disposition.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 21 (continued) Criminal Court Outcomes by Criminal History of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in Selected Crime Categories: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions ChargeType Category
No Prior Convictions 1989 1998
Prior Misdemeanor Only 1989 1998
Prior Felony Only 1989 1998
Combined Priors 1989 1998
Total 1989 1998
Misconduct: Conviction ACD Dismissal Other* Total
50.0% 42.8% 78.1% 75.1% 70.4% 61.9% 78.0% 80.4% 64.4% 59.3% 27.3% 42.8% 6.6% 13.7% 11.1% 23.8% 7.3% 10.5% 16.7% 28.2% 18.6% 12.1% 13.9% 9.5% 11.1% 11.7% 9.8% 7.5% 15.2% 10.5% 4.2% 2.2% 1.5% 1.8% 7.4% 2.5% 4.9% 1.6% 3.6% 2.0% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 47.2%
50.0%
29.4%
20.5%
5.8%
6.5%
17.6%
23.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Obstruction of Justice: Conviction ACD Dismissal Other* Total
42.7% 38.0% 82.1% 64.1% 66.7% 53.3% 65.7% 62.8% 58.7% 48.3% 29.1% 37.4% 8.9% 11.1% 8.3% 30.7% 8.6% 16.8% 18.9% 28.3% 22.3% 18.0% 8.9% 20.9% 16.7% 14.7% 14.3% 17.3% 17.0% 18.2% 5.8% 6.6% 0.0% 3.9% 8.3% 1.3% 11.4% 3.1% 5.3% 1.9% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 50.0%
57.1%
27.2%
18.8%
5.8%
6.0%
17.0%
18.1%
100.0% 100.0%
"Other" Crimes: Conviction ACD Dismissal Other* Total
71.2% 40.7% 89.2% 65.7% 50.0% 41.1% 90.9% 69.8% 79.0% 54.2% 11.5% 52.0% 2.7% 28.3% 0.0% 54.4% 4.5% 27.1% 6.7% 40.0% 11.5% 5.9% 5.4% 4.8% 25.0% 4.4% 4.5% 2.8% 9.2% 4.8% 5.7% 1.4% 2.7% 1.2% 25.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 5.1% 1.0% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 43.7%
44.5%
31.1%
25.5%
6.7%
5.5%
18.5%
24.5%
100.0% 100.0%
All Cases: Conviction ACD Dismissal Other* Total
61.5% 40.7% 84.3% 81.2% 67.0% 67.7% 77.6% 85.4% 70.9% 59.4% 19.1% 47.2% 3.8% 9.7% 7.5% 17.4% 4.1% 6.3% 11.6% 29.7% 13.1% 10.0% 9.2% 7.5% 18.1% 12.6% 13.8% 6.7% 12.4% 9.0% 6.3% 2.1% 2.7% 1.6% 7.5% 2.3% 4.5% 1.6% 5.1% 1.9% (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) 49.4%
54.1%
26.7%
18.7%
4.7%
5.8%
19.2%
21.4%
100.0% 100.0%
-35 -
ACD disposition in 6.3 percent of the cases in which the defendants had prior adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. In addition, within each of the selected crime categories presented in Table 21, the percentage of cases in which there was an ACD disposition was greater in both years when defendants had no prior adult convictions in comparison with cases in which defendants had been previously convicted of crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. The proportionately higher rate of ACD dispositions in cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data, in comparison with the cases in the 1989 random sample data, appears to be largely, but not entirely, explained by the differences in the prior record of adult criminal convictions between defendants in the studied non-felony summary cases in the two time periods, especially the higher percentage of cases in which defendants had no prior criminal convictions. Some of the differences also appear to be a result of the type of crime involved. There was a higher percentage of misdemeanor and lesserseverity cases with an ACD outcome for every type of criminal history in 1998 in the drug, misconduct, obstruction of justice, and other-crimes categories, in comparison to 1989. In other categories, such as property crimes and the harm-to-persons category, the percentage of ACD outcomes was lower in every criminal history category in the 3rd quarter 1998 non-felony, summary-arrest cases, in comparison to cases in the 1989 random sample in this crime category. In addition, in these two crime categories a greater percentage of defendants without prior criminal convictions were convicted in 1998 than in 1989. In addition, in some but not all crime categories, especially among cases of defendants with no prior convictions, the larger percentage of ACD outcomes in the 1998 would appear to be responsible for a sharp reduction in conviction rates and lower dismissal rates. For example, among defendants in the drug cases without prior criminal convictions, in the 1989 cases there was a conviction rate in 74.2 percent of the cases, an ACD in 13.4 percent, and a dismissal in 6.6 percent of the cases. Among defendants in the drug cases without prior convictions in 1998, the conviction rate was 39.5 percent, with an ACD in 56.2 percent, and a dismissal in 3.5 percent of the cases. This type of sharp contrast in types of dispositions in the non-felony summary-arrest cases in the 1989 random sample and 3rd quarter 1998 data for defendants without prior convictions also can be seen in the fraud and other-crimes categories. However, for defendants without prior convictions in both the property and harm-to-persons crime categories, there was a larger percentage of cases with a conviction, and a smaller percentage of ACD outcomes in the 1998 cases in comparison to 1989 cases. Among cases in which there was a conviction, almost all by a negotiated guilty plea, there was an overall greater likelihood of a charge reduction between the severity of the arrest and conviction charge in the 1998 data than in the earlier, 1989 period. Among non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in the 1989 random sample data set in which there was a conviction, slightly over half (53.0%) had an arrest and conviction charge of the same severity, while approximately 44 percent had a conviction charge of lesser severity than the arrest charge, and there was an increase in charge
-36 -
severity in a very small percentage of the cases.29 In comparison, among the cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data the conviction charge was of the same severity as the arrest charge in 46 percent of the cases, while there was a charge-severity reduction in slightly over half (52.5%), with the remaining cases increasing in severity between arrest and conviction. (Data not shown) This overall pattern of a greater likelihood of charge-severity reduction in guilty pleas among the non-felony cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data, in comparison to the 1989 random sample, was found in most but not all of the examined crime categories, (excluding the harm-to-persons-and-property category for which there were insufficient cases to make a comparison). However, the likelihood of charge-severity reduction, and the difference in the percentage of cases in which there was charge-severity reduction between the two time periods, varied considerably by crime category. In addition, the adult criminal history of defendants was an important factor in chargeseverity reduction between arrest and conviction charge, and the presence and extent of prior adult convictions for crimes of misdemeanor or felony severity varied by crime categories, and substantially differed within some crime categories between the two periods. Table 22 examines severity change between arrest and conviction charges, in selected crime categories, for cases of convicted defendants for whom criminal history was known. Cases in the drug crime category were one categorical exception in which the likelihood of charge-severity change in misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases was greater in the 1989 data than in the 1998 cases. In over three fifths (61.8%) of the studied drug cases in the 1989 data set the conviction charge was less severe than the arrest charge, in comparison to a reduction in the charge-severity in somewhat over half (54.6%) of the cases in the drug crime category in the 1998 data set. It may be useful to recall that this was the crime category with the largest volume of cases in both time periods, and also the only crime category in which the relative severities of arrest charges was proportionately less severe in the 1998 data than in the 1989 data. In addition, although about the one quarter of the defendants in each time period had no prior adult convictions for crimes of either misdemeanor or felony severity, defendants in the 3rd quarter 1998 non-felony drug cases were more likely than those in the 1989 random sample data to have a criminal record of prior misdemeanor convictions, or a combination of both previous adult misdemeanor and felony convictions, while those in the 1989 drug cases were more likely to have been previously convicted of a felonyseverity crime. The other category in which there were a larger percentage of misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases with a charge-severity reduction between arrest and conviction in the 1989 data was the fraud category, principally comprised in both 29
Because only cases in which both the top arrest and prosecuted charge at Criminal Court arraignment were less severe than a felony were selected for analysis in this research it would be uncommon for conviction charges to increase in severity. In addition, given the large proportion of cases in the study of A-misdemeanor severity, the highest severity crime over which the New York City Criminal Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a finding of guilt, the opportunity for the conviction charge to increase would be restricted to cases initiated at a severity below an A-misdemeanor.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 22 Charge-Severity Change Between Arrest and Conviction by Criminal History of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases for Selected Crime Categories: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
Charge-Severity Change Drugs: 1989 Decrease Same Increase Total 1998 Decrease Same Increase Total
Property: 1989 Decrease Same Increase Total 1998 Decrease Same Increase Total
Prior Adult Convictions Prior No Prior Misdemeanor Prior Felony Combined Convictions Only Only Priors
Total
82.0% 17.6% 0.5% (100.0%)
39.7% 58.2% 2.0% (100.0%)
67.1% 30.6% 2.4% (100.0%)
37.7% 60.8% 1.5% (100.0%)
61.8% 37.1% 1.2% (100.0%)
50.0%
25.6%
4.9%
19.5%
100.0%
86.2% 13.7% 0.1% (100.0%)
36.7% 63.0% 0.3% (100.0%)
68.5% 31.4% 0.1% (100.0%)
32.4% 67.4% 0.2% (100.0%)
54.6% 45.2% 0.2% (100.0%)
33.9%
25.0%
8.0%
33.0%
100.0%
61.9% 36.6% 1.5% (100.0%)
15.9% 81.5% 2.6% (100.0%)
22.2% 77.8% 0.0% (100.0%)
8.8% 89.5% 1.7% (100.0%)
27.6% 70.5% 2.0% (100.0%)
29.2%
40.8%
2.7%
27.3%
100.0%
89.2% 10.7% 0.1% (100.0%)
19.4% 80.6% 0.0% (100.0%)
58.5% 41.5% 0.0% (100.0%)
15.8% 84.2% 0.0% (100.0%)
46.6% 53.3% 0.1% (100.0%)
38.9%
26.1%
3.1%
31.9%
100.0%
* Number of cases too small for valid comparisons
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 22 (continued) Charge-Severity Change Between Arrest and Conviction by Criminal History of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases for Selected Crime Categories: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
Charge-Severity Change Fraud: 1989 Decrease Same Increase Total 1998 Decrease Same Increase Total
Sex Crimes: 1989 Decrease Same Increase Total 1998 Decrease Same Increase Total
Prior Adult Convictions Prior No Prior Misdemeanor Prior Felony Combined Convictions Only Only Priors
Total
76.1% 23.9% 0.0% (100.0%)
26.7% 70.0% 3.3% (100.0%)
* * * (100.0%)
44.4% 51.9% 3.7% (100.0%)
53.3% 44.9% 1.9% (100.0%)
43.0%
28.0%
3.7%
25.2%
100.0%
88.2% 11.7% 0.2% (100.0%)
28.7% 71.3% 0.0% (100.0%)
62.0% 37.1% 0.8% (100.0%)
25.2% 74.8% 0.0% (100.0%)
47.6% 52.3% 0.1% (100.0%)
30.5%
26.9%
6.1%
36.5%
100.0%
22.2% 66.7% 11.1% (100.0%)
6.3% 93.7% 0.0% (100.0%)
* * * (100.0%)
2.5% 96.0% 1.5% (100.0%)
5.4% 92.2% 2.4% (100.0%)
10.9%
19.3%
0.7%
69.1%
100.0%
83.6% 14.5% 2.0% (100.0%)
18.0% 81.4% 0.6% (100.0%)
* * * (100.0%)
23.0% 76.1% 1.0% (100.0%)
49.7% 49.1% 1.3% (100.0%)
45.2%
37.1%
2.0%
15.7%
100.0%
* Number of cases too small for valid comparisons
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 22 (continued) Charge-Severity Change Between Arrest and Conviction by Criminal History of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases for Selected Crime Categories: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions Charge-Severity Change Harm to Persons: 1989 Decrease Same Increase Total 1998 Decrease Same Increase Total
Misconduct: 1989 Decrease Same Increase Total 1998 Decrease Same Increase Total
Prior No Prior Misdemeanor Prior Felony Convictions Only Only
Combined Priors
Total
77.6% 22.4% 0.0% (100.0%)
51.5% 48.5% 0.0% (100.0%)
* * * (100.0%)
53.1% 40.6% 6.3% (100.0%)
65.8% 32.9% 1.3% (100.0%)
51.0%
22.1%
5.4%
21.5%
100.0%
91.8% 8.1% 0.1% (100.0%)
63.0% 36.3% 0.7% (100.0%)
77.1% 22.9% 0.0% (100.0%)
52.6% 46.4% 1.0% (100.0%)
79.6% 20.1% 0.3% (100.0%)
59.5%
16.1%
8.1%
16.3%
100.0%
56.4% 37.3% 6.4% (100.0%)
37.4% 58.9% 3.7% (100.0%)
63.2% 36.8% 0.0% (100.0%)
28.1% 68.8% 3.1% (100.0%)
44.0% 51.7% 4.3% (100.0%)
36.7%
35.7%
6.3%
21.3%
100.0%
81.9% 16.1% 2.0% (100.0%)
35.5% 63.1% 1.4% (100.0%)
63.8% 35.1% 1.1% (100.0%)
31.0% 66.8% 2.3% (100.0%)
52.8% 45.4% 1.8% (100.0%)
36.1%
25.9%
6.8%
31.2%
100.0%
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 22 (continued) Charge-Severity Change Between Arrest and Conviction by Criminal History of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases for Selected Crime Categories: 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
Charge-Severity Change Obstruction of Justice: 1989 Decrease Same Increase Total 1998 Decrease Same Increase Total
"Other" Crimes: 1989 Decrease Same Increase Total 1998 Decrease Same Increase Total
Prior Adult Convictions Prior No Prior Misdemeanor Prior Felony Combined Convictions Only Only Priors
Total
61.4% 38.6% 0.0% (100.0%)
37.0% 60.9% 2.2% (100.0%)
(100.0%) 0.0% 0.0% (100.0%)
43.5% 52.2% 4.3% (100.0%)
51.2% 47.1% 1.7% (100.0%)
36.4%
38.0%
6.6%
19.0%
100.0%
79.6% 15.9% 4.4% (100.0%)
51.3% 45.3% 3.3% (100.0%)
72.5% 27.5% 0.0% (100.0%)
49.3% 47.9% 2.8% (100.0%)
65.0% 31.6% 3.5% (100.0%)
44.9%
24.9%
6.6%
23.6%
100.0%
5.4% 45.9% 48.6% (100.0%)
6.1% 45.5% 48.5% (100.0%)
0.0% 0.0% (100.0%) (100.0%)
5.0% 45.0% 50.0% (100.0%)
5.3% 43.6% 51.0% (100.0%)
39.4%
35.1%
4.3%
21.3%
100.0%
0.0% 45.2% 54.8% (100.0%)
0.0% 80.5% 19.5% (100.0%)
0.0% 78.4% 21.6% (100.0%)
0.0% 86.7% 13.3% (100.0%)
0.0% 70.6% 29.4% (100.0%)
33.4%
30.9%
4.2%
31.6%
100.0%
-37 -
time periods of the A-misdemeanor severity theft-of-services charge. In the 1989 random sample cases in this crime category there was charge-severity reduction at conviction in 53.3 percent of the cases, in comparison with a reduction between arrestand conviction-charge severities in 47.6 percent of the cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data. Some of this undoubtedly reflects differences in the adult criminal history patterns found among defendants in this crime category in the two data sets. In the 1998 data a smaller percentage of defendants in fraud crime-category cases had no prior adult criminal convictions, and a greater percentage had previous convictions for both misdemeanor and felony severity crimes, than did the defendants in the fraud category cases in the 1989 data. The proportionately different distribution among case outcomes in the 1989 random sample and the 3rd quarter of 1998 data for misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases suggest changes in the nature of case processing between the two periods. Among the factors contributing to this finding may have been a need to resolve a greater percentage of cases at Criminal Court arraignment in response to a substantially greater volume of non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in the later time period. This would explain the proportionately greater percentage of overall case dispositions at arraignment. Increased offers of ACDs at arraignment may be a part of the mechanisms for disposing of cases at this first court appearance. But in the case of ACDs there also were likely to have been other considerations, perhaps the existence of greater opportunities for alternative sanctions such as community-service sentences that could be a condition of the ACD, or the opportunity to offer a short-term inducement to a speedy case resolution, and one that ultimately could result in no criminal conviction, in exchange for the defendant being subject to renewed prosecution during the adjournment. In addition, it is important to consider that because of the substantially greater number of non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases prosecuted in the City’s Criminal Courts in all of 1998, in comparison to the actual volume of comparable cases in 1989, the number of defendants who were sanctioned, either as a result of a conviction or by conditions imposed in an ACD outcome, was greater in 1998 than in 1989. The Use of Jail in the Sentencing Decision In the misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases in which the defendant was convicted, the likelihood of a jail sentence, including time-served sentences and post-conviction jail time, was greater in the 1989 random sample cases than in the cases in the 3rd quarter of 1998 data set.30 Among defendants convicted in cases in the 1989 data 58.3 percent received a jail sentence, in comparison to a jail sentence being imposed in 49.8 percent of the cases in the 1998 data in which the defendants were convicted. This pattern of higher jail-sentence rates in cases in which 30
For the purposes of this analysis, imprisonment was considered the most severe penalty imposed for conviction. Cases included in the jail-sentence category were those in which the convicted defendants were sentenced to a determinate period of incarceration. However, cases in which defendants received a sentence of a fine with a jail alternative were not included in the jail-sentence category, even though defendants may have served jail time in lieu of the fine payment.
-38 -
the defendant was convicted in the 1989 data was found in most crime categories, although the proportions receiving a jail sentence, and the percentage point differences in the imposition of jail sentences between the two time periods, varied by the arrestoffense crime category. The percentage of misdemeanor and lesser-severity summaryarrest cases in which convicted defendants received any jail sentence (including time served) in the 1989 random sample ranged from a low of 30.3 percent in the harm-topersons crime category to 85.1 percent for convicted defendants in the sex crime category. The percentage of cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set in which convicted defendants received a jail sentence ranged from a low of 17.5 percent, also in the harmto-persons category, to a high of 68.4 percent for cases in the other/unknown arrest crime category (largely non-penal law charges). (Data not shown) The other/unknown crime category is one of only three in which the percentage of cases in which convicted defendants received a jail-sentence in 1998 was greater than in 1989; in the 1989 random sample only about one-third of convicted defendants had received a jail sentence after conviction in a case in the other-crimes category, in comparison to over two-thirds in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases. In non-felony drug-crime cases, jail sentences were imposed in 47.8 percent of the cases in which defendants were convicted in 1989 in comparison to 57.9 percent of the drug-crime cases in 1998, and in the misconduct crime category jail sentences were imposed in cases in which defendants were convicted in 53.4 percent of the cases in 1989 compared to a jail sentence in 56.8 percent of the cases in 1998. These fairly small percentage differences were not statistically significant. The difference in the harm-to-persons, property, sex, and obstruction-of-justice categories, however, were statistically significant, as was the overall different rate of jail sentences comparing 1989 and 1998. In property crime cases, in the 1989 random sample convicted defendants in over twothirds (69.5%) received a sentence of jail, compared with fewer than half (47.8%) in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases. (Data not shown) The percentage of misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases in which there was no jail sentence for convicted defendants was somewhat greater in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases than it had been in the 1989 random sample data, 50.2 percent versus 41.7 percent. However, among all the cases in which defendants were convicted and sentenced to jail time, the likelihood of post-conviction jail time was proportionately greater among defendants convicted in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases than the 1989 random sample cases. In the 1989 cases in which convicted defendants received a jail sentence, 36.8 percent were sentenced to serve post-conviction jail time, while 42.6 percent received post-conviction jail time in the 1998 cases. Conversely, in the cases in the 1989 data in which defendants were convicted and sentenced to jail time, 63.2 percent received a time-served sentence in comparison to 57.4 percent of defendants convicted in 1998 cases who received a jail sentence. This overall difference in receiving a time-served versus post-conviction jail sentence between the 1989 and 1998 cases in which a jail sentence was imposed upon conviction was statistically significant. (Data not shown) The pattern of a greater percentage of post-conviction, versus time-served, jail sentences upon conviction in 1998 in comparison to 1989 was found in all but the weapon crime category, in which post-conviction jail time was imposed in 49.4 percent
-39 -
of the 3rd quarter 1998 cases and in 65.6 percent of the 1989 random sample cases. As with the decision whether or not to impose any jail time, discussed above, the percentages of defendants who received a sentence of post-conviction jail time, and the differences in these percentages between the data for 1998 and 1989 varied by crime category. In the harm-to-person and the property crime categories, there were fairly large and comparable percentages of defendants receiving post-conviction jail sentences in both 1989 and 1998 cases, in which over three-fourths of convicted defendants sentenced to jail received a sentence of post-conviction jail time in cases in both of these crime categories in both time periods. There were differences between the two time periods in other categories, and these differences were statistically significant in both the drug and sex crime categories. In the 1989 random sample data, a post-conviction jail sentence was imposed on convicted defendants sentenced to jail in 36.8 percent of the drug category cases and in only 6.3 percent of the sex crimes cases. In comparison, in the 3rd quarter 1998 data, post-conviction jail time was imposed on convicted defendants sentenced to jail in 41.4 percent of the drug cases and in 48.9 percent of the sex category cases. In both the 1989 random sample and in the 3rd quarter 1998 data, there were relatively low percentages of post-conviction jail sentences in cases in the other/unknown, misconduct, and fraud crime categories in which a jail sentence was imposed, although a greater percentage of such cases received post-conviction jail time in the later time period. Sentences of post-conviction jail time among these crime categories ranged from a low in the other/unknown category of 5.3 percent in 1989 and 7.5 percent in 1998, to 17.5 percent and 25.3 percent in misconduct cases, and 29.6 percent versus 36.5 percent in the fraud crime category, in 1989 and 1998 respectively. Whether or not a jail sentence was imposed, and whether or not the jail sentence was for post-conviction jail time, would appear to be heavily influenced by the adult criminal history of convicted defendants. In examining Table 23, which shows the relationship between type of criminal history (for cases in which the criminal record of the convicted defendant was known), and the likelihood of receiving a jail sentence including a time-served sentence, several conclusions are apparent. First, among all cases and in most crime categories, there was greater likelihood (i.e., percentage) of defendants in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set cases not receiving a jail sentence upon conviction, than defendants convicted in the 1989 random sample cases, in almost every category of criminal history. Second, in each time period the likelihood of receiving a jail sentence varied considerably by crime category of the arrest offense. Both of these conclusions are reinforced by the findings regarding the use of jail in sentencing discussed previously in this section, but with somewhat different distributions displayed on Table 23 where only the cases in which defendant criminal history was available are shown. A third important finding is that in the study cases, convicted defendants who had no adult record of prior convictions for crimes of misdemeanor or felony severity were least likely to receive a jail sentence, and those previously convicted of crimes of both prior misdemeanor and felony severity were most likely to receive a sentence involving jail time. In addition, the likelihood of the imposition of a jail sentence in cases in which convicted defendants had a criminal record only for previous convictions for crimes of
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 23 Sentence of Jail (including time-served sentences) for Defendants Convicted in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases for Selected Crime Categories by Criminal History, 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Any Sentence of Jail Prior Felony Combined Only Priors No Yes No Yes
No Prior Convictions No* Yes
Prior Misdemeanor Only No Yes
Drugs 1989 1998
62.3 70.6
37.7 29.4
43.6 39.1
56.4 60.9
60.0 54.3
40.0 45.7
36.8 35.1
63.2 64.9
52.4 49.7
47.6 50.3
Property 1989 1998
48.5 82.2
51.5 17.8
24.7 34.2
75.3 65.8
44.4 58.5
55.6 41.5
18.2 28.2
81.8 71.8
30.4 51.7
69.6 48.3
Fraud 1989 1998
45.7 59.5
54.3 40.5
26.7 33.9
73.3 66.1
1
1
48.6
51.4
22.2 30.5
77.8 69.5
34.6 41.3
65.4 58.7
Sex 1989 1998
22.2 72.9
77.8 27.1
12.6 30.8
87.4 69.2
1
1
69.2
30.8
5.9 26.4
94.1 73.6
14.9 50.0
85.1 50.0
Harm to Persons 1989 1998
93.4 93.3
6.6 6.7
57.6 68.2
42.4 31.8
37.5 82.7
62.5 17.3
37.5 57.4
62.5 42.6
70.5 82.6
29.5 17.4
Misconduct 1989 1998
58.2 57.0
41.8 43.0
43.0 36.9
57.0 63.1
47.4 47.4
52.6 52.6
34.4 31.5
65.6 68.5
47.0 43.2
53.0 56.8
Obstruction of Justice 1989 1998
56.8 75.2
43.2 24.8
37.0 48.0
63.0 52.0
62.5 65.0
37.5 35.0
17.4 39.7
82.6 60.3
42.1 59.2
57.9 40.8
Other 1989 1998
35.1 35.7
64.9 64.3
24.2 29.2
75.8 70.8
1
1
24.3
75.7
25.0 26.6
75.0 73.4
29.8 30.3
70.2 69.7
Weapon 1989 1998
71.9 83.1
28.1 16.9
41.7 61.2
58.3 38.8
1
1
50.0
50.0
23.5 41.1
76.5 58.9
54.0 68.3
46.0 31.7
All Cases** 1989 1998
58.9 71.3
41.1 28.7
34.7 38.1
65.3 61.9
54.0 55.2
46.0 44.8
29.3 33.5
70.7 66.5
44.8 50.1
55.2 49.9
Crime-Type Category
1
No
Total Yes
Insufficient cases for comparison
* 'No' indicates that most severe penalty was not a sentence of jail time, in comparison to those cases, in the 'yes' column, in which a sentence of either time served or post-conviction jail time was imposed as part of the conviction sanctions. ** Includes cases in all crime categories including those not shown.
-40 -
misdemeanor severity was greater than those with no prior convictions but less likely than those with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. These patterns are found not only in the aggregate for non-felony summary-arrest cases in which there was a conviction in the 1989 random sample and 3rd quarter 1998 data, but in virtually every crime category in each of the two time periods as well. The sentencing patterns in regard to the use of jail in cases in which the convicted defendants had adult criminal histories involving a conviction only for crimes of felony severity, in relationship to sentencing in the other criminal history categories, is more difficult to discern. Part of the problem is that the small number of cases in which defendants met this criterion affects the percentage distribution so that any interpretation should be made with caution. In almost every crime category with sufficient numbers of cases, the percentage of cases in which conviction carried a jail sentence was very comparable in 1989 and in 1998, and the likelihood of jail sentences for cases of defendants with a conviction history for crimes only of felony severity tended to be greater than for those without a record of any prior convictions. However, it is difficult to characterize the relative severity of this criminal history category in relation to other categories in which defendants had prior convictions. While one might think that having an adult criminal record of prior conviction for felony-severity crimes would rank as more serious than prior convictions for crimes only of misdemeanor severity, it is important to recall that the vast majority of defendants with only a felony conviction record had only a single such conviction, while defendants with a criminal record only of prior misdemeanor-severity convictions usually had multiple prior convictions. A somewhat different perspective on jail sentencing emerges for cases in which defendants’ criminal history was known when examining whether a jail sentence involved time served, or post-conviction jail time. Table 24 shows the relative proportions sentenced to post-conviction jail time (the ‘yes’ column) versus those given a jail sentence of time served (the ‘no’ column), by type of criminal history, for cases in which convicted defendants were sentenced to jail. In the aggregate, once a decision to impose jail has been decided, the overall likelihood of receiving a time-served or postconviction jail sentence did not differ very much between the two time periods.31 In addition, and as was found in the decision whether or not to impose any jail sentence, post-conviction jail time was least likely to be imposed in cases in which the convicted defendant had no prior adult convictions, and most likely to be imposed when defendants had a criminal history of prior adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. Overall, in the cases in both time periods, more than three-fourths of all convicted defendants with no prior adult convictions, who were sentenced to jail, received a timeserved sentence, while in more than half of the cases in both time periods defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity received 31
The percent of all cases in which defendants received post-conviction jail time is only for cases in which criminal history information was known. It differs somewhat from the percentages receiving postconviction jail time reported earlier in this section that was based on all cases in which defendants were convicted, including cases of defendants in which the prior conviction record was unknown.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 24 Sentence of Post-Conviction Jail Time for Defendants Convicted and Sentenced to Jail in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases for Selected Crime Categories by Criminal History, 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data
No Prior Convictions No* Yes
Post-Conviction Jail Time Prior Prior Misdemeanor Felony Combined Only Only Priors No Yes No Yes No Yes
Drugs 1989 1998
77.9 74.7
22.1 25.3
55.6 57.2
44.4 42.8
73.5 67.6
26.5 32.4
47.9 50.1
52.1 49.9
63.2 58.4
36.8 41.6
Property 1989 1998
53.0 57.7
47.0 42.3
14.7 14.6
85.3 85.4
30.0 43.6
70.0 56.4
12.2 12.8
87.8 87.2
22.5 20.7
77.5 79.3
Fraud 1989 1998
84.0 79.8
16.0 20.2
68.2 59.0
31.8 41.0
1
1
77.0
23.0
57.1 57.2
42.9 42.8
70.0 63.6
30.0 36.4
Sex 1989 1998
87.8 71.8
12.2 28.2
83.5 43.1
16.5 56.9
1
1
75.0
25.0
93.8 46.4
6.3 53.6
86.1 51.3
13.9 48.7
Harm to Persons 1989 1998
40.0 29.7
60.0 70.3
42.9 17.7
57.1 82.3
23.1
(100.0) 76.9
10.0 15.4
90.0 84.6
22.7 19.9
77.3 80.1
Misconduct 1989 1998
93.5 89.3
6.5 10.7
78.7 71.8
21.3 28.2
70.0 81.3
30.0 18.7
76.2 65.7
23.8 34.3
81.8 74.9
18.2 25.1
Obstruction of Justice 1989 1998
63.2 80.0
36.8 20.0
69.0 46.8
31.0 53.2
1
1
50.0
50.0
52.6 42.4
47.4 57.6
62.9 54.4
37.1 45.6
Other 1989 1998
95.8 94.7
4.2 5.3
96.0 91.1
4.0 8.9
1
1
80.0 87.3
20.0 12.7
92.4 91.4
7.6 8.6
Weapon 1989 1998
55.6 56.0
44.4 44.0
28.6 36.8
71.4 63.2
1
1
66.7
33.3
23.1 45.5
76.9 54.5
34.5 48.8
65.5 51.2
All Cases** 1989 1998
75.7 76.3
24.3 23.7
51.6 52.8
48.4 47.2
62.9 69.0
37.1 31.0
40.6 48.5
59.4 51.5
56.7 57.0
43.3 43.0
Crime-Type Category
1
(100.0)
No
Total Yes
Insufficient cases for comparison
* 'No' indicates that the jail sentence imposed was for time served, in comparison to post-conviction jail time, the 'yes' column. ** Includes cases in all crime categories including those not shown.
-41 -
sentences of post-conviction jail time when a jail sentence was imposed. And again, almost without exception, cases in which defendants had a criminal history of convictions for crimes only of misdemeanor severity were more likely to receive postconviction jail sentences than those without prior adult criminal convictions, and less likely to receive post-conviction jail time than those with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity. When conviction resulted in a jail sentence, a sentence of post-conviction jail time was imposed in slightly less than half of the cases in the data for both time periods in which convicted defendants had previous adult convictions for crimes only of misdemeanor severity. In many crime categories and/or criminal history types, the relative proportions receiving time-served and post-conviction jail sentences were far more similar between the two time periods than was the decision whether or not to impose any jail sentence. However, and unlike the decision whether or not to impose any sentence of jail, for many crime categories and/or criminal history types, convicted defendants in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases in which a jail sentence was imposed were proportionately more likely to receive post-conviction jail time, rather than a sentence of time served, than their counterparts in the 1989 random sample. This may be particularly worth noting in categories in which the arrest characteristics of cases and defendants were different in the two time periods. For example, sex crimes was a category in which there were noticeable differences in the characteristics of arrest charges and defendants between the two time periods. In the 1989 random sample data, there was a proportionately larger volume of arrests in this crime category, and the majority of cases involved defendants charged with prostitution acts. In comparison, sex-crime cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data were bifurcated between defendants, often with no or only minor criminal records, charged with patronizing prostitutes, and defendants charged as prostitutes who tended to have more extensive criminal histories. As was seen in Table 23, the likelihood of receiving a jail sentence upon conviction for a case in the sex-crime category was proportionately lower for every type of criminal history in the 1998 data. However, when there was a sentence of jail, Table 24 shows that post-conviction jail time, as opposed to a time-served sentence, was imposed in a proportionately greater percentage of the defendants in the 1998, than 1989 cases, for every type of criminal history, in which convicted defendants received a jail sentence. The drug crime category may be worth noting because of the similarity in the incarceration decision for convicted defendants receiving a jail sentence, and even the somewhat greater percentage receiving post-conviction jail time among those without prior adult criminal convictions in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases in comparison to the 1989 random sample cases. This was the only crime category in which the arrest charges were proportionately more likely to have been of B-misdemeanor rather than Amisdemeanor severity in the 1998 data, largely reflecting the proportionately larger percentage of arrests for marijuana in the later period. Although as in all other crime categories the likelihood of receiving a jail sentence for conviction for a drug crime was proportionately less in the 1998 than the 1989 cases, and especially among convicted defendants without previous adult convictions, once a decision was made to include a jail sentence in the sanctions for a conviction in a summary drug-arrest case, the percentages receiving time-served and post-conviction jail sentences were very comparable for defendants in each type of criminal history category.
-42 -
The harm-to-persons category is another instance in which there were changes in arrest-charge characteristics in the non-felony summary cases between the two time periods. Once again, while the percentage of cases in which convicted defendants receiving any jail sentence was smaller in the 3rd quarter 1998 data cases, than in the 1989 random sample cases, as seen on Table 24 when there was a jail sentence imposed on defendants convicted in this crime category, a greater percentage of convicted defendants in 1998 cases received a sentence of post-conviction jail time, especially among defendants with no prior adult convictions, or convictions only for crimes of misdemeanor severity. Although there was a greater likelihood of post-conviction jail time in the cases in the 1998 data when a jail sentence was imposed, in comparison to the likelihood of post-conviction jail time in the 1989 cases, the average amount of jail time was almost always less in cases of convicted defendants in the 1998 data. As can be seen in Table 25, the overall mean number of post-conviction jail days for all cases in the 1989 random sample in which convicted defendants received post-conviction jail time was about twice as long, and the difference statistically significant, as the overall mean number of jail days imposed in the cases in the 1998 subset in which the convicted defendants were sentenced to post-conviction incarceration.32 In addition, the median number of jail days was different, and in most cases lower, in every crime category between the 1998 subset of cases and the 1989 random sample cases. In the example of the drug category, where post-conviction jail sentences were more likely to be imposed in the 1998 cases in which a jail sentence was imposed on convicted defendants, the mean number of days of jail time was about half the sentence length than in the 1989 cases, and the difference was statistically significant at the .05 level. The sex crime category was one of the few instances in which the number of days of post-conviction jail time was longer in 1998 than in the 1989 cases in which convicted defendants received a post-conviction jail sentence. Care needs to be taken when examining differences in jail time among criminal history categories because the likelihood of conviction, charge reduction, and the sentencing decision upon conviction, often is affected by the criminal history of defendants. Following a well-established pattern in the criminal justice literature, defendants in this study who had no previous convictions for crimes of misdemeanor or felony severity were least likely to be convicted and therefore not subject to a jail decision, while those with adult criminal histories of convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity were most likely to be convicted. The likelihood of a conviction in cases in which defendants had prior adult convictions only of misdemeanor severity was somewhere between these other two categories. As discussed earlier, patterns in regard to cases in which defendants had previously been convicted only for crimes of felony severity are very difficult to discern, and usually too few in most crime categories to make meaningful comparisons. 32
Once again, the means, medians, and test of statistical significance were computed using all appropriate cases from the 1989 random sample, but only the 23.2% subset of comparable cases from rd the 3 quarter 1998 data set cases, to make this latter period equivalent to a 6.3% annualized random sample. See footnote 21, supra.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 25 Mean and Median Number of Post-Conviction Jail Days for Convicted Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases, by Arrest Crime Category: 1989 Random Sample and 1998 Subset 1989
1998
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Drugs*
24.5
10.0
12.4
7.0
Property*
55.7
30.0
34.7
20.0
Fraud
7.7
5.0
6.7
5.0
Sex Crimes
6.5
5.0
9.5
7.0
Harm to Persons
54.1
30.0
76.4
45.0
Misconduct
18.8
15.0
15.7
7.0
Obstruction of Justice
52.4
30.0
53.1
15.0
Other*
20.4
20.0
7.6
5.0
Weapon
34.4
9.1
18.1
10.0
1
1
1
1
39.1
20.0
19.9
7.0
Crime-Type Category
Harm to Persons and Property All Cases* 1
Insufficient cases for comparison
* Difference between the means is statistically significant at or below the .05 level
-43 -
There are a few generalizations that can be made about the relationship between type of prior criminal history and the amount of post-conviction jail time imposed in cases in which convicted defendants received a post-conviction jail sentence in the studied cases. First, in both time periods convicted defendants with no prior adult convictions received the smallest average (mean) number of jail days in cases in which a sentence of post-conviction jail time was imposed. In cases in which convicted defendants had prior convictions only for crimes of misdemeanor severity, average sentences of post-conviction jail time was greater than for those with no prior convictions, and cases in which defendants had prior convictions of both misdemeanor and felony severity received the greatest average number of days of post-conviction jail time. This pattern is found among all cases in which convicted defendants received post-conviction jail time, and in the crime categories with sufficient numbers of cases to make comparisons. Second, when examining the mean number of post-conviction jail days by type of criminal history, when there were sufficient cases for comparisons, the longest jail sentences were imposed in both time periods in cases in which defendants were convicted and sentenced to jail in the harm-to-persons and the property crime categories, and the shortest sentences were imposed in the fraud category. And lastly, the mean number of post-conviction jail days was less in 1998 than in the 1989 cases in every crime category and for every type of criminal history, when there were sufficient cases for comparisons. (Data not shown) Summary of Citywide Comparisons Between Cases and Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the 1989 Random Sample and 3rd Quarter 1998 Data Sets The comparative analysis of non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases between the 1989 random sample and the 3rd quarter 1998 data sets has shown that there were many differences in the composition of cases, defendant characteristics, and case processing and court outcomes. And, these differences were more than just changes in the relative proportion of cases among crime categories, but indicated substantial changes in the two study years in the types of cases and defendants being brought into the City’s criminal courts after an arrest for behavior statutorily classified as being of misdemeanor or lesser severity. In a crime category such as drug crime, there were relatively similar proportions of prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary arrests in both time periods, and over two of every five such prosecuted cases in the 1989 random sample and the 3rd quarter 1998 data involved a drug offense. However, the composition of these cases involved a substantial (and inter-related) change in both the type of controlled substance and severity of the arrest charge between the cases in the 1989 random sample and 3rd quarter 1998 data sets. In other crime categories, such as fraud, the charge characteristics appeared to be the same or quite similar, but the proportion of prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases was substantially different in the 1989 and 1998 data sets. There were notable differences in the characteristics of defendants in prosecuted non-felony cases between the two periods, suggesting an impact on defendant
-44 -
attributes related to changes in the composition of cases. In examining adult criminal history characteristics, the largest percentage of cases in both time had defendants without prior adult convictions. However, there was a larger percentage of cases of defendants in the 1998 data without an adult record of prior criminal convictions (54.1%) then were found in the 1989 cases (45.6%). Among those with criminal histories, there was a greater percentage of cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data in which defendants had adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity, and on average more such convictions, than were found among defendants in the cases in 1989 random sample. By contrast, a greater percentage of defendants in the 1989, than the 1998, cases had prior adult convictions for crimes only of misdemeanor severity. The age characteristics of defendants also were different. In the 1989 random sample cases, a greater proportion of defendants were between the ages of 26 and 35, while defendants in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases proportionately were more likely to fall into the younger, 16 through 25, or the older, 36 and older, age groups. In the 1998 prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases, a greater proportion of all cases were disposed at the Criminal Court arraignment, in comparison to 1989. In addition, in the 1998 random sample cases a smaller percentage were disposed by a conviction and a larger percentage by an ACD, in comparison to the cases in the 3rd quarter of 1998 data set. However, a smaller percentage of the cases in the 3rd quarter 1998 data had an outright dismissal than occurred in the 1989 random sample cases. Among all the prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in which there was a conviction, there was a greater likelihood of a change, almost always a reduction, between the arrest and conviction charge in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases than in the 1989 random sample cases. This pattern was found in most, but not all, of the examined crime categories, although the percentages of cases in which there was a change between the most severe arrest charge and conviction charge varied considerably among the crime categories. In addition, the adult criminal history of defendants was an important factor in charge-severity reduction between arrest and conviction charge. In the cases in which the defendant was convicted, the likelihood of a jail sentence (included time-served sentences) was greater overall in the 1989 random sample cases than in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases. However, in the drug, misconduct and other/unknown crime categories, a larger percentage of convicted defendants in the 3rd quarter 1998 cases, in comparison to the 1989 random sample cases, received a jail sentence. Among cases in which convicted defendants received a jail sentence, the likelihood of a sentence of post-conviction jail time was greater in the 3rd quarter 1998 data set cases than in the 1989 random sample cases. The larger percentage of all cases in 1998 with post-conviction jail time, in comparison to 1989, among cases of convicted defendants in which jail was the most severe sentence was found as well in every crime category except weapon crimes.
-45 -
PART II COMPARING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CASES AND DEFENDANTS IN PROSECUTED MISDEMEANOR AND LESSERSEVERITY SUMMARY ARRESTS IN 1989 AND 1998 USING ESTIMATED ANNUAL VOLUMES In the previous sections of this report comparisons have been made based on the proportional representation of cases, defendant attributes, and court decisionmaking in prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases between the 1989 random sample and the 3rd quarter 1998 data sets. This was done because each data set contained different proportions of the annual volume of prosecuted arrests recorded by CJA in its automated computer system. In this part of the study report, the differences and impact of changes suggested by the analysis in PART I are examined using whole numbers, based on estimated annual volume in each year, rather than just proportional comparisons. The 1989 data set, from which prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases were selected for this study, was based on randomly sampling the population of cases throughout calendar year 1989. The sampling procedure used resulted in a data set representing 6.3 percent of the annual volume of prosecuted cases of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment in 1989. This means that each sampled case was representative of 15.96 cases in the full year’s population recorded by CJA in its automated database. Therefore, weighting each case by a factor of 15.96 closely approximates in numbers, in the characteristics of cases and defendants, and in court decision-making, the full volume of prosecuted cases in that year. By contrast, the 1998 data set was comprised of all prosecuted cases in a threemonth period, (July, August and September), of calendar year 1998. After eliminating all Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) cases, the 3rd quarter 1998 data set represented 27.1 percent of the annual volume, found in CJA’s database, of prosecuted cases of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment in 1998. Therefore, multiplying each case by a factor of 3.69 creates approximately the annual volume of cases in 1998. However, the resulting data set is not completely representative of the composition of prosecuted cases and defendants in the year. This is because of known factors such as seasonal variation in type as well as volume of arrests, or increasingly restrictive police policy regarding the issuance of DATs that occurred during 1998, and less well documented considerations such as changes in the deployment of police for geographic and other tactical reasons. In addition, a comparison of CJA’s Semi-Annual Reports for the first and second halves of 1998, and review of unpublished CJA data, do suggest that there were modest changes in the composition of prosecuted cases by arrestcharge severities and crime categories, and in Criminal Court decision making, such as a slightly higher percentage of ACDs and dismissals at arraignment in the later half of 1998. In the aggregate, however, there is nothing to suggest substantial changes between the third quarter and the other quarters of 1998 in strategic programmatic efforts by law enforcement, or in the broad patterns of Criminal Court case dispositions. One still should keep in mind in reading the comparisons between 1989 and 1998 in this
-46 -
part of the study report that the annualized data for 1998 is a less precise approximation of the year than are the data for 1989. Citywide Arrest Characteristics in Prosecuted Cases of Defendants Held for Criminal Court Arraignment in Misdemeanor and Lesser-Severity, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized Data for 1989 and 1998 Table 26 shows the overall magnitude of the differences in the annualized volume in 1989 in comparison to 1998, and the differences in the distribution of arrest charge severities in summary-arrest cases in which prosecuted defendants were both arrested and arraigned in the New York City Criminal Court system for misdemeanor and lesser-severity, non-VTL charges. The overall estimated annual volume of such cases in 1998 was more than double the approximated volume in 1989, 176,432 versus 86,822, respectively.33 The number of A-misdemeanor severity charges was slightly less than twice as many in 1998 in comparison to 1989, 120,685 versus 66,857, while the volume of B-misdemeanor severity summary-arrest cases was almost five times greater, from an annualized volume of 9,208 in 1989, to 43,540 in 1998. The rate of change was less for violation-severity charges, and the projected number of cases with charges of lesser or unknown severity, was slightly less in the annualized 1998 data than in the 1989 data, some of which is affected by changes in the way CJA received charge information that reduced the inability to classify multiple-severity penal law charges in the later time period. This reduced the percentage of penal law arrest charges assigned to the unknown-severity category, redistributing them into other severity classifications, but the relatively small percentage of such cases, would not explain the magnitude of the proportional shift in charge severities in the other categories.34 The first column of Table 27 displays for each year the estimated total number of prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases, and their percentage of the total volume, in descending order. The next four columns show the distribution by charge severity within each crime category. As discussed in PART I, the largest proportion of cases in each year’s volume was in the drug crime category, and the percentage of all non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in this crime category was fairly comparable in 1989 and 1998. However, volume change and the magnitude of the impact from the shift in the severity pattern of arrest charges, due largely to an enormous increase in enforcement efforts involving marijuana, also is well illustrated. In 1998, the volume of A-misdemeanor severity drug arrests was about twenty percent, 33
Because of the way the data analysis software implements the weighting procedure, the annualized number of cases may vary in each computation due to the rounding that occurs when the program encounters a fractional number of cases in any category. 34
In both time periods the unknown/other severity category mostly included cases with non-penal law charges. However, also included in this category are cases involving multiple-severity penal law charges when the specific severity level of the charge is unknown. Almost all such cases involved prostitutionrelated offenses of undetermined severity only in 1998 cases in the sex crime category. This affected comparability between cases in 1989 and 1998 in the sex-crimes, but not in other crime categories.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 26 Arrest Charge Severity Distribution: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data 1989 N
1998 %
N
%
% change
A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation Lesser Severity/ Unknown
66,857 9,208 2,633
77.0% 10.6% 3.0%
120,685 43,540 4,214
68.4% 24.7% 2.4%
80.5% 372.8% 60.0%
8,124
9.4%
7,993
4.5%
-1.6%
Total
86,822
100.0%
176,432
100.0%
103.2%
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 27 Distribution of Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases, by CJA Crime Category and Charge Severities: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data 1989 Crime Type
Drugs Property Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Misconduct Obstructing Justice Other Weapon Fraud Harm-to-Personsand-Property Total*
Total N % 35,702 41.1% 13,598 15.7% 10,087 11.6% 8,155 9.4% 7,868 9.1% 3,479 4.0% 3,320 3.8% 2,330 2.7% 2,187 2.5%
A Misdemeanor N % 34,282 96.0% 13,598 100.0% 527 5.2% 7,884 96.7% 2,905 36.9% 3,272 94.1% ----2,330 100.0% 1,963 89.8%
B Misdemeanor N % 1,133 3.2% ----4,884 48.4% 271 3.3% 2,665 33.9% 207 5.9% --------48 2.2%
Violation N % 287 0.8% ------------2,282 29.0% ----64 1.9% ---------
Other/Unknown N % --------4,676 46.4% ----16 0.2% ----3,256 98.1% ----176 8.0%
96
0.1%
96
100.0%
---
---
---
---
---
---
86,822
100.0%
66,857
77.0%
9,208
10.6%
2,633
3.0%
8,124
9.4%
1998 Crime Type
Drugs Fraud Harm to Persons Misconduct Property Other/Not Available Sex Crimes Obstructing Justice Weapon Harm-to-Personsand-Property Total*
Total N % 74,321 42.1% 24,579 13.9% 21,634 12.3% 17,214 9.8% 15,863 9.0% 8,019 4.5% 7,764 4.4% 4,956 2.8% 2,049 1.2% 33 176,432
A Misdemeanor N % 41,653 56.0% 24,254 98.7% 20,579 95.1% 9,118 53.0% 15,719 99.1% ----2,546 32.8% 4,749 95.8% 2,041 99.6%
0.0%
B Misdemeanor N % 31,738 42.7% 325 1.3% 1,048 4.8% 4,897 28.4% 144 0.9% ----5,181 66.7% 196 4.0% 4 0.2%
Violation N % 930 1.3% ----7 0.0% 3,199 18.6% ----26 0.3% 37 0.5% 11 0.2% 4 0.2%
Other/Unknown N % --------------------7,993 99.7% -------------
26
78.8%
7
21.2%
---
---
---
---
100.0% 120,685
68.4%
43,540
24.7%
4,214
2.4%
7,993
4.5%
* Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
-47 -
or one-fifth greater, in 1998 than in 1989. By contrast, the volume of an estimated 31,738 arrests for B-misdemeanor severity drug arrests in 1998 was twenty-eight times greater than the annualized volume of 1,133 prosecuted arrests for B-misdemeanor drug crimes in 1989. In other categories, differences in the two time periods far more reflect a change in the volume but not the charge characteristics of cases resulting from different enforcement emphases. For example, cases in the fraud crime category increased from 2.5 percent of all misdemeanor and lesser-severity prosecuted summary-arrest cases in 1989, to 13.9 percent of the prosecuted non-felony arrests in 1998, and in actual numbers increased more then tenfold, from 2,187 cases in the annualized 1989 data set to 24,579 cases in the annualized 1998 data set. The nature of the arrest charges, overwhelming arrests for the A-misdemeanor theft-of-services crime, did not vary very much in the two periods, so that this represents a crime category in which there was predominantly an enormous increase in volume but not a change in the charge characteristics. This also applies to situations in which there were a smaller percentage of arrests in 1998 than in 1989, and in three of these instances the resulting estimated volume of cases was lower. For example, the weapon crime category, in which at the non-felony level contains only a single charge, the A-misdemeanor crime of possession of a weapon in the 4th degree, (PL 265.01), is one of only three categories in which the proportional decrease in arrests in 1998 resulted in a smaller number of arrests in comparison to estimated annual arrest volume in 1989. Sex crimes is one category in which there was not only a change in charge characteristics but a decrease in estimated annual volume in 1998, based on a smaller percentage of arrests in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Misconduct is a category that illustrates increased volume, and changes in both arrest charge and severity characteristics. In terms of volume, the estimated number of cases in this crime category overall more than doubled, rising from 7,868 in 1998 to 17,214 in the 1998 annualized data. However, because of the increased relative proportion in 1998 of Amisdemeanor, in comparison to other severity charges, the number of A-misdemeanor cases in the misconduct category was more than three times the annualized volume in 1989, rising from 2,905 to 9,118 cases. The estimated volume of B-misdemeanor severity cases in the misconduct category was less than twice as large in 1998 in comparison to 1989, and violation severity charges was less than one-and-a half times greater in the later period.
-48 -
Citywide Characteristics of Defendants in Misdemeanor and Lesser-Severity, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized Data for 1989 and 1998 Table 28 shows how the annualized volume is represented by type of criminal history in the two time periods for cases of defendants for which criminal history information was available. Among the four criminal history categories shown on the top of Table 28, the number of cases with defendants without prior adult convictions for crimes of misdemeanor or felony severity, and for defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity, was almost two and one-half times as large in the annualized data of non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in 1998 than in 1989. Put another way, there were about 51,000 more cases in 1998 in which defendants had no prior adult criminal history of criminal convictions, and about 20,500 more cases in 1998 of defendants with prior adult criminal convictions of crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity, than there were in 1989. There were much smaller increases in 1998 for cases of defendants in the other criminal history categories, about 10,000 more cases in which defendants had previously been convicted of crimes only of misdemeanor severity, and an increase of fewer than 6,000 cases in which defendants had previously been convicted only for crimes of felony severity, in comparison to the estimated annual number of cases of defendants with these criminal history characteristics. As discussed in PART I, in the aggregate and in most crime categories the mean age of defendants in the 1998 cases was somewhat older than the mean age of defendants in the prosecuted non-felony cases in the 1989 data, although the differences were only about three or so years in most instances. However, as also described previously, the age distribution in the two time periods was quite different. Part of the explanation lies in the differences in the age composition of defendants in the non-felony, summary-arrest cases in the two time periods, which may be masked by averaging. In the 1989 data, defendants in most of the study cases were in the mid age-group brackets, while in the 1998 data the average age reflected combining substantial numbers of defendants in the younger and older age brackets. The result of this mathematical artifact was that the computed average age was fairly similar. Another difference resulted from the relationship between age and criminal history, and the fact that a larger percentage of defendants in the 1998, than in the 1989, cases had prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity, and more of them, which would lead to an older average age in the 1998 cases among cases of defendants with this type of criminal history. Table 29 compares the age-group distributions of defendants by the type of criminal history, for cases in which defendant criminal history information was available, among selected crime categories and for all study cases. This table uses estimated case volume from the annualized data sets in place of the percentages previously shown on Table 15. For all prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in which defendants had no prior adult convictions, the total number of cases in this criminal history category was about two and a third times greater in 1998 than in 1989, (88,921 versus 38,129). However, the number of defendants without prior convictions in the 1620 age group was more than five times greater in 1998 than in 1989, (27,217 versus
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 28 Criminal History of Defendants in Misdemeanor and Lesser Severity Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data 1989 N
1998 %
N
%
No Prior Convictions Only Misdemeanor Convictions Only Felony Convictions Both Felony and Misdemeanor Convictions
38,160 20,604 3,623
49.4% 26.7% 4.7%
89,132 30,896 9,524
54.1% 18.7% 5.8%
14,795
19.2%
35,313
21.4%
Total
77,182
100.0%
164,865
100.0%
Prior Convictions
N
%
N
%
Only Misdemeanor Convictions Only Felony Convictions Both Felony and Misdemeanor Convictions
20,604 3,623
52.8% 9.3%
30,896 9,524
40.8% 12.6%
14,795
37.9%
35,313
46.6%
Total
39,022
100.0%
75,733
100.0%
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 29 Distribution of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Age Group and Criminal History in Selected Crime Categories: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions ChargeType Category
No Prior Convictions 1989 1998
Prior Misdemeanor Only 1989 1998
Prior Felony Only 1989 1998
Combined Priors 1989 1998
Total 1989 1998
Drugs: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older
2,218 4,070 4,501 3,814 2,059 1,915
12,686 8,103 4,642 3,897 3,546 4,874
495 1,596 2,250 1,835 1,181 686
982 1,675 1,624 2,258 2,395 3,749
128 335 415 415 319 144
439 1,077 819 860 616 801
112 1,468 1,676 1,692 1,053 798
321 1,244 2,395 3,598 3,823 4,672
2,953 7,469 8,842 7,756 4,612 3,543
14,428 12,099 9,480 10,613 10,380 14,096
18,577
37,748
8,043
12,683
1,756
4,612
6,799
16,053
35,175
71,096
16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older
702 1,149 1,213 830 367 351
2,734 1,244 1,074 764 542 841
367 1,005 1,325 1,181 559 415
262 347 480 697 738 745
80 96 112 48 80 32
63 55 96 111 70 59
96 543 1,021 878 670 271
41 192 624 1,162 945 1,004
1,245 2,793 3,671 2,937 1,676 1,069
3,100 1,838 2,274 2,734 2,295 2,649
Total
4,612
7,199
4,852
3,269
448
454
3,479
3,968
13,391
14,890
112 367 287 207 48 32
5,273 2,325 1,317 1,144 871 1,199
32 96 207 128 16 80
343 443 380 867 897 1,402
16 16 0 16 16 0
77 229 214 221 166 155
48 80 48 112 128 48
70 273 734 1,410 1,399 1,786
208 559 542 463 208 160
5,763 3,270 2,645 3,642 3,333 4,542
1,053
12,129
559
4,332
64
1,062
464
5,672
2,140
23,195
Total
Property:
Fraud: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 29 (continued) Distribution of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Age Group and Criminal History in Selected Crime Categories: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions ChargeType Category
No Prior Convictions 1989 1998
Prior Misdemeanor Only 1989 1998
Prior Felony Only 1989 1998
Combined Priors 1989 1998
Total 1989 1998
Sex: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older
144 303 383 319 176 48
568 782 502 539 428 638
128 463 734 335 112 48
255 476 347 402 266 232
0 32 32 0 0 0
4 30 26 30 4 33
0 64 112 48 32 16
4 52 225 232 210 133
272 862 1,261 702 320 112
831 1,340 1,100 1,203 908 1,036
1,373
3,457
1,820
1,978
64
127
272
856
3,529
6,418
16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older
654 1,069 1,037 894 654 926
2,520 2,568 2,384 2,291 1,649 2,520
80 287 255 303 223 144
203 376 332 491 483 782
48 96 160 48 32 0
133 369 280 306 192 225
48 160 303 239 144 160
33 236 406 620 542 624
830 1,612 1,755 1,484 1,053 1,230
2,889 3,549 3,402 3,708 2,866 4,151
Total
5,234
13,932
1,292
2,667
384
1,505
1,054
2,461
7,964
20,565
782 750 686 495 303 495
2,085 1,236 1,011 1,114 948 1,494
128 463 527 287 255 527
299 321 413 609 590 1,004
32 128 128 64 32 48
92 251 188 188 140 177
32 303 287 319 176 192
44 229 509 849 919 1,092
974 1,644 1,628 1,165 766 1,262
2,520 2,037 2,121 2,760 2,597 3,767
3,511
7,888
2,187
3,236
432
1,036
1,309
3,642
7,439
15,802
Total
Harm To Persons:
Misconduct: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 29 (continued) Distribution of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Age Group and Criminal History in Selected Crime Categories: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions ChargeType Category
No Prior Convictions 1989 1998
Prior Misdemeanor Only 1989 1998
Prior Felony Only 1989 1998
Combined Priors 1989 1998
Total 1989 1998
Obstruction of Justice: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older
271 335 271 271 255 223
587 461 395 373 310 491
64 176 255 176 128 96
63 96 111 122 192 280
16 48 64 0 48 16
30 63 44 44 22 74
32 80 160 128 64 96
18 77 133 225 151 229
383 639 750 575 495 431
698 697 683 764 675 1,074
1,626
2,617
895
864
192
277
560
833
3,273
4,591
16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older
48 144 176 239 80 144
292 424 365 395 458 705
0 80 160 160 64 128
44 133 107 247 391 605
16 16 48 0 16 32
30 55 59 55 30 103
0 16 64 112 80 80
15 52 155 325 321 598
64 256 448 511 240 384
381 664 686 1,022 1,200 2,011
Total
831
2,639
592
1,527
128
332
352
1,466
1,903
5,964
5,123 8,491 8,794 7,326 4,038 4,357
27,217 17,365 11,845 10,668 8,819 13,007
1,309 4,245 5,793 4,501 2,570 2,187
2,487 3,930 3,841 5,712 5,993 8,867
335 798 1,005 622 559 303
893 2,137 1,756 1,845 1,251 1,635
383 2,825 3,814 3,591 2,442 1,724
554 2,395 5,247 8,472 8,369 10,207
7,150 16,359 19,406 16,040 9,609 8,571
31,151 25,827 22,689 26,697 24,432 33,716
38,129
88,921
20,605
30,830
3,622
9,517
14,779
35,244
77,135 164,512
Total
Other:
All Cases*: 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and older Total
* Includes cases in all crime categories including those not shown.
-49 -
5,123), and cases of defendants in the 41 and older age group were about three times larger, (13,037 versus 4,357). By contrast, the number of 1998 cases of defendants without prior convictions in the 31-35 year age group was only about forty-five percent larger than in 1989, (10,668 versus 7,326). At the other end of the criminal history spectrum, in the 1998 annualized data there were less than two and a half times more cases in which defendants had prior adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severities than in 1989 (35,244 versus 14,779). However, the number of cases in the 1998 data in which defendants in this criminal history category were in the 41 and older age group was almost six times larger than in 1989, (10,207 versus 1,724), while the number of cases in which defendants were between 21 and 25 was less in 1998 than in 1989, (2,395 versus 2,825). Among all prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in which defendant criminal history was known, the number of cases in the 1998 data in which defendants were in the 16-20 age group was more than four times greater, and the number of cases in which defendants were in the 41 and older age group almost four times larger, than in 1989. By contrast, the number of cases in which defendants were in the 26-30 year age group was only about fifteen percent larger in 1998 than in 1989. The larger numbers of cases in which defendants had no prior adult criminal convictions who fell into the 16-20 year age group is particularly striking in some of the crime categories with the largest volume of prosecuted non-felony summary arrests. For example, in the drug crime category, which had the largest volume of prosecuted non-felony summary arrests in both time periods, but in which the charges and their severities were differently distributed, there were about twice as many cases in 1998 than in 1989 in which the defendants had no previous adult criminal convictions. However, among defendants without any previous adult criminal convictions in the drug category there were more than five and a half times as many cases in 1998 in which defendants were in the 16-20 age bracket, but fairly similar numbers of cases in which defendants fell between the ages of 26-30 and 31-35. Property crime provides another illustration of the increase in arrests of more youthful defendants in cases in which defendants had no prior criminal convictions. In this crime category the volume of non-felony summary arrests changed, there were only modest charge changes, and severity characteristics were relatively unchanged, with the majority all arrests in both the 1989 and 1998 data involving the A-misdemeanor severity petit larceny (i.e., shoplifting) charge. Yet in this category as well, there was a noticeable change in the distribution of cases among the age groups for defendants without prior criminal convictions, which it is unlikely could be accounted for by the modest change in charge characteristics. The overall number of property-crime cases involving defendants without criminal convictions was less than double in 1998 in comparison to 1989, but the number of prosecuted cases of defendants with no prior convictions was almost four times larger in the 16-20 year age group, while the number of cases of defendants in the 26-30 and 31-35 age brackets was actually less in 1998 than in 1989. The drug and property crime categories also illustrate the pattern seen in a number of crime categories, that recidivist defendants, especially among those with
-50 -
prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severities, were proportionately older in 1998 than in 1989. In prosecuted non-felony drug cases there were somewhat less than two and half times more cases in 1998 than in 1989 involving defendants with prior misdemeanor and felony convictions, yet almost six times as many cases in 1998 involved defendants 41 and older, while there were fewer cases of defendants in the 21-25 year age range. In the property crime category, with only several hundred more cases in 1998 in which defendants had prior convictions for crimes of misdemeanor and felony severities, there were almost four times as many defendants in the 41 and older bracket in 1998, while there were roughly twice as many cases in the 16-20, 21-25, and 26-30 year age groups in 1989. In the fraud category, in which in both periods almost all arrests were for the Amisdemeanor theft-of-services charge, the increase in the proportion of arrests in this crime category in 1998 in comparison to 1989, coupled with the larger volume of arrests in the later time period, resulted in a more than ten-fold increase in volume in the fraud category in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Examining age group distributions among criminal history categories in the fraud crime category on Table 29 starkly illustrates what the proportional shift in enforcement and volume means in terms of the numbers of prosecuted cases of young offenders without prior criminal convictions, and older, recidivist offenders. In other crime categories, such as obstruction of justice, or the “other crimes� category, which in both periods contained relatively small proportions of cases, the age group distributions of defendants within criminal record categories did not seem to vary greatly. Table 30 illustrates the impact on the sex and ethnicity attributes of defendants in the 1998 and 1989 misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases as a result of changes in the composition of cases. In 1998, in which the estimated annual volume was about twice as large as in 1989, the number of cases with male defendants, and the number of Hispanic defendants were almost two and one-half times greater in 1998 then in 1989, while the number of cases with women defendants was only about one and a half times greater, and the number of cases of White defendants was only about one and a third times greater in 1998 than in 1989. Finally, while the proportion of Black defendants was virtually the same in both years, the actual number of such defendants was twice as large in 1998 than in 1989, 90,394 in comparison to 45,183. Overall, enforcement strategies in 1998 were about more than just doubling the volume of non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases being brought into the Criminal Courts for arraignment. Clearly the nature of these arrests altered the characteristics of defendants in the prosecuted cases in 1998 in comparison to 1989. The age distribution, adult criminal history, sex and ethnicity of defendants differed in the two time periods, sometimes perhaps in response to different types of charges in crime categories, but sometimes also in crime categories in which the charges seemed relatively similar.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 30 Comparison of Sex and Ethnicity in the Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data 1989 N
1998 %
N
%
Sex Male Female
66,410 19,328
77.5% 22.5%
145,523 30,730
82.6% 17.4%
Total
85,738
100.0%
176,253
100.0%
Ethnicity
N
%
N
%
Black White Hispanic Other
45,183 16,423 23,222 1,995
52.0% 18.9% 26.7% 2.3%
90,394 22,712 55,870 6,535
51.5% 12.9% 31.8% 3.7%
Total
86,823
100.0%
175,511
100.0%
-51 -
Case Processing: Criminal Court Dispositions Table 31 shows the differences between the two years in regard to both the type of final disposition, and whether cases were completed at or subsequent to the Criminal Court arraignment. Although in total a greater number of defendants prosecuted in nonfelony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases were convicted in the 1998 annualized data than in the 1989 annualized data, the conviction rate was lower in 1998 than in 1989. In addition, in both time periods convictions were about four times more likely to occur by a guilty plea at arraignment than by a post-arraignment conviction, virtually all of which also were pleas rather than trial findings of guilt. (Among the non-felony cases in the annualized 1989 data there were trial findings of guilt in only 1,469, or 2.4%, of the cases with a conviction outcome, and in 1,739, or 1.7% of the cases in the annualized 1998 data.35 Data not shown.) Table 31 also illustrates the extent to which the use of the ACD was far more prevalent, and its proportionally greater use as a means of case disposition at arraignment, in 1998 than in 1989. In the 1998 annualized data, 52,956, or 30 percent of the cases were disposed by an ACD, more than four of every five of which occurred at the arraignment appearance. In comparison, in the annualized 1989 data, 9,895, or 11.4 percent, of the study cases had an ACD, and the occurrence of this outcome was only slightly more likely at, rather than post, arraignment. By contrast, outright dismissals were most likely to occur at a post-arraignment appearance in both time periods, and there were only several thousand more dismissals in the 1989 cases than in the 1998 cases, even though there were a smaller percentage of dismissals in the later period. Table 32 shows the type of final Criminal Court outcome in each year for the annualized volume of all prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases,36 and then for each of the ten CJA crime categories used to characterize cases by arrest charge in this research project. In spite of an overall lower conviction rate in 1998 in comparison to 1989, 59.2 versus 72.1 percent, given the larger volume of cases in 1998 than in 1989, almost 42,000 more cases in the latter time period had a conviction outcome. This pattern, of larger numbers of cases in 1998 than in 1989 resulting in a Criminal Court conviction disposition even though the percentage of cases with a conviction was smaller, was replicated in all but three crime categories. Only in the harm-to-persons and weapon categories were the conviction rates higher in the annualized 1998 cases, and in the latter category the actual number of cases in which defendants were convicted was greater in 1989 than in 1998, due in part to the somewhat larger number of cases in this crime category in the earlier time period. In addition, because of the far greater prevalence of ACD outcomes in the 1998 data, more than five times as many prosecuted non-felony cases in the annualized 1998 35
Out of a total of 1,581 non-felony, summary-arrest cases with a trial outcome in the annualized 1989 data this calculates to a 92.9% conviction rate, and out of a total of 1,828 trial verdicts in the annualized 1998 data a 95.1% conviction rate for cases adjudicated by trial. 36
The small number of cases without a known outcome is excluded.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 31 Criminal Court Outcomes in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data 1989 OUTCOMES
N
1998 %
N
%
Conviction Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal Convictions
46,747 15,721 62,468
54.1% 18.2% 72.2%
82,280 22,077 104,357
46.6% 12.5% 59.2%
ACD Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal ACDs
5,442 4,453 9,895
6.3% 5.1% 11.4%
43,273 9,683 52,956
24.5% 5.5% 30.0%
Dismissal Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal Dismissals
1,596 8,443 10,039
1.8% 9.8% 11.6%
2,860 12,885 15,745
1.6% 7.3% 8.9%
3,846 192 32 4,070
4.4% 0.2% 0.0% 4.7%
2,155 1,096 107 3,358
1.2% 0.6% 0.1% 1.9%
86,472
100.0%
176,416
100.0%
Other Dispositions Warrant Order Pending Other Outcomes* Subtotal Other Dispositions Total**
* This category includes all transfers to other court jurisdictions, such as the Family Court, which may have occurred at or subsequent to the Criminal Court arraignment appearance, but excludes the small number of cases with an unknown case status at the time the data sets were created. ** Total may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 32 Criminal Court Outcomes, by Arrest Crime Category, in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, 1
Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data 1989 Crime Category
N
1998 %
N
%
Drugs: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other* Total2
27,946 3,016 2,953 1,788 35,703
78.3% 8.4% 8.3% 5.0% 100.0%
45,941 24,764 2,900 715 74,320
61.8% 33.3% 3.9% 1.0% 100.0%
Property Crime: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total
10,773 766 1,229 782 13,550
79.5% 5.7% 9.1% 5.8% 100.0%
12,088 2,642 738 395 15,863
76.2% 16.7% 4.7% 2.5% 100.0%
Fraud: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total
1,740 303 96 48 2,187
79.6% 13.9% 4.4% 2.2% 100.0%
15,550 8,539 362 129 24,580
63.3% 34.7% 1.5% 0.5% 100.0%
Sex Crimes: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total
9,209 431 367 80 10,087
91.3% 4.3% 3.6% 0.8% 100.0%
6,007 1,395 196 167 7,765
77.4% 18.0% 2.5% 2.2% 100.0%
Harm to Persons: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total
2,426 2,362 2,809 559 8,156
29.7% 29.0% 34.4% 6.9% 100.0%
7,262 5,210 7,989 1,173 21,634
33.6% 24.1% 36.9% 5.4% 100.0%
1
The numbers of cases shown, and the percentage calculations, exclude the small number of cases for which the court outcome was not known.
2
The total in each category may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* "Other" outcome in each crime category includes non-disposed cases, most of which had a warrant ordered for the defendant, as well as cases transferred to other court jurisdictions for final disposition.
Table 32 (continued) Criminal Court Outcomes, by Arrest Crime Category, in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data 1989
1998
Crime Category
N
Misconduct: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total
4,964 1,468 1,165 271 7,868
63.1% 18.7% 14.8% 3.4% 100.0%
9,952 5,136 1,793 332 17,213
57.8% 29.8% 10.4% 1.9% 100.0%
Obstruction of Justice: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total
2,011 702 575 192 3,480
57.8% 20.2% 16.5% 5.5% 100.0%
2,358 1,399 930 270 4,957
47.6% 28.2% 18.8% 5.4% 100.0%
Other Crimes: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total
2,282 351 303 368 3,304
69.1% 10.6% 9.2% 11.1% 100.0%
4,111 3,432 387 85 8,015
51.3% 42.8% 4.8% 1.1% 100.0%
Weapon: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total
1,085 479 543 224 2,331
46.5% 20.5% 23.3% 9.6% 100.0%
1,066 432 450 99 2,047
52.1% 21.1% 22.0% 4.8% 100.0%
80 16 0 0 96
83.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
22 7 0 4 33
66.7% 21.2% 0.0% 12.1% 100.0%
62,516 9,894 10,040 4,312 86,762
72.1% 11.4% 11.6% 5.0% 100.0%
104,357 52,956 15,745 3,369 176,427
59.2% 30.0% 8.9% 1.9% 100.0%
Harm to Persons and Property: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total All Cases: Conviction ACD Dismissal/Acquittal Other Total
%
N
%
-52 -
data, than in the 1989 data, had an ACD outcome; 52,956 cases in 1998 in comparison to 9,894 cases in the estimated annual volume in 1989. By contrast, there were fewer than 6,000 more cases with a dismissal in the estimated annual volume in 1998 than in the annualized 1989 volume, 15,745 versus 10,040. These comparisons help to underscore the differences in outcomes between the two periods. Because there were about twice as many prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in 1998 than in 1989, if disposition patterns had remained unchanged, the number of cases in each disposition category would have been about twice as large in 1998 than in 1989. It also is interesting to note how the differences in the two time periods in the relative percentage of cases among the crime categories affected the annualized volume and the comparative numbers of cases in the different disposition categories. For example, the number of cases in the property crime category, which had the second largest proportion of prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases in the 1989 data, but the fifth largest proportion of cases in the 1998 data, had an estimated annual volume of only several thousand fewer cases in 1989. In addition, the conviction rate was fairly comparable in both time periods. This is in striking comparison to the fraud category, which had the second smallest percentage of cases in 1989, but the second largest percentage of cases in the 1998 data. In annualized numbers, this represents a volume of cases in 1998 that, as has previously been noted, was more than ten times larger than in 1989. In the sex-crimes category, which had the third largest proportion of prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in the 1989 data, in comparison to being only the seventh largest category in the 1998 data, there were still almost two and one-half times more cases in the estimated annual volume in 1998 than in 1989, and almost twice as many cases in which defendants were convicted in the later period even though there was a lower conviction rate in this crime category. Criminal history also is a factor in the likelihood of conviction. As shown on Table 33, in non-felony summary-arrest cases for which defendant criminal history was available, defendants without prior criminal convictions were least likely to be convicted in both time periods. However, given the far larger number of cases of defendants without prior convictions in the 1998 data the twenty percentage point lower conviction rate still resulted in a more than fifty percent increase in the actual number of cases in which defendants in this criminal history category were convicted in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Conversely, cases of defendants with prior adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity were the most likely to be convicted. With larger volume, greater proportion of cases which had defendants with prior convictions of both felony and misdemeanor severity, and on average more combined total convictions which may contribute to even higher conviction rates, there were more than two and a half times more cases of convicted defendants in this criminal history category in the 1998 annualized set in comparison to 1989. A related issue is the different consequences defendants face depending upon the severity of the conviction charge. First, the severity of the conviction charge structures the maximum amount of jail time, fine amounts, and length of other sanctions or periods of continued supervision by the criminal justice system, as well as affecting the amount of court fees. Second, a conviction for a “crime� that becomes part of an
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 33 Criminal Court Outcome for Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Defendant Criminal History: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Prior Adult Convictions ChargeType Category
No Prior Convictions N %
Prior Misdemeanor Only N %
Prior Felony Only N %
17,364 782 1,899 559 0
2,426 271 654 255 16
Combined Priors N %
Total N
%
1989 Conviction ACD Dismissal Not Disposed Other
23,445 7,278 4,995 2,346 48
61.5% 19.1% 13.1% 6.2% 0.1%
84.3% 3.8% 9.2% 2.7% 0.0%
67.0% 7.5% 18.1% 7.0% 0.4%
11,475 606 2,043 670 0
77.6% 4.1% 13.8% 4.5% 0.0%
54,710 8,937 9,591 3,830 64
70.9% 11.6% 12.4% 5.0% 0.1%
Total
38,112 100.0% 49.4%
20,604 100.0% 26.7%
3,622 100.0% 4.7%
14,794 100.0% 19.2%
77,132 100.0% 100.0%
Conviction ACD Dismissal Not Disposed Other
36,262 42,092 8,956 1,771 48
25,085 2,982 2,314 509 7
6,450 1,653 1,203 202 15
30,166 2,221 2,358 554 15
97,963 48,948 14,831 3,036 85
Total
89,129 100.0%
1998 40.7% 47.2% 10.0% 2.0% 0.1%
54.1%
81.2% 9.7% 7.5% 1.6% 0.0%
30,897 100.0% 18.7%
67.7% 17.4% 12.6% 2.1% 0.2%
9,523 100.0% 5.8%
85.4% 6.3% 6.7% 1.6% 0.0%
59.4% 29.7% 9.0% 1.8% 0.1%
35,314 100.0% 164,863 100.0% 21.4%
100.0%
-53 -
offender’s official criminal record requires that the severity of the conviction charge be at least of misdemeanor (or misdemeanor-equivalent) severity; conviction charges of lesser severity in the Penal Law or VTL, or in local law codes, normally result in the sealing of all arrest and court records of the case after compliance with all sanctions imposed for the conviction. Case Processing: Charge Change in Cases with a Conviction Outcome Table 34A displays the severity of the disposition charge for non-felony summary-arrest cases in the annualized data sets for 1989 and 1998 in which defendants were convicted, and their relationship to the arrest-charge severity. If one combines the percentages of cases in each period in which defendants were convicted of a “crime,” i.e., by a conviction-charge severity of an A- or B-misdemeanor, the somewhat lower percentage in 1998—44.8 percent, in comparison to 47.6 percent in 1989— still yields an actual number of cases with a criminal conviction that is more than fifty percent greater in 1998 than in 1989; 46,742 cases in the annualized 1998 data versus 29,781 cases in the annualized 1989 data. It is interesting to note the similarities for A-misdemeanor cases in the two time periods in the overall proportion of cases in which there was an A-misdemeanor severity conviction charge, and the percentage of cases in which both the arrest and conviction charge severities were of A-misdemeanor severity. Among the cases in which the defendants were convicted, there was an overall A-misdemeanor severity conviction charge in 34.4 percent of the cases with a conviction in the annualized 1989 data, and in 35.8 percent of the cases in the 1998 data, and the percentage of cases in which the A-misdemeanor severity arrest charge resulted in a conviction of a charge of the same severity was 44.6 percent in 1989 and 46.0 percent in 1998. However, because of the much larger volume of cases in 1998, the actual number of convictions for a crime of Amisdemeanor severity was about seventy percent (or almost 16,000 cases) greater, 21,498 cases in 1989 versus 37,318 cases in 1998. Unlike the A-misdemeanor cases there were noticeable differences in the patterns between the two time periods in regard to B-misdemeanor severity cases. A smaller proportion of the annualized 1989 non-felony summary-arrest cases had a Bmisdemeanor severity conviction charge, and the likelihood of charge reduction for conviction of a B-misdemeanor severity arrest charge was far greater in the 1998 annualized data. Overall, the percentage of cases with a B-misdemeanor conviction charge was 13.2 percent in the 1989 data in comparison to 9.0 percent in the 1998 data, and cases with a B-misdemeanor arrest-charge severity were almost twice as likely to remain at this severity level upon conviction in the 1989 cases than in the Bmisdemeanor severity cases in the 1998 period, 61.4 percent in 1989 versus 31.5 percent in 1998. These proportional differences were sufficiently great that there was only about a ten percent increase in the actual number of cases in 1998 in which defendants were convicted of a B-misdemeanor severity charge. Although the overall trends for A-misdemeanor severity cases are comparatively more similar than for B-misdemeanor severity cases, there are differences in patterns when arrest and conviction charge severities are compared within arrest crime
21,498
A Misdemeanor N % 36,830 46.0% 458 2.4% 30 2.1% 0 0.0% 37,318
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
13.2%
26,749
42.8%
5,874
9.4%
9,424
9.0%
55,630
53.3%
1,737
1.7%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 3,424 4.3% 39,468 49.3% 177 0.2% 5,911 31.5% 12,288 65.6% 55 0.3% 85 6.1% 1,125 80.2% 162 11.6% 4 0.1% 2,749 67.1% 1,343 32.8%
8,283
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 3,447 7.3% 22,041 46.7% 559 1.2% 4,325 61.4% 1,979 28.1% 559 7.9% 128 7.6% 1,165 69.5% 367 21.9% 383 5.8% 1,564 23.7% 4,389 66.6%
N
N
230
200 30 0 0
Other*
112
112 0 0 0
Other*
100.0%
% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Total N % 80,099 100.0% 18,742 100.0% 1,402 100.0% 4,096 100.0%
62,516
N 47,210 7,039 1,676 6,591
0.2% 104,339
% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
0.2%
% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
35.8%
34.4%
A Misdemeanor N % 21,051 44.6% 176 2.5% 16 1.0% 255 3.9%
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 34A
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
-54 -
categories. Tables 34B through 34H show the relationship between arrest and conviction charge severities in prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases in which defendants were convicted in the annualized data for 1989 and 1998 for selected crime categories. For example, Table 34B examines the relationship between arrest and conviction charge severities in the annualized cases in the drug crime category. One finds that about the same proportion of drug cases had defendants convicted of Aor B- severity conviction charges combined, 45.4% in 1989 and 46.3% in 1998. However, because of the volume difference between the two years, the effect was about a seventy percent larger number of cases in 1998, in comparison to 1989, in which defendants had a new adult conviction for a crime as a result of the conviction in the study case, 21,258 and 12,627 respectively. This table also shows that in the 1998 drug cases convicted defendants prosecuted in A-misdemeanor summary-arrest cases were more likely to have an A-misdemeanor conviction charge than convicted defendants in A-misdemeanor drug cases in 1989. However, convicted defendants in prosecuted B-misdemeanor drug cases in 1998 were far less likely than in 1989 to have a misdemeanor-severity conviction charge. Tables 34C and 34D, showing charge severity change in cases in which defendants were convicted in the property and fraud categories, respectively, present a different contrast between the two time periods. As previously noted, these were two crime categories in which there were substantial changes in volume. The proportion of property crime cases, the majority of which were arrests for the A-misdemeanor severity shoplifting, was far greater in 1989 than in 1998, while the proportion of fraud crime category cases was substantially greater in the later time period, and over 90 percent of these arrests in 1998, and over 75 percent in 1989, were for the A-misdemeanor theftof-services charge. Because of the different volume, and the different percentages for which the conviction was for a “crime,� i.e., of A- or B-misdemeanor severity, there were about 1,200, or about 15 percent, fewer cases in 1998 in the property crime category in which the convicted defendant had a new conviction for a crime, but 7,500, or almost eleven times, more cases in which defendants were convicted of a crime in the fraud crime category in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Sex crimes, as already has been discussed, was a category in which both the volume and composition of cases were different in 1989 and 1998. In the proportionately larger volume of cases in this crime category in the 1989 data about half of the arrests were for loitering for the purposes for prostitution and about two-fifths were for the A-misdemeanor charge of prostitution. By contrast, in the 1998 cases, almost a quarter of the prosecuted summary-arrests were for the B-misdemeanor charge of patronizing a prostitute, in which cases the defendants were far less likely to have an adult criminal history, while there was some appearance that the cases of those arrested for prostitution acts involved defendants with more substantial prior criminal records. Although in absolute numbers there were fewer cases with a conviction in 1998 in comparison with 1989, and fewer cases in which defendants were convicted of a charge constituting a crime in spite of a much higher conviction rate, these differences in defendant characteristics may explain the substantially higher rate at which A-misdemeanor charges resulted in an A-misdemeanor conviction charge and a substantially higher rate of charge reduction upon conviction in a B-misdemeanor
10,023
A Misdemeanor N % 16,398 47.6% 170 1.5% 4 1.2% 16,572
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction
Total**
9.5%
15,146
54.2%
64
0.2%
4,686
10.2%
24,479
53.3%
74
0.2%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 1,258 3.7% 16,668 48.4% 33 0.1% 3,376 30.3% 7,579 68.0% 4 0.0% 52 16.0% 232 71.4% 37 11.4%
2,649
N
N
119
104 15 0
Other*
64
64 0 0
Other*
0.3%
% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%
0.2%
% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
45,930
100.0%
Total N % 34,461 100.0% 11,144 100.0% 325 100.0%
27,946
Total N % 27,244 100.0% 622 100.0% 80 100.0%
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
36.1%
35.9%
A Misdemeanor N % 9,991 36.7% 32 5.1% 0 0.0%
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 2,314 8.5% 14,811 54.4% 64 0.2% 319 51.3% 271 43.6% 0 0.0% 16 20.0% 64 80.0% 0 0.0%
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony DRUG Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 34B
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
70.8%
6,435
53.2%
A Misdemeanor N % 6,402 53.4% 33 31.1%
7,629
A Misdemeanor N % 7,629 70.8% 0 0.0% 4.6%
2,617
24.3%
32
0.3%
476
3.9%
5,140
42.5%
18
0.1%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 458 3.8% 5,085 42.4% 18 0.2% 18 17.0% 55 51.9% 0 0.0%
495
N
N
18
18 0
Other*
0
0 0
Other*
0.1%
% 0.2% 0.0%
0.0%
% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
12,087
100.0%
Total N % 11,981 100.0% 106 100.0%
10,773
Total N % 10,773 100.0% 0 0.0%
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 495 4.6% 2,617 24.3% 32 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony PROPERTY Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 34C
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
40.3%
8,062
51.8%
A Misdemeanor N % 8,055 52.5% 7 3.5% 0 0.0%
702
A Misdemeanor N % 654 40.6% 16 50.0% 32 33.3% 3.7%
894
51.4%
80
4.6%
262
1.7%
7,129
45.8%
74
0.5%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 244 1.6% 6,970 45.4% 63 0.4% 18 8.9% 159 78.7% 11 5.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
64
N
N
22
15 7 0
Other*
0
0 0 0
Other*
0.1%
% 0.1% 3.5% 0.0%
0.0%
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
15,549
100.0%
Total N % 15,347 100.0% 202 100.0% 0 0.0%
1,740
Total N % 1,612 100.0% 32 100.0% 96 100.0%
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Unknown/Not Available
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Unknown/Not Available
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 64 4.0% 814 50.5% 80 5.0% 0 0.0% 16 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 64 66.7% 0 0.0%
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony FRAUD Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 34D
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
2.3%
1,373
22.8%
A Misdemeanor N % 1,273 57.0% 100 2.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
208
A Misdemeanor N % 80 17.9% 32 0.7% 0 0.0% 96 2.2% 42.5%
655
7.1%
4,437
48.2%
1,860
31.0%
2,768
46.1%
0
0.0%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 391 17.5% 568 25.4% 0 0.0% 1,469 38.9% 2,196 58.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
3,910
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 16 3.6% 80 17.9% 271 60.6% 3,543 79.0% 383 8.5% 527 11.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 351 8.2% 192 4.5% 3,639 85.1%
N
N
8
0 8 0 0
Other*
0
0 0 0 0
Other*
0.1%
% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
6,009
100.0%
Total N % 2,232 100.0% 3,773 100.0% 4 100.0% 0 0.0%
9,210
447 4,485 0 4,278
N
Total
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony SEX CRIME Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 34E
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
31.6%
1,310
18.0%
A Misdemeanor N % 1,284 18.8% 26 6.3% 0 0.0%
766
A Misdemeanor N % 766 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9.2%
1,421
58.5%
0
0.0%
709
9.8%
5,211
71.8%
0
0.0%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 624 9.1% 4,904 71.7% 0 0.0% 85 20.5% 303 73.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 100.0% 0 0.0%
224
N
N
30
30 0 0
Other*
16
16 0 0
Other*
0.4%
% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
0.7%
% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
7,260
100.0%
Total N % 6,842 100.0% 414 100.0% 4 100.0%
2,427
Total N % 2,299 100.0% 128 100.0% 0 0.0%
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 192 8.4% 1,325 57.6% 0 0.0% 32 25.0% 96 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony HARM TO PERSONS Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 34F
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
19.3%
2,650
26.6%
A Misdemeanor N % 2,513 42.4% 111 3.7% 26 2.5%
958
A Misdemeanor N % 846 45.7% 96 6.1% 16 0.0% 11.6%
3,080
62.0%
351
7.1%
1,140
11.5%
5,989
60.2%
158
1.6%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 173 2.9% 3,218 54.3% 7 0.1% 934 31.4% 1,893 63.7% 33 1.1% 33 3.1% 878 83.2% 118 11.2%
575
N
N
15
15 0 0
Other*
0
0 0 0
Other*
0.2%
% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
9,952
100.0%
Total N % 5,926 100.0% 2,971 100.0% 1,055 100.0%
4,964
Total N % 1,852 100.0% 1,580 100.0% 1,532 100.0%
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 80 4.3% 926 50.0% 0 0.0% 383 24.2% 1,085 68.7% 16 1.0% 112 0.0% 1,069 0.0% 335 0.0%
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony MISCONDUCT Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 34G
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
32.5%
627
26.6%
A Misdemeanor N % 616 27.6% 11 8.8% 0 0.0%
654
A Misdemeanor N % 654 35.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.0%
1,054
52.4%
112
5.6%
210
8.9%
1,458
61.9%
44
1.9%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 199 8.9% 1,358 61.0% 37 1.7% 11 8.8% 96 76.8% 7 5.6% 0 0.0% 4 100.0% 0 0.0%
160
N
N
18
18 0 0
Other*
32
32 0 0
Other*
0.8%
% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%
1.6%
% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
2,357
100.0%
Total N % 2,228 100.0% 125 100.0% 4 100.0%
2,012
Total N % 1,820 100.0% 192 100.0% 0 0.0%
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 112 6.2% 926 50.9% 96 5.3% 48 25.0% 128 66.7% 16 8.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 34H
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
-55 -
severity arrest cases in the annualized 1998 cases in comparison to the 1989 cases in the sex crime category. In addition to the likelihood of conviction, prior criminal record also affected the likelihood of charge change, in almost all cases a reduction, between arrest-charge and conviction-charge severities. Table 35 shows the extent of charge change between arrest and conviction for the study cases in which there was a conviction, and for which defendant prior criminal conviction was available. Among cases in which convicted defendants had no prior adult criminal convictions, the vast majority in the annualized data in both 1989 and 1998 had a conviction charge severity less severe than a misdemeanor crime. In the annualized data for 1989, only somewhat more than a fifth all convicted defendants with a prosecuted A-misdemeanor arrest charge also had an A-misdemeanor conviction charge, and the comparable proportion was little more than a tenth of all such cases in the 1998 data. Among cases in which convicted defendants had prior convictions for crimes of misdemeanor severity only, and were prosecuted for an A-misdemeanor severity offense, over two-thirds in both years also had an Amisdemeanor conviction charge. There also was only a small percentage of cases in both time periods in which convicted defendants prosecuted for an A-misdemeanor arrest charge, who had prior adult convictions for crimes of misdemeanor and felony severity, were convicted of a charge less severe than an A-misdemeanor. Although there were a higher percentage of cases with a charge reduction below misdemeanor severity when the conviction occurred in cases with a B-misdemeanor severity arrest charge, the percentages of cases with charge reduction varied by the criminal history category of the defendants. The Use of Jail in the Sentencing Decision In the prosecuted non-felony, summary-arrest cases in the 1989 random sample in which there was a conviction, the most severe sentence did not include jail time in 41.7 percent of the cases, while a jail sentence (including both time served and postconviction jail time) was imposed in 58.3 percent of the cases. In the annualized 1989 volume in which there were an estimated 62,515 cases of convicted defendants, this means that defendants in a total of 26,079 cases would not have received a jail sentence while 36,436 would have had a jail sentence imposed. In the 3rd quarter 1998 cases in which there was a conviction, no jail sentence was imposed in 50.2 percent of the cases and the most severe sentence included jail time in the other 49.8 percent of the cases. In annualized volume terms, there were an estimated 103,995 cases in which defendants were convicted in 1998, of which the most severe sentence did not include jail time in 52,221 cases, and 51,774 cases in which the most severe sentence included jail time. Compared another way, the differences in volume and percentages receiving jail sentences means that no jail sentence was imposed in about twice as many cases of convicted defendants in 1998 in comparison to 1989, while the number of cases in which there was a jail sentence was less than one and a half times as large in 1998 than in 1989. However, the percentage of cases in which convicted defendants received a sentence of post-conviction jail time, versus those receiving a time-served sentence,
3,325
Total**
13,295
Total**
53.0%
66.6% 4.2% 5.6% 0.0%
51.1%
31,190
23,372 6,660 269 889
16,375
86.0%
85.2% 89.4% 91.2% 81.9%
69.8%
241
30 4 15 192
671
Prior Misdemeanor Convictions Only:
3.9%
2.6% 9.4% 2.4% 0.4%
7.9%
0.7%
0.1% 0.1% 5.1% 17.7%
2.9%
3,048
1,011 1,982 55 0
2,059
12.2%
5.1% 49.5% 14.0% 0.0%
11.9%
8,055
5,435 1,827 262 531
4,724
32.1%
27.6% 45.7% 66.5% 53.5%
27.2%
605
74 15 55 461
1,676
2.4%
0.4% 0.4% 14.0% 46.5%
9.7%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown 1,101 8.0% 3,639 26.3% 335 2.4% 894 51.9% 495 28.7% 271 15.7% 48 9.1% 287 54.5% 192 36.4% 16 1.3% 303 23.7% 878 68.8%
1,424
716 697 7 4
1,852
Disposition-Charge Severity Unknown B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction N % N % N % 1,341 6.6% 14,635 71.5% 32 0.2% 495 32.3% 926 60.4% 64 4.2% 16 3.2% 367 74.1% 112 22.6% 0 0.0% 447 46.7% 463 48.3% N
67
59 8 0 0
32
Other* 32 0 0 0
81
74 7 0 0
64
64 0 0 0
Other*
0.3%
0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
0.2%
0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.2%
0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
0.3%
% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
25,070
19,682 4,002 394 992
17,365
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Total 13,837 100.0% 1,724 100.0% 527 100.0% 1,277 100.0%
36,261
27,432 7,449 295 1,085
23,447
Total N % 20,461 100.0% 1,533 100.0% 495 100.0% 958 100.0%
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
13,103 170 22 0
8,874
1998 A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
9.2%
11.8% 1.1% 1.4% 0.0%
19.1%
A Misdemeanor 8,730 63.1% 64 3.7% 0 0.0% 80 6.3%
3,240 81 4 0
1998 A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
1989 A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
4,485
A Misdemeanor N % 4,389 21.5% 48 3.1% 0 0.0% 48 5.0%
Total**
Arrest-Charge Severity 1989 A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
No Prior Convictions:
Relationship Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severity, By Criminal History of Defendants in Prosecuted Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 35
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
17,505
Total**
10.6%
4.9% 27.5% 0.0% 0.0%
10.5%
4,267
2,886 1,196 96 89
1,357
66.2%
63.6% 71.4% 96.0% 65.0%
55.9%
59
7 0 4 48
48
0.9%
0.2% 0.0% 4.0% 35.0%
2.0%
58.0%
70.9% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0%
59.5%
3,394
1,184 2,192 18 0
1,133
11.3%
4.8% 51.4% 4.3% 0.0%
9.9%
B Misdemeanor 766 7.6% 287 46.1% 48 12.0% 32 8.0%
8,568
5,834 1,867 332 535
3,144
28.4%
23.9% 43.8% 79.0% 52.3%
27.4%
653
59 37 70 487
368
2.2%
0.2% 0.9% 16.7% 47.7%
3.2%
Disposition-Charge Severity Violation/Infraction Unknown 2,394 23.8% 128 1.3% 287 46.1% 16 2.6% 303 75.9% 48 12.0% 160 40.0% 176 44.0%
N
41
37 4 0 0
0
Other* 0 0 0 0
18
11 7 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
Other*
0.1%
0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.3%
0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
30,161
24,457 4,262 420 1,022
11,476
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Total 10,055 100.0% 622 100.0% 399 100.0% 400 100.0%
6,450
4,538 1,675 100 137
2,426
Total N % 2,106 100.0% 192 100.0% 48 100.0% 80 100.0%
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
17,343 162 0 0
6,831
1998 A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
682
221 461 0 0
255
B Misdemeanor N % 223 10.6% 32 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Both Prior Misdemeanor and Prior Felony Convictions Combined:
22.1%
31.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
31.6%
A Misdemeanor 6,767 67.3% 32 5.1% 0 0.0% 32 8.0%
1,424
Total**
1989 A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
1,413 11 0 0
766
A Misdemeanor N % 734 34.9% 32 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
1998 A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
Arrest-Charge Severity 1989 A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Disposition-Charge Severity Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % 1,117 53.0% 32 1.5% 128 66.7% 0 0.0% 48 100.0% 0 0.0% 64 80.0% 16 20.0%
Prior Felony Convictions Only:
Relationship Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severity, By Criminal History of Defendants in Prosecuted Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 35 (continued)
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
-56 -
was larger among the 1998 cases in which convicted defendants received a jail sentence. As presented in the proportional data analysis section of this report, postconviction jail sentences were imposed in over a third (36.8%) of the 1989 cases in which defendants received a jail sentence, in comparison to post-conviction jail time being imposed in over two-fifths (42.6%) of the cases on convicted defendants sentenced to jail in 1998. Converted into estimated annual numbers, a far larger number of convicted defendants in the 1998 than in the 1989 cases in which a jail sentence was imposed, received a sentence of post-conviction jail time, 22,077 in 1998 in comparison to 13,408 in 1989. By contrast, only several thousand more defendants in 1998 than in 1989, in cases in which convicted defendants received jail time, had a sentence only of time served, 29,698 in 1998 in comparison to 23,032 in 1989. Criminal history also influenced the use of jail in the sentencing decision. Among the cases in which defendant criminal history was known, there were a total of 97,963 convictions in the annualized 1998 data for prosecuted non-felony, summary-arrest cases, an almost eighty percent greater number of cases with a Criminal Court conviction outcome than the 54,710 cases in the annualized 1989 data among cases in which the criminal history was available. As was shown on Table 23, overall a somewhat greater percentage of defendants in the 1989 cases in which there was a conviction received a jail sentence (including time-served sentences) in every criminal history category, in comparison to sentences of jail for convicted defendants in each criminal history category in the 1998 cases. However, when one compares the likelihood of a time-served, versus a post-conviction, jail sentence among cases with a conviction outcome for which defendant criminal history was known, the rates were almost identical, as was shown on Table 24. Table 36, a companion to Table 24 in the earlier part of this report, displays in terms of the annualized number of cases in how many cases convicted defendants received a sentence of post-conviction jail time, the “yes” column, and how many received a sentence of time-served, the “no” column, by the type of criminal history of defendants for cases in which this information was available. What may be of particular interest in this table is that the estimated number of cases of convicted defendants without prior adult convictions who received a jail sentence either of time served or post-conviction jail time was only several hundred cases larger in the annualized data for 1998 than in 1989. Because of the far larger volume of cases in 1998 in which defendants had no prior criminal convictions, this suggests that in the later time period the likelihood of conviction, or a jail sentence of any type if convicted, was considerably less for those without prior convictions in 1998 than in 1989. This would certainly not appear to be what occurred in the later time period for defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity when one compares the numbers of cases in 1989 and 1998 receiving jail sentences for defendants in this criminal history category.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 36 Sentence of Post-Conviction Jail Time for Defendants Convicted and Sentenced to Jail in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases for Selected Crime Categories by Criminal History: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Crime-Type Category Drugs 1989 1998
No Prior Convictions No* Yes
Post-Conviction Jail Time Prior Prior Misdemeanor Felony Combined Only Only Priors No Yes No Yes No Yes
4,054 3,273
1,149 1,111
2,218 3,823
1,772 2,863
399 1,092
144 524
1,628 4,712
846 454
750 332
479 284
2,777 1,664
48 63
112 81
Fraud 1989 1998
335 1,461
64 369
239 1,553
112 1,077
16 358
Sex 1989 1998
686 432
96 170
1,293 539
255 712
32 81
48 192
96 63
Misconduct 1989 1998
686 1,292
48 155
Obstruction of Justice 1989 1998
192 192
Other 1989 1998
Property 1989 1998
Harm to Persons 1989 1998
Weapon 1989 1998 All Cases 1989 1998
No
Total Yes
1,772 8,299 4,690 12,900
4,837 9,188
287 332
2,075 2,262
1,660 1,133
5,714 4,339
16 107
192 2,155
144 1,613
782 5,527
336 3,166
64 22
0 7
239 262
16 303
2,282 1,255
367 1,192
128 292
0 22
80 74
32 74
287 406
160 240
543 964
766 1,100
207 432
112 273
48 63
511 1,310
160 683
2,075 3,975
463 1,333
112 48
319 133
144 151
32 26
16 26
160 133
144 181
703 484
416 406
367 661
16 37
383 646
16 63
32 103
0 0
192 657
48 96
974 2,067
80 196
80 52
64 41
32 26
80 44
0 22
0 11
48 55
160 66
160 155
304 162
7,294 7,900
2,346 2,454
5,857 8,170
5,490 7,299
702 1,985
415 893
3,288 4,820 17,141 13,071 9,694 10,299 27,749 20,945
* 'No' indicates that the jail sentence imposed was for time served, in comparison to post-conviction jail time, the 'yes' column.
-57 -
Summary of Citywide Comparisons Between Cases and Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized Data for 1989 and 1998 The first thing that becomes apparent in analyzing annualized volume of the data for 1989 and 1998 is the impact of the volume change between the two years. In 1998 the estimated volume of prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity arrest cases was more than twice as large as it had been in 1989, 176,432 versus 86,822 respectively. Changes in the percentage differences in the distribution of arrest charge severities found in PART I resulted in a less than doubling of A-misdemeanor cases, but a volume of B-misdemeanor cases that was more than five times larger in 1998 than it had been in 1989. The estimated annual volume of A-misdemeanor summary-arrest cases in 1998 was 120,685 in comparison to 66,857 in 1989, while estimated annual volume of B-misdemeanor arrest cases was 43,540 in 1998 in comparison to 9,208 in 1989. (See Table 26) The increase in B-misdemeanor severity volume was in large measure a result of changes in the type of drug crime arrests in the later period. In the drug crime category, with the largest number of cases in both time periods, the distribution between Amisdemeanor and B-misdemeanor charges, almost all involving marijuana in the lower severity category, changed substantially in the data for the two years. Because of the greater volume in 1998, the impact of charge severity change between the two years was particularly noticeable in this crime category. In the other crime categories, with smaller percentages of total annual volume in both 1989 and 1998, the proportional distribution of cases among the non-felony charge-severity classifications was far more comparable. (See Table 27) The mix of cases was affected not only by changes in charges within some crime categories, the most visible and substantial being in the drug crime category, but also by changes in the relative percentages of arrest volume among the other crime categories. In addition to changes in the mix and charge severities of cases, there were differences in the characteristics of defendants in the prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases, especially age and criminal history, to some extent undoubtedly attributable to case composition. In comparing defendant criminal history characteristics in the 1989 and 1998 cases, in the 1998 cases there were a larger percentage of defendants with no prior adult convictions, and a larger percentage of cases of defendants with adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity, and a smaller percentage of cases in which defendants had prior adult convictions for crimes only of misdemeanor severity. (Refer back to Table 28) Defendants with no prior adult convictions comprised the largest criminal history category, with 54.1 percent of cases in 1998 and 49.4 percent in 1989. Because of volume change and the larger percentage of cases of defendants with no prior conviction in the 1998 data, the result was that there were almost 51,000 more cases of defendants with no prior convictions in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Among cases of defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity, the difference between 19.2 percent of defendants in prosecuted non-felony cases in 1989 and 21.4 percent in 1998, resulted in an estimated increase of more than 20,500 cases in this criminal history category in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Among cases in
-58 -
the category in which defendants had prior adult convictions only for crimes of misdemeanor severity, the lower percentage in the 1998 data (18.7%), in comparison to 1989 (26.7%), still resulted in approximately 10,000 more cases in this criminal history category in 1998 due to increased volume. There also were striking differences in the percentages and numbers of defendants in the prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in regard to distribution among age-group categories, which also may be related to differences in the composition of cases and charges among the crime categories. There were differences between 1989 and 1998 in both case outcomes, and the decision point at which the final disposition occurred. In 1998 a far greater percentage and number of cases were resolved at, rather than subsequent to, the Criminal Court arraignment appearance. As was shown on Table 31, in both 1989 and 1998 a majority of cases were disposed by a conviction, almost all by guilty pleas, but the conviction rate was thirteen percentages points lower in 1998 than in the 1989 cases, 59.2 percent versus 72.2 percent. Again, because of the difference in volume of prosecuted summary-arrest cases of misdemeanor and lesser severity, the actual number of cases with a conviction outcome was over 40,000 larger in 1998 than in 1989. In addition, the percentage of cases in which there was a conviction outcome differed among the crime categories within and between the years. In the 1989 cases, the percentage of cases with a conviction outcome varied from a high of over ninety percent in the sex crime category, to over three fourths of the cases in categories such as drug, property, and fraud, to a low of less than half of the cases in the harm-to-persons category and less than a third of the weapon category cases. In the 1998 cases, the conviction rate ranged from a high of over two thirds of the prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in the sex and property crime categories, to less than a third in the drug and fraud categories, to about a third in the harm-to-persons crime category. The far larger percentage of cases with an ACD outcome among case dispositions in 1998 resulted in about 43,000 more cases in 1998 disposed by an ACD than occurred in the 1989 cases. In addition, an ACD outcome was substantially more likely to occur in 1998 at the arraignment appearance in the Criminal Court. The smaller percentage of cases with an outright dismissal in 1998 (8.9%) than in 1989 (11.6%), resulted in fewer than 6,000 more cases with a dismissal outcome in the later period. The extent to which there was charge change, almost always a reduction, between arrest- and conviction-charge severities was fairly similar for all Amisdemeanor summary-arrest cases in which defendants were convicted; in over two fifths of all cases of convicted defendants, there was an arrest and conviction charge of A-misdemeanor severity in both 1989 and 1998. The likelihood of charge reduction for a B-misdemeanor arrest charge was far greater in 1998 than in 1989. However, the percentages of cases in which defendants were convicted of a charge of different severity than the arrest charge varied by crime category within and between the two study years. In addition, in both time periods defendants with no prior adult criminal convictions were least likely to be convicted, and if convicted to have charges reduced
-59 -
to below the misdemeanor severity level, in comparison to cases of defendants with prior convictions.
-60 -
PART III BOROUGH COMPARISONS OF CASE AND DEFENDANT ATTRIBUTES, AND COURT OUTCOMES, IN MISDEMEANOR AND LESSER-SEVERITY SUMMARY-ARREST CASES IN 1989 AND 1998 In the previous parts of this report, the proportional and volume comparisons of prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases were made citywide. This section of the report provides an overview of the proportional and volume differences among New York City’s five boroughs in 1989 and in 1998, and between the boroughs in the two study years, using the annualized data. In any time period the composition of the cases entering the New York City criminal court system will vary among the boroughs by charge, severity classification, and crime types. This reflects among other things differences between the boroughs in population characteristic, the nature of criminal activity, and decision-making by criminal justice system personnel and organizations. These differences, often in response to communal factors that distinguish one borough from another, are reflected in borough variations in court practices, and differing consensus among the dominant court actors about dispositions and sanctions appropriate for types of crimes and offenders in the mix of cases processed in each borough’s criminal court. A prominent scholar coined the term “local legal culture” to describe differences one finds in comparing separate court jurisdictions operating within the same court system, and this certainly would be applicable to comparing aspects of the criminal courts operating in each of New York City’s five counties that includes, for example, each having an independently elected District Attorney. Perhaps an even better example of this is that the Manhattan data for 1998 includes cases processed at both the downtown, main Criminal Court and cases processed at the Midtown Manhattan Community Court (MCC). Begun in October 1993, MCC is a separate weekday arraignment courtroom specializing in the swift, (i.e., arraignment), disposition of nonviolent misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases, and has a broader array of alternative sanctions and defendant services than are available at the downtown courthouse. For the purposes of this study all non-felony Manhattan summary-arrest cases are combined, but the presence of Midtown Court cases in the 1998 data undoubtedly has some effect on the comparison of case dispositions in the two study years. The Composition of Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases Among the Boroughs in 1989 and 1998 Overall the volume of prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases entering the New York City criminal courts in 1998 was more than twice the volume of comparable prosecuted arrests in 1989. The proportional volume of prosecuted arrests for misdemeanor and lesser-severity charges of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment, (i.e., summary-arrest cases) was distributed among the five boroughs differently in the two time periods. As can be seen in Table 37, Manhattan had the largest volume of prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in both 1989 and 1998, although Manhattan’s proportion of such cases was smaller in 1998 than it had been in
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 37 Borough Distribution of Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data 1989
1998
Borough
N
Brooklyn
18,561
21.4%
43,863
24.9%
Bronx
11,507
13.3%
33,631
19.1%
Manhattan
45,055
51.9%
67,081
38.0%
Queens
10,135
11.7%
26,387
15.0%
1,564
1.8%
5,469
3.1%
86,822
100.0%
176,431
100.0%
Staten Island Citywide
%
N
%
-61 -
1989. As a result, the actual number of cases entering arraignment courtrooms in Manhattan’s Criminal Court was less than fifty percent larger in 1998 than it was in 1989. Unlike Manhattan which handled over half (51.9%) of all prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in its Criminal Court in 1989, but less than two-fifths (38.0%) of the New York City criminal courts’ volume in 1998, the percentage of the City’s misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases arraigned in the Criminal Court of each of the other four counties was larger in 1998 than in 1989. The proportional increase was greatest for the Bronx, which handled 13.3 percent of the citywide nonfelony summary-arrest cases in 1989 but 19.1 percent in 1998, while there was about a three percentage point larger proportion of the citywide volume in the Brooklyn and Queens Criminal Courts in 1998 in comparison to 1989. For the Bronx Criminal Court, with the third largest caseload of arraigned non-felony summary-arrest cases in both time periods, the estimated annual volume of such cases was almost three times larger in 1998 than in 1989. Brooklyn, with the second largest volume in both years, and Queens with the fourth largest volume in both 1989 and 1998, each had an arraignment caseload of non-felony summary-arrest cases that was more than two times larger in 1998 than in 1989. The Staten Island Criminal Court, with the smallest number of prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in both years, and the smallest proportional change between 1989 and 1998, had an estimated annual volume in 1998 that was almost three and one-half time larger than in 1989. How the overall volume, and distribution of cases among the crime categories examined in this research, differed by borough in 1989 and 1998 is shown on Table 38. All boroughs’ criminal courts experienced a far greater volume of prosecuted nonfelony, summary-arrest cases in 1998 than had been processed 1989, ranging from Manhattan in which the volume was only about one and half times greater in 1998 than in 1989, to the Bronx in which the caseload was almost three times greater, and Staten Island where the volume of prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases entering the Criminal Court was three and a half times larger in 1998 than it had been in 1989. The largest number of cases in both time periods involved a prosecuted drug arrest, ranging from almost a third to over half of all misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases processed in each borough’s Criminal Court, although the proportionate distribution was different among the boroughs in 1989 and 1998. In the fraud crime category, all boroughs also experienced not only an explosive increase in volume, but also a proportional increase in cases. In neither time period were there meaningful numbers of cases in the CJA harm-to-persons-and-property category because almost every qualifying charge in this crime category is of felony severity. Similarly, there are very few cases in either period in the weapon charge category because, again, most such charges have felony severities. Some of the changes in the distribution of cases among the boroughs, comparing 1998 with 1989, reflect differences in the mix of cases resulting from different enforcement practices. As discussed below, different charges in some crime categories can affect charge-severity patterns between the boroughs as well as volume among the crime categories. Citywide changes in arrest-charge severity patterns in non-felony, non-VTL, summary cases occurred in each of the boroughs, suggesting that for the most part, in
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 38 Borough Comparisons in the Volume and Percentage Distribution of Prosecuted Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary Cases by Arrest Crime Category: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data 1989 Crime Type (N=86,825)
Drugs Property Fraud Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Misconduct Obstructing Justice Other Weapon Harm-to-Personsand-Property Total*
Brooklyn N % 9,895 53.3% 1,596 8.6% 335 1.8% 862 4.6% 2,729 14.7% 1,644 8.9% 734 4.0% 32 0.2% 718 3.9%
Bronx N % 5,586 48.5% 1,101 9.6% 255 2.2% 1,437 12.5% 1,038 9.0% 877 7.6% 782 6.8% 80 0.7% 319 2.8%
Manhattan N % 16,215 36.0% 9,001 20.0% 1,325 2.9% 6,815 15.1% 2,681 6.0% 3,607 8.0% 1,341 3.0% 3,033 6.7% 990 2.2%
Queens N % 3,512 34.6% 1,756 17.3% 271 2.7% 750 7.4% 1,389 13.7% 1,660 16.4% 367 3.6% 176 1.7% 255 2.5%
Staten Island N % 495 31.6% 144 9.2% 0 0.0% 224 14.3% 319 20.4% 80 5.1% 255 16.3% 0 0.0% 48 3.1%
16
0.1%
32
0.3%
48
0.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
18,561
100.0%
11,507
100.0%
45,056
100.0%
10,136
100.0%
1,565
100.0%
1998 Crime Type (N=176,424)
Drugs Property Fraud Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Misconduct Obstructing Justice Other Weapon Harm-to-Personsand-Property Total*
Brooklyn N % 17,719 40.4% 3,048 6.9% 6,490 14.8% 1,705 3.9% 7,701 17.6% 4,188 9.5% 1,177 2.7% 1,158 2.6% 672 1.5%
Bronx N % 16,132 48.0% 2,085 6.2% 4,549 13.5% 1,834 5.5% 3,136 9.3% 4,044 12.0% 868 2.6% 597 1.8% 380 1.1%
Manhattan N % 28,915 43.1% 7,362 11.0% 11,207 16.7% 2,295 3.4% 4,789 7.1% 5,619 8.4% 1,501 2.2% 4,819 7.2% 546 0.8%
Queens N % 8,594 32.6% 2,849 10.8% 2,303 8.7% 1,852 7.0% 5,111 19.4% 2,915 11.0% 1,100 4.2% 1,284 4.9% 380 1.4%
Staten Island N % 2,959 54.1% 520 9.5% 29 0.5% 77 1.4% 897 16.4% 446 8.2% 310 5.7% 159 2.9% 70 1.3%
4
0.0%
4
0.0%
25
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
43,862
100.0%
33,629
100.0%
67,078
100.0%
26,388
100.0%
5,467
100.0%
* Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
-62 -
each time period, the City’s law enforcement strategies were implemented in each borough command of the police department. These patterns for all cases are displayed in Table 39A, and then for selected crime categories on Tables 39B through 39G. Within some of the crime categories examined in this study, the nature of the arrest charges resulted in substantial proportional shifts in the severity classification of the arrest charges. (See Table 4 that displays the citywide proportionate distribution of cases among non-felony severity classifications for each crime category, and Tables 5 through 10 that chart the specific charges, their severity classification, and the distribution of cases in each year among the charges in each of the crime categories.) Among the most notable examples of this was the difference in the charge-severity distribution in the drug crime category. In 1989 over 95 percent of prosecuted non-felony drug arrests in the four largest boroughs, and over 90 percent of Staten Island’s non-felony drug cases, involved an arrest charge of A-misdemeanor severity. In 1998, the citywide shift toward a greater percentage of B-misdemeanor arrests for non-felony drug crimes, representing an increase in the numbers and percentages of non-felony drug cases involving marijuana as opposed to other types of controlled substances, was replicated in each of the boroughs. Among prosecuted, non-felony summary drug-arrest cases in 1998, 34.6 percent in the Bronx, 43.4 percent in both Brooklyn, 43.1 percent in Manhattan, 48.7 percent in Queens, and 61.1 percent on Staten Island were for B-misdemeanor severity charges, while the percentage of prosecuted A-misdemeanor severity drug arrests in 1998 ranged from a low of 37.4 percent of the Staten Island cases to a high of 64.3 percent of the Bronx cases. (See Table 39B) In terms of actual numbers of cases, only in the Bronx and Staten Island did the criminal courts arraign substantially more Amisdemeanor drug cases in 1998 than it had in 1989, while there was an explosive increase in the volume of cases arraigned on B-misdemeanor drug charges in every borough in 1998 in comparison to 1989. In other categories, it is the relative proportions of all non-felony summary-arrest cases between the two years that dramatically differed, while the charge and/or severity composition of cases were relatively unchanged, thereby far more affecting volume. Cases in the property (Table 39C) and fraud (Table 39D) crime categories provide good, contrasting illustrations of this. Almost all non-felony charges falling into these two CJA crime categories were of A-misdemeanor severity, but property crime cases were a far larger percentage of the much smaller non-felony, summary-arrest case volume in 1989 in comparison to 1998, while there was a much greater percentage of prosecuted summary arrests of the much larger the volume of prosecuted non-felony arrests in the fraud category in 1998. The difference can be seen in Table 39C, where the estimated annual volume of non-felony property crime cases was only about two thousand cases greater in 1998 than it had been in 1989. The greatest volume increase appeared in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, while there were fewer such prosecuted cases arraigned in the Manhattan court in 1998 in comparison to 1989. By contrast, the impact of the more than ten fold greater number of prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases citywide in the fraud category in 1998 in comparison to 1989 was even more pronounced in Brooklyn and the Bronx. (Table 39D) In Brooklyn, the volume of arraigned A-misdemeanor summary-arrest cases with fraud crime category charges was more than twenty times greater in 1998 than it had been in 1989, rising from 303
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 39A Borough Distribution of Arrest-Charge Severities: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
1989 Borough Brooklyn
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
16,278
87.7%
1,660
8.9%
336
1.8%
287
1.5%
18,561
100.0%
9,511
82.7%
942
8.2%
80
0.7%
974
8.5%
11,507
100.0%
31,728
70.4%
5,427
12.0%
1,389
3.1%
6,512
14.5%
45,056
100.0%
Queens
8,076
79.7%
1,054
10.4%
782
7.7%
224
2.2%
10,136
100.0%
Staten Island
1,261
80.6%
128
8.2%
48
3.1%
128
8.2%
1,565
100.0%
66,854
77.0%
9,211
10.6%
2,635
3.0%
8,125
9.4%
86,825
100.0%
Bronx Manhattan
Citywide
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Brooklyn
30,553
69.7%
10,969
25.0%
1,189
2.7%
1,151
2.6%
43,862
100.0%
Bronx
24,785
73.7%
7,853
23.4%
401
1.2%
590
1.8%
33,629
100.0%
Manhattan
45,131
67.3%
15,656
23.3%
1,479
2.2%
4,812
7.2%
67,078
100.0%
Queens
17,129
64.9%
6,950
26.3%
1,029
3.9%
1,280
4.9%
26,388
100.0%
3,084
56.4%
2,110
38.6%
114
2.1%
159
2.9%
5,467
100.0%
120,682
68.4%
43,538
24.7%
4,212
2.4%
7,992
4.5% 176,424
100.0%
1998 Borough
Staten Island Citywide
Total N
%
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 39B Borough Distribution of Arrest-Charge Severities by Selected Crime Type: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Drugs:
1989 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
9,528
96.3%
207
2.1%
160
1.6%
0
0.0%
9,895
100.0%
Bronx
5,426
97.1%
144
2.6%
16
0.3%
0
0.0%
5,586
100.0%
15,513
95.7%
622
3.8%
80
0.5%
0
0.0%
16,215
100.0%
3,368
95.9%
128
3.6%
16
0.5%
0
0.0%
3,512
100.0%
447
90.3%
32
6.5%
16
3.2%
0
0.0%
495
100.0%
34,282
96.0%
1,133
3.2%
288
0.8%
0
0.0%
35,703
100.0%
Manhattan Queens Staten Island Citywide
1998 Borough Brooklyn
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
9,867
55.7%
7,697
43.4%
155
0.9%
0
0.0%
17,719
100.0%
Bronx
10,376
64.3%
5,583
34.6%
173
1.1%
0
0.0%
16,132
100.0%
Manhattan
16,096
55.7%
12,461
43.1%
358
1.2%
0
0.0%
28,915
100.0%
Queens
4,207
49.0%
4,188
48.7%
199
2.3%
0
0.0%
8,594
100.0%
Staten Island
1,107
37.4%
1,808
61.1%
44
1.5%
0
0.0%
2,959
100.0%
41,653
56.0%
31,737
42.7%
929
1.3%
0
0.0%
74,319
100.0%
Citywide
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 39C Borough Distribution of Arrest-Charge Severities by Selected Crime Type: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Property:
1989 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
1,596
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,596
100.0%
Bronx
1,101
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,101
100.0%
Manhattan
9,001
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
9,001
100.0%
Queens
1,756
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,756
100.0%
144
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
144
100.0%
13,598
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
13,598
100.0%
Staten Island Citywide
1998 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
3,026
99.3%
22
0.7%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3,048
100.0%
Bronx
2,048
98.2%
37
1.8%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2,085
100.0%
Manhattan
7,299
99.1%
63
0.9%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
7,362
100.0%
Queens
2,827
99.2%
22
0.8%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2,849
100.0%
520
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
520
100.0%
15,720
99.1%
144
0.9%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
15,864
100.0%
Staten Island Citywide
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 39D Borough Distribution of Arrest-Charge Severities by Selected Crime Type: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Fraud:
1989 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
303
90.4%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
32
9.6%
335
100.0%
Bronx
223
87.5%
16
6.3%
0
0.0%
16
6.3%
255
100.0%
1,181
89.1%
16
1.2%
0
0.0%
128
9.7%
1,325
100.0%
255
94.1%
16
5.9%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
271
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,962
89.8%
48
2.2%
0
0.0%
176
8.1%
2,186
100.0%
Manhattan Queens Staten Island Citywide
1998 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
6,350
97.8%
140
2.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
6,490
100.0%
Bronx
4,494
98.8%
55
1.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
4,549
100.0%
11,118
99.2%
89
0.8%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
11,207
100.0%
2,273
98.7%
30
1.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2,303
100.0%
18
62.1%
11
37.9%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
29
100.0%
24,253
98.7%
325
1.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
24,578
100.0%
Manhattan Queens Staten Island Citywide
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 39E Borough Distribution of Arrest-Charge Severities by Selected Crime Type: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Sex Crimes:
1989 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
96
11.1%
543
63.0%
0
0.0%
223
25.9%
862
100.0%
Bronx
48
3.3%
511
35.6%
0
0.0%
878
61.1%
1,437
100.0%
Manhattan
112
1.6%
3,288
48.2%
0
0.0%
3,415
50.1%
6,815
100.0%
Queens
255
34.0%
463
61.7%
0
0.0%
32
4.3%
750
100.0%
16
7.1%
80
35.7%
0
0.0%
128
57.1%
224
100.0%
527
5.2%
4,885
48.4%
0
0.0%
4,676
46.4%
10,088
100.0%
Staten Island Citywide
1998 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
590
34.6%
1,085
63.6%
30
1.8%
0
0.0%
1,705
100.0%
Bronx
985
53.7%
849
46.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,834
100.0%
Manhattan
439
19.1%
1,856
80.9%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2,295
100.0%
Queens
531
28.7%
1,314
71.0%
7
0.4%
0
0.0%
1,852
100.0%
0
0.0%
77
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
77
100.0%
2,545
32.8%
5,181
66.7%
37
0.5%
0
0.0%
7,763
100.0%
Staten Island Citywide
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 39F Borough Distribution of Arrest-Charge Severities by Selected Crime Type: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Harm to Persons:
1989 Borough Brooklyn
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
2,617
95.9%
112
4.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2,729
100.0%
990
95.4%
48
4.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,038
100.0%
Manhattan
2,601
97.0%
80
3.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2,681
100.0%
Queens
1,373
98.8%
16
1.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,389
100.0%
303
95.0%
16
5.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
319
100.0%
7,884
96.7%
272
3.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
8,156
100.0%
Bronx
Staten Island Citywide
1998 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
7,373
95.7%
328
4.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
7,701
100.0%
Bronx
2,974
94.8%
155
4.9%
7
0.2%
0
0.0%
3,136
100.0%
Manhattan
4,435
92.6%
354
7.4%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
4,789
100.0%
Queens
4,904
95.9%
207
4.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
5,111
100.0%
893
99.6%
4
0.4%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
897
100.0%
20,579
95.1%
1,048
4.8%
7
0.0%
0
0.0%
21,634
100.0%
Staten Island Citywide
-63 -
arraigned cases in 1989 to an estimated volume of 6,350 cases in 1989, and increasing in the Bronx from 223 cases in 1989 to 4,494 such cases in 1998. In Manhattan and Queens, the estimated annual volume of arraigned summary-arrest cases in the fraud category was about ten times greater in 1998 than it had been in 1989. The harm-to-persons category also showed the effect of increased volume and some changes in charge characteristics between the two time periods. (See Table 39E) This category had the fourth largest volume of prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in 1989 among the ten crime categories examined, and the third largest in the 1998 data. The vast majority of these cases in both time periods were prosecuted arrests for the single, A-misdemeanor severity assault charge (PL 120.00), but in the later time period some additional volume increase was a result of charges stemming from enforcement of protection orders in family violence cases. The resulting impact on the criminal courts was about a three-fold greater volume of arraigned cases in this arrest crime category in all boroughs except Manhattan, where the difference was less than twice as many in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Because information on the severity classification of arrest charges for loitering for prostitution in 1989 was not routinely available in the CJA database for this multipleseverity arrest charge in the sex-crimes category, precise comparisons between 1989 and 1998 in charge-severity patterns are not possible. However, as Table 39E shows in the “total� column on the far right, when comparing estimated annual volume in 1989 and 1998 the volume change between the boroughs is markedly different, even though the total number of cases citywide was smaller in 1998 in comparison to 1989. There were substantially fewer sex-crime category cases prosecuted in the Manhattan and Staten Island Criminal Courts in 1998 in comparison to 1989, while the volume was approximately two and a half times greater in Queens, and almost two times larger in Brooklyn, in 1998 in comparison to the earlier time period. In comparing arrest-charge severity patterns in prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases among the boroughs in 1998, one finds that while citywide changes from 1989 in law enforcement patterns was evident in the non-felony caseloads of the criminal courts in all boroughs, they were not uniformly distributed across boroughs. The citywide changes in enforcement of types of non-felony criminal behavior in 1998 in comparison to 1989 affected both the volume and mix of cases entering each county’s Criminal Court differently. Not only were there differences in the proportional distribution of the citywide volume of prosecuted non-felony summaryarrest cases among the boroughs in 1998 in comparison to 1989, but the proportional and volume increase or decrease within crime categories also differed by borough in the two study years.
-64 -
Defendant Characteristics in Prosecuted Non-Felony Summary-Arrest Cases Among the Boroughs Table 40 shows how the adult criminal history characteristics differed among defendants in the prosecuted non-felony cases in each of the five court jurisdictions in and between 1989 and 1998. The Bronx was the only borough in which in both time periods fewer than half of all defendants in prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summaryarrest cases had no prior adult criminal convictions. Staten Island had the largest percentage increase in the proportion of cases in which defendants had no prior criminal convictions, followed by larger proportions of cases of defendants without prior criminal convictions in Queens and Manhattan. Only in Brooklyn was the percentage of cases in which defendants had no prior adult criminal convictions smaller in 1998 than in 1989, although the difference was very small. In every borough the proportion of misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases in which defendants had prior convictions for crimes of misdemeanor severity was smaller in 1998 than in 1989, and only in the Staten Island cases was the proportion of cases in which defendants had prior convictions for crimes of misdemeanor and felony severity smaller in 1998 then in 1989 Overall, the proportion of cases in which defendants had no prior adult criminal convictions was greater in 1998 than in 1989, constituting more than half of the cases in each borough in 1998 with the exception of the Bronx. In 1998 the proportion of cases in which defendants had no prior adult criminal history ranged from less than half of the cases in the Bronx (48.3%) to about two-thirds in the Queens and Staten Island cases, (63.1% and 62.8% respectively). In comparison, less than half of the misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases in 1989 involved defendants with no prior adult convictions in all but Brooklyn and Queens, and ranged from a low of 44.1 percent in the Manhattan cases in 1989 to a high of 59.1 percent in Brooklyn. By contrast, the proportion of cases involving defendants with adult convictions only of misdemeanor severity was smaller in every borough in 1998 in comparison to 1989, while the proportion of cases with defendants having prior adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity was greater in every borough in 1998 than in had been in 1989. Because age and prior adult convictions tend to be interrelated, it is perhaps not surprising given the greater proportions of defendants without criminal convictions in 1998, that the proportion of defendants in the youngest age group, 16-20 years, was markedly larger in each borough in the 1998 cases than in the 1989 cases. Similarly, the proportion of defendants in the 41 and older category also was greater in the 1998 misdemeanor and lesser severity summary-arrest cases than in 1989 in every borough. In contrast, the percentage of defendants in each borough’s cases in 1998 in the 26-30 year age bracket was smaller than in 1989. (See Table 41) In terms of volume, the number of cases in which defendants were in the 16-20 year age group was at least four times larger in 1998 than in 1989 in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island, and about two and a half times larger in Manhattan. The number of cases in which defendants were 41 years of age or older was about three and a half times larger in Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island, and about six times larger in the Bronx cases in 1998 in comparison to 1989.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 39G Borough Distribution of Arrest-Charge Severities by Selected Crime Type: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Misconduct:
1989 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
670
40.8%
798
48.5%
176
10.7%
0
0.0%
1,644
100.0%
Bronx
606
69.1%
207
23.6%
64
7.3%
0
0.0%
877
100.0%
1,101
30.5%
1,261
35.0%
1,245
34.5%
0
0.0%
3,607
100.0%
479
28.9%
399
24.0%
766
46.1%
16
1.0%
1,660
100.0%
48
60.0%
0
0.0%
32
40.0%
0
0.0%
80
100.0%
2,904
36.9%
2,665
33.9%
2,283
29.0%
16
0.2%
7,868
100.0%
Manhattan Queens Staten Island Citywide
1998 Borough
A Misdemeanor N %
Arrest-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Other/Unknown N % N % N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn
1,594
38.1%
1,601
38.2%
993
23.7%
0
0.0%
4,188
100.0%
Bronx
2,697
66.7%
1,133
28.0%
214
5.3%
0
0.0%
4,044
100.0%
Manhattan
3,734
66.5%
782
13.9%
1,103
19.6%
0
0.0%
5,619
100.0%
Queens
926
31.8%
1,170
40.1%
819
28.1%
0
0.0%
2,915
100.0%
Staten Island
166
37.2%
210
47.1%
70
15.7%
0
0.0%
446
100.0%
9,117
53.0%
4,896
28.4%
3,199
18.6%
0
0.0%
17,212
100.0%
Citywide
7,753
Combined Priors
18.6%
6.7%
16.9%
57.7%
41,635 100.0%
2,808
Prior Felony Only
Total
7,052
24,022
24.5%
6.6%
20.5%
48.3%
%
31,978 100.0%
7,845
2,111
6,568
15,454
N
Bronx
18.0%
5.4%
29.3%
47.4%
%
Brooklyn N %
Prior Misdemeanor Only
No Prior Convictions
1998 Prior Convictions
2,059
622
3,352
5,426
Bronx
11,459 100.0%
14.3%
5.1%
21.5%
59.1%
N
17,891 100.0%
2,554
Combined Priors
Total
910
3,846
10,581
Brooklyn N %
Prior Felony Only
Prior Misdemeanor Only
No Prior Convictions
1989 Prior Convictions
23.8%
3.6%
28.6%
44.1%
24.7%
4.4%
20.6%
50.2%
61,446 100.0%
15,188
2,716
12,675
30,867
Manhattan N %
36,405 100.0%
8,666
1,293
10,406
16,040
Manhattan N %
12.5%
7.1%
25.7%
15.5%
6.1%
15.3%
25,051 100.0%
3,886
1,520
3,841
63.1%
Queens % 15,804
N
9,927 100.0%
1,245
702
2,554
54.7%
Queens %
5,426
N
100.0%
18.1%
6.4%
29.8%
45.7%
4,756
642
369
760
2,985
100.0%
13.5%
7.8%
16.0%
62.8%
Staten Island N %
1,500
271
96
447
686
Staten Island N %
Criminal History of Defendants in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Borough, Annualized Data 1989 and 1998
Table 40
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
164,866
35,314
9,524
30,896
100.0%
21.4%
5.8%
18.7%
54.1%
%
100.0%
19.2%
4.7%
26.7%
Citywide
89,132
N
77,182
14,795
3,623
20,605
% 49.4%
Citywide
38,159
N
4,245
4,054
2,490
2,298
26-30
31-35
36-40
41 and older
6,952
5,937
7,111
6,247
8,310
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41 and older
19.0%
14.3%
16.2%
13.6%
15.9%
% 21.1%
43,800 100.0%
N 9,243
Total
12.4%
13.4%
21.9%
22.9%
18,545 100.0%
1998 16-20
Total
3,878
21-25
20.9%
Brooklyn N % 1,580 8.5%
Age Groups 1989 16-20
9.7%
11.0%
19.4%
26.2%
22.6%
20.4%
15.3%
16.9%
13.6%
15.4%
% 18.4%
33,528 100.0%
6,823
5,144
5,668
4,568
5,159
N 6,166
11,506 100.0%
1,117
1,261
2,234
3,016
2,601
Bronx N % 1,277 11.1%
9.4%
11.1%
19.9%
27.0%
23.8%
22.8%
16.0%
16.2%
13.8%
14.9%
% 16.2%
66,918 100.0%
15,232
10,738
10,852
9,266
9,996
N 10,834
45,038 100.0%
4,245
5,011
8,985
12,162
10,709
Manhattan N % 3,926 8.7%
10.7%
12.1%
19.9%
24.9%
22.1%
18.2%
13.2%
15.0%
14.6%
17.4%
% 21.5%
26,343 100.0%
4,804
3,483
3,956
3,849
4,587
N 5,664
10,118 100.0%
1,085
1,229
2,011
2,522
2,234
Queens N % 1,037 10.2%
5,467
745
590
849
745
985
N 1,553
1,564
207
160
383
415
255
100.0%
13.6%
10.8%
15.5%
13.6%
18.0%
% 28.4%
100.0%
13.2%
10.2%
24.5%
26.5%
16.3%
Staten Island N % 144 9.2%
Borough Comparison of Age Groups of Defendants in Prosecuted Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary Arrest Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 41
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
176,056
35,914
26,202
28,436
24,365
27,679
N 33,460
86,771
8,952
10,151
17,667
22,360
19,677
100.0%
20.4%
14.9%
16.2%
13.8%
15.7%
% 19.0%
100.0%
10.3%
11.7%
20.4%
25.8%
22.7%
Citywide N % 7,964 9.2%
-65 -
As shown on the top of Table 42, the proportion of cases involving male defendants was larger in every borough in 1998 than in 1989, except in the Brooklyn cases in which the relative percentages of cases with male and female defendants were virtually identical in the two time periods. In the prosecuted non-felony cases in 1998 over four-fifths had male defendants, where only in Brooklyn had the proportion of cases with male defendants been this large in 1989. Although the annualized number of cases in which defendants were White was greater in every borough except Manhattan in 1998, only in the Staten Island cases was the percentage of cases with White defendants larger in 1998 than in 1989. The percentage of cases involving Hispanic defendants was larger in 1998 than in 1989 in Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island, while the percentage was virtually identical in the Brooklyn and Bronx cases; the percentage of cases with Hispanic defendants was largest in the Bronx in both time periods. (See bottom of Table 42) Criminal Court Outcomes Among the Boroughs Table 43 compares how cases were disposed in each of the borough’s Criminal Court in 1989 and in 1998. In each borough, the actual number of cases in which there was a conviction outcome was greater in 1998 than in 1989, even though the overall conviction rate was lower in each borough, except for Staten Island, in 1998 than in 1989. However, there were considerable borough differences in the conviction rate in each year, and between the two years. In both years over three-fourths of all prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in the Bronx ended with a conviction. Manhattan also had a very high conviction rate in both years, with a conviction in 77.6 percent of the cases in 1989, and in 65.9 percent of the cases in 1998. The change in conviction rate was most noticeable in Brooklyn, in which there was a conviction in 68.6 percent of the cases in 1989 but in only 43.2 percent of the cases in 1998. In all boroughs except Staten Island, when a conviction occurred in 1998 it was far more likely to occur by a guilty plea at the Criminal Court arraignment than at a postarraignment appearance. The citywide pattern of a proportionately higher rate of ACD outcomes, and a proportionately lower rate of outright dismissals in 1998 in comparison to 1989, can be found in almost every borough, although here again there were borough differences in each year and between the years. In both 1989 and 1998 the likelihood of an ACD case outcome was lowest in the Bronx, (5.4% and 15.5% respectively), while Queens showed the largest difference in the use of the ACD outcome, from 13.3 percent of case dispositions in 1989 in comparison to 43.2 percent of case dispositions in 1998. In all boroughs the percentage of cases with an ACD was considerably higher in 1998 than in 1989, and the use of this type of Criminal Court disposition was far more likely to occur in the1998 cases at arraignment, rather than post-arraignment. In comparing Criminal Court outcomes in the two years, Brooklyn and Queens appear to have had the most dramatic shifts in case dispositions. Brooklyn’s conviction rate was about twenty-five percentage points lower in 1998 than in 1989, (43.2% versus 68.6%), while both the percentages of ACDs and outright dismissals was greater in 1998 than in 1989, (44.1% versus 23.6%, and 11.6% versus 4.2%, respectively). By
7,775
Female
25.4%
2.3%
25.6%
11.3%
43,712 100.0%
1,022
Others
Total
11,192
4,926
Hispanic
White
% 60.8%
N 26,572
2.0%
1998 Black
367
Others
26.1%
18,561 100.0%
4,836
Hispanic
16.4%
Total
3,048
White 1.4%
44.7%
11.7%
2.3%
44.5%
7.2%
% 46.1%
33,331 100.0%
756
14,830
2,384
N 15,361
11,508 100.0%
160
5,139
1,341
% 42.3%
Bronx
Brooklyn N % 10,310 55.5%
Ethnicity 1989 Black N 4,868
33,583 100.0%
18.9%
% 81.1%
43,808 100.0%
6,362
N 27,221
11,492 100.0%
2,921
Bronx N % 8,571 74.6%
Total
17.7%
% 82.3%
N 36,033
1998 Male
17.6%
18,051 100.0%
3,176
Brooklyn N % 14,875 82.4%
Total
Female
Sex 1989 Male 23.3%
17.3%
% 82.7%
2.4%
23.7%
20.2%
3.9%
30.3%
13.6%
% 52.2%
66,711 100.0%
2,605
20,199
9,088
N 34,819
45,054 100.0%
1,085
10,677
9,113
Manhattan N % 24,179 53.7%
67,022 100.0%
11,576
N 55,446
44,544 100.0%
10,374
Manhattan N % 34,170 76.7% 23.5%
16.2%
% 83.8%
3.8%
23.1%
23.5%
8.0%
33.3%
15.4%
% 43.3%
26,295 100.0%
2,103
8,764
4,048
N 11,380
10,134 100.0%
383
2,346
2,378
Queens N % 5,027 49.6%
26,380 100.0%
4,273
N 22,107
10,119 100.0%
2,378
Queens N % 7,741 76.5%
100.0%
13.6%
% 86.4%
100.0%
31.3%
5,462
48
886
2,266
N 2,262
1,564
0
223
543
100.0%
0.9%
16.2%
41.5%
% 41.4%
100.0%
0.0%
14.3%
34.7%
Staten Island N % 798 51.0%
5,461
745
N 4,716
1,532
479
Staten Island N % 1,053 68.7%
Borough Comparison of Sex and Ethnicity of Defendants in Prosecuted Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary Arrest Cases: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 42
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
100.0%
17.4%
% 82.6%
100.0%
22.5%
175,511
6,534
55,871
22,712
N 90,394
86,821
1,995
23,221
16,423
N 45,182
100.0%
3.7%
31.8%
12.9%
% 51.5%
100.0%
2.3%
26.7%
18.9%
% 52.0%
Citywide
176,254
30,731
N 145,523
85,738
19,328
Citywide N % 66,410 77.5%
606 48 0 654
Other Dispositions Warrant Order Pending Other* Subtotal Other Dispositions 3.3% 0.3% 0.0% 3.5%
0.9% 3.3% 4.2%
14.0% 9.6% 23.6%
51.4% 17.2% 68.6%
4.6% 0.1% 0.0% 4.7%
1.3% 12.2% 13.5%
2.4% 3.1% 5.4%
11,491 100.0%
527 16 0 543
144 1,404 1,548
271 351 622
%
58.6% 17.8% 76.4%
Bronx
6,735 2,043 8,778
N
4.5% 0.2% 0.0% 4.7%
2.0% 8.7% 10.7%
4.1% 3.0% 7.0%
60.2% 17.5% 77.6%
44,895 100.0%
2,011 80 0 2,091
910 3,894 4,804
1,819 1,325 3,144
27,020 7,836 34,856
Manhattan N %
5.6% 0.5% 0.3% 6.4%
3.4% 22.1% 25.5%
6.1% 7.2% 13.3%
9,958 100.0%
559 48 32 639
335 2,202 2,537
606 718 1,324
30.9% 23.9% 54.8%
Queens %
3,080 2,378 5,458
N
1,564
144 0 0 144
32 335 367
144 271 415
367 271 638
100.0%
9.2% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2%
2.0% 21.4% 23.5%
9.2% 17.3% 26.5%
23.5% 17.3% 40.8%
Staten Island N %
86,469
3,847 192 32 4,071
1,597 8,441 10,038
5,441 4,453 9,894
1
Excludes cases where neither the disposition nor last court appearance was known.
4.4% 0.2% 0.0% 4.7%
1.8% 9.8% 11.6%
6.3% 5.1% 11.4%
54.1% 18.2% 72.2%
%
100.0%
Citywide
46,746 15,720 62,466
N
* Other dispositions include all transfers to other court jurisdictions, such as the Family Court, which may have occurred at or subsequent to the Criminal Court arraignment appearance.
18,561 100.0%
176 606 782
Dismissal Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal Dismissals
1
2,601 1,788 4,389
ACD Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal ACDs
Total
9,544 3,192 12,736
Brooklyn N %
Conviction Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal Convictions
1989 Outcomes
Criminal Court Outcomes by Borough
Table 43
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
428 4,679 5,107
Dismissal Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal Dismissals
43,859 100.0%
0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 1.1%
1.0% 10.7% 11.6%
34.5% 9.6% 44.1%
34.3% 8.9% 43.2%
0.9% 0.6% 0.1% 1.6%
2.7% 4.6% 7.3%
14.4% 1.1% 15.5%
33,623 100.0%
295 210 44 549
919 1,546 2,465
4,849 369 5,218
%
61.6% 13.9% 75.5%
Bronx
20,705 4,686 25,391
N
1.8% 1.0% 0.1% 2.9%
1.3% 7.0% 8.3%
20.1% 2.8% 22.9%
55.0% 10.9% 65.9%
67,076 100.0%
1,199 701 41 1,941
852 4,712 5,564
13,491 1,863 15,354
36,878 7,339 44,217
Manhattan N %
0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9%
2.3% 4.4% 6.7%
34.4% 8.8% 43.2%
26,386 100.0%
166 55 4 225
620 1,155 1,775
9,077 2,310 11,387
32.6% 16.7% 49.3%
Queens %
8,601 4,398 12,999
N
5,470
133 30 0 163
41 793 834
720 941 1,661
1,052 1,760 2,812
100.0%
2.4% 0.5% 0.0% 3.0%
0.7% 14.5% 15.2%
13.2% 17.2% 30.4%
19.2% 32.2% 51.4%
Staten Island N %
176,414
2,155 1,096 107 3,358
2,860 12,885 15,745
43,273 9,682 52,955
1
Excludes cases where neither the disposition nor last court appearance was known.
1.2% 0.6% 0.1% 1.9%
1.6% 7.3% 8.9%
24.5% 5.5% 30.0%
46.6% 12.5% 59.2%
%
100.0%
Citywide
82,280 22,076 104,356
N
* Other dispositions include all transfers to other court jurisdictions, such as the Family Court, which may have occurred at or subsequent to the Criminal Court arraignment appearance.
Total
362 100 18 480
15,136 4,199 19,335
ACD Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal ACDs
Other Dispositions Warrant Order Pending Other* Subtotal Other Dispositions
15,044 3,893 18,937
Brooklyn N %
Conviction Arraignment Post-Arraignment Subtotal Convictions
1998 Outcomes
Criminal Court Outcomes by Borough
Table 43 (continued)
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
-66 -
contrast, the conviction rate in Queens was only about five and a half percentage points lower in 1998 than in 1989, (49.3% versus 54.8%), while the percentage of cases disposed by an ACD was dramatically higher in 1998 than in 1989, (43.2% versus 13.3%), and outright dismissals were considerably lower in 1998 (6.7%), than in 1989 (25.5%). Borough Comparisons in Charge Change Between Arrest and Conviction Charge Severities Table 34A in the previous part of this report examined citywide the severity of the disposition charge for non-felony summary-arrest cases in the annualized data sets for 1989 and 1998 in which defendants were convicted, and their relationship to the arrestcharge severity. Tables 44A through 44E show the overall patterns of change between the top arrest-charge severity and the severity of the disposition charge in cases with a conviction outcome, in the annualized data for 1989 and for 1998, for each borough separately. As has been discussed in earlier sections of this report, convicted defendants in prosecuted cases based on A-misdemeanor severity arrest charges were more likely to be convicted of an A-misdemeanor severity charge, while there was a far greater likelihood of charge reduction upon conviction in cases based on Bmisdemeanor severity arrest charges. This pattern was consistently found in all boroughs in both 1989 and 1998. In addition, the percentages of prosecuted Amisdemeanor cases in which the conviction charge remained the same were quite similar in both 1989 and 1998 within each borough, but these percentages were quite different among the boroughs. For example, A-misdemeanor charges at both arrest and conviction occurred in fewer than one fifth of all prosecuted A-misdemeanor cases in Brooklyn in both 1989 and 1998 (Table 44A), and in over three fifths of the Manhattan cases in both 1989 and 1998 (Table 44C). The extent to which non-felony cases had conviction charges less severe than the arrest charge differed not only among the boroughs, but also within crime categories in each borough. Property crime cases, the majority of which were of A-misdemeanor arrest charge severity and involved shoplifting in all boroughs in both years, were proportionately less likely to have charge reduction than cases in many of the other crime categories. Drug cases in most boroughs and in both years tended to have fairly high rates of charge reduction between arrest and conviction charges, although as in other categories the percentages of charge change varied by borough and by whether or not the arrest charge was of A- or B-misdemeanor severity. (Data not shown) Conviction charges less severe than a B-misdemeanor do not result in conviction for a crime under New York State law, and also substantially reduce the maximum allowable penalties, especially jail time. For these reasons it is useful to note in an examination of Tables 44A through 44E that, except for Manhattan cases in both years, in all other court jurisdictions the severity of the conviction charge was less than misdemeanor severity in over half of all prosecuted A-misdemeanor summary-arrest cases. The percentages of B-misdemeanor prosecuted arrest cases with a conviction charge less severe than a misdemeanor was larger than for A-misdemeanor cases, and
15.8%
2,819
14.9%
A Misdemeanor N % 2,742 18.2% 77 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
2,011
A Misdemeanor N % 1,963 17.2% 16 1.6% 0 0.0% 32 16.7% 12.0%
8,859
69.5%
320
2.5%
1,826
9.6%
14,173
74.9%
11
0.1%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 1,358 9.0% 10,885 72.2% 11 0.1% 461 12.9% 3,015 84.5% 0 0.0% 7 3.7% 184 96.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 89 100.0% 0 0.0%
1,532
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 1,197 10.5% 8,156 71.3% 112 1.0% 319 32.2% 575 58.1% 80 8.1% 0 0.0% 80 71.4% 32 28.6% 16 8.3% 48 25.0% 96 50.0%
N
N
104
89 15 0 0
Other*
16
16 0 0 0
Other*
0.5%
% 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
0.1%
% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
18,933
100.0%
Total N % 15,085 100.0% 3,568 100.0% 191 100.0% 89 100.0%
12,738
N 11,444 990 112 192
Total
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony Cases: BROOKLYN Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 44A
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
33.6%
9,557
37.6%
A Misdemeanor N % 9,450 45.8% 103 2.5% 4 2.2% 0 0.0%
2,953
A Misdemeanor N % 2,937 42.0% 16 2.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.5%
3,782
43.1%
1,101
12.5%
1,735
6.8%
13,945
54.9%
117
0.5%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 554 2.7% 10,598 51.3% 7 0.0% 1,173 27.9% 2,915 69.4% 7 0.2% 4 2.2% 144 80.9% 26 14.6% 4 1.1% 288 78.0% 77 20.9%
926
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 543 7.8% 3,431 49.1% 64 0.9% 335 41.2% 223 27.4% 239 29.4% 16 25.0% 32 50.0% 16 25.0% 32 3.5% 96 10.5% 782 85.9%
N
N
37
37 0 0 0
Other*
16
16 0 0 0
Other*
0.1%
% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.2%
% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
25,391
100.0%
Total N % 20,646 100.0% 4,198 100.0% 178 100.0% 369 100.0%
8,778
N 6,991 813 64 910
Total
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony Cases: THE BRONX Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 44B
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
15,146
A Misdemeanor N % 21,347 64.8% 207 3.0% 26 3.0% 0 0.0% 21,580
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
13.6%
11,172
32.0%
3,783
10.8%
4,298
9.7%
16,672
37.7%
1,606
3.6%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 771 2.3% 10,605 32.2% 155 0.5% 3,472 49.5% 3,277 46.7% 48 0.7% 55 6.4% 635 74.4% 137 16.1% 0 0.0% 2,155 63.0% 1,266 37.0%
4,741
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 974 4.1% 8,076 33.6% 128 0.5% 3,336 73.1% 894 19.6% 207 4.5% 96 10.0% 782 81.6% 64 6.7% 335 6.2% 1,420 26.5% 3,384 63.1%
N
N
52
41 11 0 0
Other*
64
64 0 0 0
Other*
0.1%
% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
0.2%
% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
44,208
100.0%
Total N % 32,919 100.0% 7,015 100.0% 853 100.0% 3,421 100.0%
34,906
N 24,021 4,565 958 5,362
Total
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
48.8%
43.4%
A Misdemeanor N % 14,779 61.5% 128 2.8% 16 1.7% 223 4.2%
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony Cases: MANHATTAN Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 44C
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
21.9%
2,967
22.8%
A Misdemeanor N % 2,904 29.6% 63 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
1,197
A Misdemeanor N % 1,181 27.6% 16 2.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18.4%
2,713
49.7%
526
9.6%
1,269
9.8%
8,745
67.3%
0
0.0%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 513 5.2% 6,395 65.1% 0 0.0% 738 24.8% 2,173 73.1% 0 0.0% 18 15.8% 96 84.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 81 100.0% 0 0.0%
1,005
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 702 16.4% 2,155 50.4% 223 5.2% 287 46.1% 287 46.1% 32 5.1% 16 3.0% 271 50.0% 255 47.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 16 100.0%
N
N
15
15 0 0 0
Other*
16
16 0 0 0
Other*
0.1%
% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.3%
% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
12,996
100.0%
Total N % 9,827 100.0% 2,974 100.0% 114 100.0% 81 100.0%
5,457
N 4,277 622 542 16
Total
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony Cases: QUEENS Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 44D
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
30.0%
394
14.0%
A Misdemeanor N % 387 23.8% 7 0.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
192
A Misdemeanor N % 192 40.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.5%
223
34.9%
144
22.5%
295
10.5%
2,096
74.6%
4
0.1%
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 229 14.1% 985 60.7% 4 0.2% 66 6.7% 908 92.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 66 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 137 100.0% 0 0.0%
80
Disposition-Charge Severity B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown N % N % N % 32 6.7% 223 46.6% 32 6.7% 48 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 112 100.0%
N
N
22
18 4 0 0
Other*
0
0 0 0 0
Other*
0.8%
% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
639
479 48 0 112
100.0%
% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2,811
100.0%
Total N % 1,623 100.0% 985 100.0% 66 100.0% 137 100.0%
N
Total
** Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
* Other disposition charge severities include cases in which the conviction charge severity was for an unclassified misdemeanor or was missing.
Total**
1998 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Total**
1989 Arrest-Charge Severity A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Violation/Infraction Unknown/Not Available
Change Between Arrest-Charge and Conviction-Charge Severities for Prosecuted Non-Felony Cases: STATEN ISLAND Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Table 44E
New York City Criminal Justice Agency
-67 -
affected more than half of all such cases in every borough, again with the exception of Manhattan, in cases of defendants convicted in both 1989 and 1998. Borough Comparisons in the Use of Jail in the Sentencing Decision The Criminal Court for each of New York City’s five counties was somewhat differently affected by citywide differences in the nature and volume of prosecuted nonfelony summary arrests in 1998 in comparison to 1989. There also were differences in each time period among the boroughs in the consensus, or what is often referred to as the “going rate,� among courtroom participants as to how to resolve common types of cases in response to the mix of cases and defendants. This includes the type of disposition, charge change between arrest and conviction charges when a conviction occurred, and types of penalties imposed for conviction, especially the decision as to whether or not to impose jail time. Table 45 shows the estimated annual numbers of prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity cases in 1989 and 1998 in which convicted defendants in each borough were sentenced to jail time, including time-served sentences (the yes column), versus those for whom the most severe sanction was not a jail sentence (the no column). Table 46 shows the percentage of cases in each borough in which defendants convicted and sentenced to jail received a sentence of post-conviction jail time (the yes column) versus the percentage receiving time-served sentences (the no column). In some crime categories, such as in the harm-to-persons or property categories, in large percentages of cases defendants convicted and sentenced to jail received postconviction jail sentences in both time periods and in all boroughs. In the crime categories for drug and sex (prostitution-related) offenses, in which there were differences in both charges and defendant attributes in the two time periods, there was greater variation in jail sentencing among the boroughs in each year, and within the boroughs comparing 1989 and 1998. As has already been shown, there were differences among the boroughs in conviction rates, and in the decision whether or not to impose any type of jail sentence, or to impose time-served versus post-conviction jail time in cases in which convicted defendants received a sentence of jail. But once the decision was made to impose a post-conviction jail sentence, there were similarities among the boroughs, within crime categories, in each of the two years. This can be seen on Table 47 that compares the mean and median number of jail days, for each borough in 1989 and in 1998. A cautionary note in making comparisons between means, however, is that whenever averaging small numbers of cases the mean, (and even to some extent the median), will be greatly affected by cases with values at the extremes. This generally affects comparisons with the mean number of jail-day sentences in the Staten Island cases, or in any category with particularly small numbers of cases in which convicted defendants received a sentence of post-conviction incarceration. For all cases, shown at the bottom of Table 47, the overall mean number of days of post-conviction jail time for non-felony summary-arrest cases in 1998 in which defendants were convicted and sentenced to post-conviction jail time was most commonly around one month, with a median of fifteen days, except in Manhattan cases
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 45 Borough Comparison of Jail (including time-served sentences) for Defendants Convicted in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases by Selected Crime Categories: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Crime-Type Category Drugs 1989 1998
Brooklyn No* Yes
Bronx No Yes
Borough Manhattan No Yes
5,570 5,978
2,458 3,103
2,873 5,332
1,580 6,059
543 875
591 1,074
335 1,004
591 841
1,995 3,262
5,522 2,893
Fraud 1989 1998
176 1,863
80 1,450
96 1,849
144 2,343
239 2,328
Sex 1989 1998
64 428
606 697
223 812
1,181 948
Harm to Persons 1989 862 1998 1,052
144 258
303 1,576
Misconduct 1989 1998
511 908
415 516
Obstruction of Justice 1989 1998
192 240
Other 1989 1998 Weapon 1989 1998
Property 1989 1998
All Cases** 1989 1998
Queens No Yes
4,676 8,507 1,420 7,221 11,804 2,930
Staten Island No Yes
686 1,819
48 1,306
128 269
383 959
750 819
32 184
32 137
830 4,764
96 476
80 439
0 15
0 4
1,021 1,221
5,347 679
48 506
543 620
16 48
160 22
223 284
351 1,004
287 513
144 2,122
64 144
0 199
0 63
399 1,310
144 1,771
910 2,716
1,548 3,882
495 742
511 546
0 151
32 70
128 118
255 314
192 210
223 461
686 764
144 406
48 137
48 96
96 33
16 59
0 0
0 137
48 240
750 2,428
1,468 3,424
0 37
0 44
0 70
0 66
303 166
64 77
112 196
48 77
128 133
383 159
32 207
16 15
0 30
0 0
2,698 4,583
176 2,099
464 664
8,237 4,502 4,612 4,167 10,293 24,610 2,762 11,569 7,320 12,534 12,773 17,638 26,432 8,385
* 'No' indicates that most severe penalty was not a sentence of jail time, in comparison to those cases, in the 'yes' column, in which a sentence of either time served or post-conviction jail time was imposed as part of the conviction sanctions. ** Includes cases in all crime categories including those not shown.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 46 Borough Comparison in Percentages of Post-Conviction Jail Time for Defendants Convicted and Sentenced to Jail in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases, by Selected Crime Categories: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Crime-Type Category
Brooklyn No* Yes
Bronx No Yes
Borough Manhattan No Yes
Queens No Yes
Staten Island No Yes
Drugs 1989 1998
58.4 33.2
41.6 66.8
58.6 73.8
41.4 26.2
67.5 59.6
32.5 40.4
37.2 49.1
62.8 50.9
62.5 28.6
37.5 71.4
Property 1989 1998
16.2 13.8
83.8 86.2
35.1 37.7
64.9 62.3
23.1 19.3
76.9 80.7
17.1 19.8
82.9 80.2
0.0 8.1
100.0 91.9
Fraud 1989 1998
40.0 34.1
60.0 65.9
55.6 76.9
44.4 23.1
79.9 66.0
57.1 34.0
60.0 62.2
40.0 37.8
0.0 0.0
0.0 100.0
Sex 1989 1998
89.5 30.7
10.5 69.3
93.2 69.2
6.8 30.8
97.3 52.1
2.7 47.9
76.4 46.5
23.6 53.5
50.0 18.2
50.0 81.8
Harm to Persons 1989 1998
22.2 27.1
77.8 72.9
28.6 9.2
71.4 90.8
22.3 21.6
77.7 78.4
0.0 25.7
100.0 74.3
0.0 23.8
100.0 76.2
Misconduct 1989 1998
88.4 46.8
11.6 53.2
66.7 85.6
33.3 14.4
82.5 76.0
17.5 24.0
81.2 62.1
18.8 37.9
100.0 57.7
0.0 42..3
Obstruction of Justice 1989 1998
37.5 59.3
62.5 40.7
16.7 38.6
83.3 61.4
86.0 64.9
14.0 35.1
33.3 46.0
66.7 54.0
50.0 45.5
50.0 54.5
Other 1989 1998
0.0 50.0
0.0 50.0
66.7 86.3
33.3 13.8
95.6 93.9
4.4 6.1
0.0 75.0
0.0 25.0
0.0 94.0
0.0 6.0
Weapon 1989 1998
50.0 42.9
50.0 57.1
0.0 76.6
100.0 23.4
37.6 44.0
62.4 56.0
0.0 26.7
100.0 73.3
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
All Cases** 1989 1998
57.8 31.6
42.2 68.4
60.9 71.5
39.1 28.5
66.5 60.3
33.5 39.7
47.3 45.6
52.7 54.5
51.7 33.9
48.3 66.1
* 'No' indicates that the jail sentence imposed was for time served, in comparison to post-conviction jail time, the 'yes' column. ** Includes cases in all crime categories including those not shown.
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 47 Borough Comparisons of Mean and Median Number of Jail Days in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in which Convicted Defendants Received a Sentence of Post-Conviction Jail Time: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data Crime-Type Category
Borough Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Queens Staten Island Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
Drugs 1989 1998
23.0 9.7
10.0 5.0
12.3 8.6
10.0 5.0
28.2 13.2
15.0 7.0
24.6 11.9
15.0 7.0
16.7 55.0
10.0 30.0
Property 1989 1998
46.5 29.4
30.0 15.0
40.0 30.7
22.5 15.0
60.5 45.1
30.0 30.0
41.7 23.7
30.0 15.0
37.5 65.7
37.5 60.0
Fraud 1989 1998
8.3 6.8
5.0 5.0
10.5 4.8
11.0 3.0
6.8 7.3
5.0 5.0
6.0 9.0
6.0 5.0
1
1
1
1
Sex 1989 1998
7.0 9.8
5.0 7.0
7.0 6.3
5.0 3.0
7.4 16.5
5.0 10.0
5.4 9.3
5.0 7.0
6.0 32.0
5.0 15.0
Harm to Persons 1989 1998
24.9 62.3
7.0 30.0
36.8 75.4
45.0 30.0
91.4 62.7
75.0 30.0
23.5 34.2
27.0 30.0
1
1
130.8
90.0
Misconduct 1989 1998
10.0 8.7
10.0 5.0
9.0 16.9
7.0 5.0
20.5 14.6
15.0 6.0
23.3 14.6
8.5 8.5
1
1
62.3
12.5
Obstruction of Justice 1989 1998
30.0 15.2
15.0 7.0
37.7 61.3
15.0 30.0
97.5 34.4
90.0 10.0
75.0 47.5
75.0 30.0
33.3 180.0
5.0 120.0
30.0 3.0
18.0 7.8
17.5 5.0
1
1
1
1
3.0
3.0
1
1
Other 1989 1998
1
1
3.5
3.5
30.0 5.0
Weapon 1989 1998
11.0 25.4
11.0 11.0
31.7 11.6
30.0 7.0
34.3 29.0
15.0 17.5
90.0 31.7
90.0 20.0
1
1
1
1
All Cases* 1989 1998
28.1 14.9
15.0 7.0
24.5 18.8
15.0 5.0
46.3 21.9
30.0 10.0
31.7 16.8
15.0 7.0
20.4 71.0
10.0 45.0
1
Indicates that there were none, or too few cases, from which to compute a mean and median number of jail days.
* Includes cases in all crime categories including those not shown.
-68 -
which had a higher mean and median, and in Staten Island cases in which the mean and median were somewhat smaller. In each borough other than Staten Island, the mean and median were smaller in the 1998 cases, with Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens averaging fairly comparable mean numbers of post-conviction jail days, that again were less than the overall average sentence imposed in Manhattan cases. In all boroughs the mean and median number of days of post-conviction jail time in the property crime category was among the longest in both 1989 and in 1998, rivaled in the 1998 cases only by the average sentence imposed in every borough in the harmto-persons category. Drug cases, which constituted the largest caseload of prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in all boroughs in both 1989 and 1998, show a common shift toward smaller mean and median amounts of post-conviction jail time in 1998 in comparison to 1989, except in the Staten Island cases. This change in the “going rate� may reflect the proportionately lower arrest and conviction charge severities arising from the significantly higher percentage of marijuana cases in 1998, the lesser likelihood of substantial criminal histories among defendants in the marijuana drug cases, or a perception for other reasons that these cases, even when there was a conviction and jail decision, were somehow less serious than they were in an earlier time period. There were greater variations in mean and median jail times among the boroughs and between the years for cases in which convicted defendants received a post-conviction jail sentence in only a few crime categories, such as the sentencing patterns in the obstruction-of-justice crime category. Criminal history influences case processing and disposition in a variety of ways, including the decision whether or not to impose a jail sentence after conviction, and whether the sentence will be for post-conviction jail time versus a time-served sentence. Tables 48 and 49 show the number and percent of cases in which convicted defendants for whom criminal history was known received jail sentences, and the number and percentages who received sentences of post-conviction jail time versus time-served sentences, respectively, in each borough in 1989 and 1998. As can be seen on Table 48, convicted defendants without prior adult criminal convictions in every borough except Manhattan were least likely to receive a jail sentence than those with prior convictions in each year, although the percentages varied. In Manhattan about the same percentage of cases of defendants with no prior convictions and only prior convictions for felony crime received no jail time. Except in Brooklyn and Staten Island in the 1989 cases, cases of convicted defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity were the most likely to receive jail sentences. (In Brooklyn and Staten Island in 1998, a greater percentage of cases of defendants with prior convictions for crimes of misdemeanor severity received jail sentences than in cases in which defendants had convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity.) In every borough in both 1989 and 1998, the smallest percentage of cases in which a jail sentence was for post-conviction jail time was for cases of defendants without prior adult convictions who were convicted and sentenced to jail. (See Table 49)
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 48 Borough Comparison of Cases with a Jail Sentence (including the time-served sentences) for Defendants Convicted in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases, by Criminal History by Year: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Borough
No Prior Convictions N %
Prior Misdemeanor Only N %
Conviction History Prior Felony Only N %
Combined Priors N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn 1989 No Jail Yes Jail Total
4,740 72.6% 1,788 27.4% 6,528 100.0%
1,692 51.7% 1,580 48.3% 3,272 100.0%
479 69.8% 207 30.2% 686 100.0%
1,197 62.0% 8,108 65.3% 734 38.0% 4,309 34.7% 1,931 100.0% 12,417 100.0%
1998 No Jail Yes Jail Total
4,594 75.6% 1,480 24.4% 6,074 100.0%
2,565 54.2% 2,166 45.8% 4,731 100.0%
1,015 69.5% 446 30.5% 1,461 100.0%
2,911 50.0% 11,085 61.3% 2,911 50.0% 7,003 38.7% 5,822 100.0% 18,088 100.0%
Bronx 1989 No Jail Yes Jail Total
2,490 67.8% 1,181 32.2% 3,671 100.0%
1,309 43.6% 1,692 56.4% 3,001 100.0%
207 50.0% 207 50.0% 414 100.0%
1998 No Jail Yes Jail Total
5,945 64.4% 3,280 35.6% 9,225 100.0%
2,421 41.3% 3,439 58.7% 5,860 100.0%
926 52.7% 830 47.3% 1,756 100.0%
2,605 36.1% 11,897 49.5% 4,609 63.9% 12,158 50.5% 7,214 100.0% 24,055 100.0%
Manhattan 1989 No Jail Yes Jail Total
4,756 45.0% 5,809 55.0% 10,565 100.0%
2,298 25.5% 6,703 74.5% 9,001 100.0%
415 45.6% 495 54.4% 910 100.0%
1,404 19.9% 8,873 32.2% 5,634 80.1% 18,641 67.8% 7,038 100.0% 27,514 100.0%
1998 No Jail Yes Jail Total
9,373 67.1% 2,937 26.6% 4,594 32.9% 8,111 73.4% 13,967 100.0% 11,048 100.0%
591 35.9% 1,053 64.1% 1,644 100.0%
4,597 52.7% 4,133 47.3% 8,730 100.0%
664 33.5% 2,941 21.8% 15,915 39.3% 1,321 66.5% 10,528 78.2% 24,554 60.7% 1,985 100.0% 13,469 100.0% 40,469 100.0%
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 48 (continued) Borough Comparison of Cases with a Jail Sentence (including the time-served sentences) for Defendants Convicted in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary Arrest Cases by Criminal History Year: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Borough
No Prior Convictions N %
Prior Misdemeanor Only N %
Conviction History Prior Felony Only N %
Combined Priors N %
Total N
%
Queens 1989 No Jail Yes Jail Total
1,692 68.4% 782 31.6% 2,474 100.0%
702 38.9% 1,101 61.1% 1,803 100.0%
192 50.0% 192 50.0% 384 100.0%
1998 No Jail Yes Jail Total
4,708 84.2% 882 15.8% 5,590 100.0%
1,310 45.8% 1,553 54.2% 2,863 100.0%
712 75.1% 236 24.9% 948 100.0%
128 61.5% 80 38.5% 208 100.0%
16 5.6% 271 94.4% 287 100.0%
16 50.0% 16 50.0% 32 100.0%
16 14.3% 96 85.7% 112 100.0%
176 27.5% 463 72.5% 639 100.0%
1,133 90.6% 118 9.4% 1,251 100.0%
303 60.4% 199 39.6% 502 100.0%
232 84.1% 44 15.9% 276 100.0%
284 60.2% 188 39.8% 472 100.0%
1,952 78.0% 549 22.0% 2,501 100.0%
Staten Island 1989 No Jail Yes Jail Total 1998 No Jail Yes Jail Total
160 21.3% 591 78.7% 751 100.0%
2,746 50.7% 2,666 49.3% 5,412 100.0%
1,343 43.3% 8,073 64.6% 1,756 56.7% 4,427 35.4% 3,099 100.0% 12,500 100.0%
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 49 Borough Comparison of Type of Jail Sentence for Cases in which Convicted Defendants Received Jail Time: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Borough
No Prior Convictions N %
Conviction History Prior Prior Misdemeanor Felony Only Only N % N %
Combined Priors N %
Total N
%
Brooklyn 1989 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
575 32.2% 1,213 67.8% 1,788 100.0%
734 46.5% 846 53.5% 1,580 100.0%
80 38.5% 128 61.5% 208 100.0%
479 65.3% 255 34.7% 734 100.0%
1,868 43.3% 2,442 56.7% 4,310 100.0%
1998 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
856 57.8% 624 42.2% 1,480 100.0%
1,590 73.4% 576 26.6% 2,166 100.0%
280 62.8% 166 37.2% 446 100.0%
2,085 71.6% 827 28.4% 2,912 100.0%
4,811 68.7% 2,193 31.3% 7,004 100.0%
Bronx 1989 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
319 27.0% 862 73.0% 1,181 100.0%
543 32.1% 1,149 67.9% 1,692 100.0%
64 30.8% 144 69.2% 208 100.0%
702 66.7% 351 33.3% 1,053 100.0%
1,628 39.4% 2,506 60.6% 4,134 100.0%
1998 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
399 12.2% 2,882 87.8% 3,281 100.0%
1,085 31.5% 2,354 68.5% 3,439 100.0%
177 21.3% 653 78.7% 830 100.0%
1,815 39.4% 3,476 28.6% 2,793 60.6% 8,682 71.4% 4,608 100.0% 12,158 100.0%
Manhattan 1989 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
1,037 17.9% 4,772 82.1% 5,809 100.0%
3,591 53.6% 3,112 46.4% 6,703 100.0%
160 32.3% 335 67.7% 495 100.0%
3,160 56.1% 7,948 42.6% 2,474 43.9% 10,693 57.4% 5,634 100.0% 18,641 100.0%
1998 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
830 18.1% 3,764 81.9% 4,594 100.0%
3,498 43.1% 4,612 56.9% 8,110 100.0%
328 24.8% 5,203 49.4% 9,859 40.2% 993 75.2% 5,325 50.6% 14,694 59.8% 1,321 100.0% 10,528 100.0% 24,553 100.0%
New York City Criminal Justice Agency Table 49 (continued) Borough Comparison of Type of Jail Sentence for Cases in which Convicted Defendants Received Jail Time: Annualized 1989 and 1998 Data
Borough
No Prior Convictions N %
Conviction History Prior Prior Misdemeanor Felony Only Only N % N %
Combined Priors N %
Total N
%
Queens 1989 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
383 49.0% 399 51.0% 782 100.0%
495 45.0% 606 55.0% 1,101 100.0%
112 58.3% 80 41.7% 192 100.0%
415 70.2% 176 29.8% 591 100.0%
1,405 52.7% 1,261 47.3% 2,666 100.0%
1998 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
310 35.1% 572 64.9% 882 100.0%
985 63.4% 568 36.6% 1,553 100.0%
70 29.7% 166 70.3% 236 100.0%
1,063 60.5% 694 39.5% 1,757 100.0%
2,428 54.8% 2,000 45.2% 4,428 100.0%
Staten Island 1989 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
32 40.0% 48 60.0% 80 100.0%
128 47.1% 144 52.9% 272 100.0%
0 0.0% 16 100.0% 16 100.0%
64 66.7% 32 33.3% 96 100.0%
224 48.3% 240 51.7% 464 100.0%
1998 Post-Conviction Time Served Total
59 50.0% 59 50.0% 118 100.0%
140 70.4% 59 29.6% 199 100.0%
37 84.1% 7 15.9% 44 100.0%
133 70.7% 55 29.3% 188 100.0%
369 67.2% 180 32.8% 549 100.0%
-69 -
Summary of Borough Comparisons of Case and Defendant Characteristics, and Court Outcomes, in Non-Felony, Non-VTL, Summary-Arrest Cases in the Annualized Data for 1989 and 1998 The criminal courts of each of New York City’s five boroughs experienced increased caseloads of misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrests cases in 1998 in comparison to 1989, but the citywide percentage increase in 1998 was not uniformly distributed across the boroughs. In addition, the relative percentages and numbers of cases in each of the examined crime categories were different across the boroughs in each of the two years. Manhattan processed the largest number of cases in both 1989 and 1998, although Manhattan’s proportion of the citywide estimated total volume was about fourteen percentage points lower in 1998 than in 1989. In both years Brooklyn’s Criminal Court processed the second largest number of cases, while the Bronx, with the third largest caseload in both years, experienced the largest percentage increase in the volume of prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases comparing the citywide distribution among the boroughs in 1998 in comparison to 1998. The change in the mix of cases in all boroughs, to differing degrees, reflected the citywide differences in enforcement patterns. In all boroughs, drug crime cases formed the largest category of prosecuted non-felony summary arrests, but the proportions of such cases as a percent of each borough’s caseload differed. In Manhattan and Staten Island, the proportion of all cases involving drug charges increased in 1998 in comparison to 1989, while drug cases were a smaller percentage of non-felony volume in Brooklyn and Queens, and was about the same in the Bronx, in 1998 in comparison to 1989. However, because of volume changes, the estimated number of drug cases in each county’s criminal courts was greater in 1998 than it was in 1989. Fraud cases, the vast majority of which were for the A-misdemeanor theft-of-services charge, increased considerably both in percentage and volume in every borough. The percentage of sex crime category cases was lower in every borough in 1998 than it had been in 1989, and the percentage drop in Manhattan and Staten Island, accompanied by smaller volume of arrests in this crime category, resulted in fewer sex crime category cases being arraigned in those boroughs in 1998 than in 1989. The proportion of all non-felony cases in the property crime category was smaller in each borough in 1998 than in 1989, but only in Manhattan was the volume of arraigned cases in this crime category smaller in 1998 than it had been in 1989. Changes in defendant characteristics also were not uniformly distributed among the boroughs. Every borough experienced increased volumes of defendants without prior criminal convictions, doubling and more often tripling the number of such cases comparing 1998 to 1989. In addition, defendants without prior criminal convictions formed the largest criminal history category in both 1989 and 1998. The Bronx was the only borough in both 1989 and 1998 in which fewer than half of the defendants in prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases had no prior criminal convictions. Staten Island had the largest percentage increase in the proportion of defendants without prior criminal convictions, increasing from 45.7 percent in 1989 to 62.8 percent in 1998. Brooklyn, with the largest volume of non-felony cases with defendants without prior convictions in 1989, and the third largest in 1998, was the only
-70 -
borough in which the percentage of cases in which defendants had no prior adult criminal convictions was smaller in 1998 than in 1989, (57.7% versus 59.1%) although in actual volume more Brooklyn cases had defendants without criminal convictions in the later time period. The citywide trend in regard to differences in age distributions was replicated in each of the boroughs. The proportion of defendants in the youngest age group, 16-20 years, was markedly larger in each borough in the 1998 than in the 1989 cases. Similarly, the proportion of defendants in the 41 and older age-group category also was greater in the 1998 than in the 1989 cases in every borough except Staten Island. In contrast, the percentage of defendants in each borough’s cases in 1998 in the 26-30 year age bracket was smaller than in 1989. Borough differences were found in the types of dispositions, charge change between arrest and conviction charges when a conviction occurred, and types of penalties imposed for conviction, especially the decision as to whether or not to impose jail time. In each borough, the actual number of cases in which there was a conviction outcome was greater in 1998 than in 1989, even though the overall conviction rate was lower in each borough, except for Staten Island, and there were considerable borough differences in the conviction rate in each year, and between the two years. The citywide pattern of a proportionately higher rate of ACD outcomes, and a proportionately lower rate of outright dismissals in 1998 in comparison to 1989, also was found in almost every borough, although here again there were borough differences in each year and between the years. However, in all boroughs an ACD disposition was far more likely to occur in the 1998 cases at arraignment, rather than post-arraignment. In comparing Criminal Court outcomes in the two years, Brooklyn and Queens appeared to have had the most dramatic shifts in case dispositions. Brooklyn’s conviction rate was about twenty-five percentage points lower in 1998 than in 1989, while both the percentages of ACDs and outright dismissals was greater in 1998 than in 1989. By contrast, the conviction rate in Queens was only about five and a half percentage points lower in 1998 than in 1989, but the percentage of cases disposed by an ACD was substantially higher in 1998 than in 1989, and outright dismissals were considerably lower in 1998. The citywide pattern of charge change, in which there was less charge reduction in A-misdemeanor than in B-misdemeanor summary-arrest cases was found in each borough among cases in which defendants were convicted in both 1989 and 1998. In addition, the percentages of prosecuted A-misdemeanor cases in which the conviction charge remained the same were quite similar in both 1989 and 1998 within each borough, but these percentages were quite different among the boroughs. There were borough differences in the decision whether or not to impose any type of jail sentence, or to impose a sentence of time-served versus post-conviction jail time in cases in which convicted defendants received a sentence of jail. However, once the decision was made to impose a post-conviction jail sentence, there were similarities among the boroughs, within crime categories, in each of the two years.
-71 -
CONCLUSION Prosecutors, in reviewing arrest materials, may decline to prosecute, or may choose to alter the severity or even the crime category of the alleged offense, but for the most part the cases brought for arraignment in the Criminal Court are reflective of arrest patterns. Thus the actors and agencies operating within the Criminal Court function in a reactive manner, responding to criminal justice policy decisions made outside of the court system but which determine to a very great extent both the volume and nature of the caseloads of the criminal courts. Beginning in the mid-1990s, policy decisions directed at a more encompassing enforcement of rules of public conduct, the “quality-of-life” initiative, accompanied by an expansion of the size of New York City’s police force, led to a substantial increase in the annual volume of arrests, a growth in large measure attributed to an increase in arrests for charges of misdemeanor and lesser-severity classification. Other criminal justice policies, such as statutory changes that added new offenses to the penal laws, that modified the definition or severity of current laws, or law changes accompanied by different arrest and prosecution procedures in regard to specific social problems such as domestic violence, also affected the mix of cases and the characteristics of defendants entering the criminal justice system. In addition, changes in technology made it possible for the police to implement new practices leading to the prearraignment detention of far larger arrest populations without reliance on releasing increased numbers of defendants with Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs). The net result of these and other factors was an increase in arrests, and substantial changes at the misdemeanor and lesser-severity offense levels in the characteristics of cases, and attributes of defendants, being processed in the New York City Criminal Court system. All boroughs were affected by these changes, but the impact was not uniformly distributed. This research has attempted to document how volume and case characteristics in prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser severity arrests of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment, and court processing of these cases, changed in response to the different emphases in criminal justice policies that emerged during the mid-1990s. This was done first in the introductory section by discussing general trends using New York City Police Department reports, and unpublished data routinely prepared by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, (CJA), for tracking changes in prosecuted cases of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment, i.e., summary arrests, some of which are reported in CJA’s Semi-Annual Report series. This formed the backdrop for a comparative examination of two time periods, 1989 and 1998, using CJA data sets created for other research purposes. Because these data sets were based on different selection criteria, 1989 being a random sample of all prosecuted summary arrests while the data from 1998 contained all cases from the 3rd quarter of that calendar year, the first series of analyses, PART I, compared only the relative proportions and percentage representations of case and defendant characteristics, and court outcomes. A separate section of this study report, PART II, then analyzed a number of the key findings using estimated annual volume so that the discussion could move beyond just proportional effects. PART III provided a comparative overview of how prosecuted non-felony, nonVTL, summary-arrest cases were distributed among the boroughs in 1989 and 1998,
-72 -
and differences in some of the attributes of defendants in each borough’s caseload. All of these report sections serve to confirm that New York City’s criminal justice system was in much changed circumstances in the late 1990s in comparison to the late 1980s. In comparing data from 1989 and 1998 it is important to emphasize that each of these years is representative of the general period in criminal justice in which they occurred. That is, in the late 1980s a police force with fewer resources emphasized enforcement of the types of crimes that led to a proportionately larger number of arrests for felony, rather than non-felony, offenses. Beginning in the mid-1990s, more police focused more enforcement efforts on public order behaviors leading to a far greater number, and proportion of total volume, of arrests for charges of non-felony severity. In addition, while the comparative analysis in this study has been on prosecuted cases in which both the top arrest and prosecuted charges were of non-felony severity, the criminal courts arraigned more non-felony cases based on arrests in which there had been a prosecutorial decision to reduce arrests charges of felony severity to non-felony severity at the outset of court proceedings, and there was a greater percentage of such prosecuted arrests in 1998 than in 1989. This research has shown that in responding to the increased volume and different mix of cases resulting from enforcement efforts targeted at non-felonious behavior in 1998, in comparison to 1989, a smaller percentage of cases overall were disposed by a conviction, almost all by guilty pleas in both periods, and far more of the cases in 1998 were disposed by an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). However, these two types of dispositions combined led to a greater percentage (and larger number of) cases in which defendants were subject to criminal justice supervision after the court disposition of the studied arrest, whether by sentences imposed for conviction, or by the threat of resumption of prosecution for misconduct or failure to comply with conditions that may have been imposed during the adjournment pending dismissal. This resulted in a smaller percentage of the prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in 1998 ending with an outright dismissal, than occurred in comparable cases in the 1989 data. Another difference between the two time periods was the far greater adjudication of the prosecuted non-felony cases in 1998, regardless of the type of outcome, at the Criminal Court arraignment. To some extent disposing of a substantial percentage of non-felony cases at arraignment is one way the court system can respond to the need to process large caseloads. There is limited elasticity in the criminal court system in New York City and high volumes of case dispositions of non-felony cases at arraignment are a long-standing feature of the City’s criminal courts. The total number of judicial positions is set by constitution or statute, depending on the court jurisdiction in New York City, although judges may and are frequently re-assigned from the court to which they were selected to alleviate the most pressing system needs. But moving judges from the civil side to the criminal side of the system, or from the city to state criminal jurisdictions to expedite felony case processing, is not without impact on the parts of the court system forced by such reallocation to operate with fewer resources. Each county’s district attorney’s office is provided finite funding. Funding for publicly supported legal defense has been a controversial issue in New York City for a number of years, including the most recent controversy over the failure since 1985 of the state’s
-73 -
legislature to approve increases in hourly compensation rates provided to private attorneys willing to take court assignments. In addition to these key agencies of the courtroom workgroup, each additional courtroom needs a physical location and an array of personnel from support organizations such as court officers. In both time periods, as was shown on Table 19, convictions were the largest category of case outcomes in both 1989 and 1998, although a smaller percentage of cases had a conviction in 1998 in comparison to 1989, 46.6 percent and 53.8 percent, respectively. In addition, in both time periods the vast majority of convictions in nonfelony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases were the result of guilty pleas at Criminal Court arraignment. Another similarity was that dismissals in both time periods were only a small percentage of case outcomes, and consistently were more likely to occur postarraignment. What did distinguish case outcomes in 1998 from 1989 was the high volume of ACDs, and the far greater likelihood that this outcome would occur in 1998 at, rather than subsequent to, the arraignment appearance. It therefore may be the types of disposition, more than the fact that the outcome occurred at arraignment, which is particularly important. This also suggests that factors other than expeditiousness, such as the change in the mix of cases and defendant attributes, may have affected dispositions in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Charge reduction in cases in which defendants were convicted appeared to be related to the severity of the arrest charge in both time periods. The rates of charge reduction in convictions in all prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases of Amisdemeanor severity were not very different in 1989 and 1998. Also very similar in Amisdemeanor cases was the percentage of defendants for whom the severity of the conviction charge resulted in a criminal record, but volume differences led to far greater numbers of defendants being convicted of a charge constituting a crime in 1998, in comparison to 1989, as was shown on Table 34A. This table also showed that in the studied cases in 1998, charge reduction was far more pronounced for defendants convicted in B-misdemeanor summary-arrest cases, than had occurred in convictions for B-misdemeanor summary-arrest cases in 1989. The only crime category in which there was a greater percentage of Bmisdemeanor arrests in 1998 than in 1989 was drug cases, and this was related to the substantial increase, both in terms of percentages and volume, of defendants charged with the B-misdemeanor crime of marijuana possession. While the likelihood of charge reduction in prosecuted A-misdemeanor drug category cases was less in 1998 then in 1989, in B-misdemeanor cases in which there was a conviction, there was a reduction in charge below misdemeanor-severity level in over two-thirds of the cases with a conviction in 1998, in comparison to charge reduction below misdemeanor severity in fewer than half the cases in 1989. (See Table 34B) The rates of charge reduction in cases also varied in other crime categories in which defendants were convicted. Future research might more fully explore the relationship of charge reduction not only to factors such as crime category, but also to specific charges within crime categories. Another facet of this research has been to focus on the use of jail in the sentencing decision. In traditional models of the criminal justice sanction, incarceration is seen as the most serious punishment for defendants convicted of non-felony offenses. There was a pattern of higher jail-sentence rates, including time-served
-74 -
sentences, in 1989 overall and in most crime categories, although the percentage point differences between 1989 and 1998 in the imposition of any jail sentence varied by crime category. However, in cases in which convicted defendants received a jail sentence, a sentence of post-conviction jail time was more likely than a time-served sentence to be imposed in the 1998 cases, as was shown on Table 23. And, because of volume differences in the two periods, post-conviction jail sentences were imposed in almost 10,000 more cases of convicted defendants in 1998 than in 1989. The average amount of post-conviction jail time was lower, however, in 1998 than in 1989, overall and in most crime categories. However, this research examined jail sentences only by crime category and not for common charges within categories. Because in some crime categories there were changes in the types and percentages of the different charges, it can not be determined the extent to which these sentence patterns were affected by the different charges within crime categories for which convicted defendants were sentenced to jail, or post-conviction jail time. By focusing attention on the use of jail, this research also did not explore other sanctions or conditions imposed in cases with either a conviction or an ACD outcome in the prosecuted non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases in each time period. Convicted defendants in some cases may have received fines or other traditional also were more and different opportunities for alternative sanctions for misdemeanor defendants than had existed in 1989, such as those offered at the Midtown Community Court, or District Attorney sponsored programs. The New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator also had undertaken programmatic review and new policies in the alternatives-to-incarceration area, so that jail alone may not be a comparable measure in studying sentencing for defendants convicted in misdemeanor cases in 1989 and 1998. In addition, participation in alternative programs, such as community service, may be imposed as a condition of both a conviction and an ACD. Unfortunately, the data sets used for this project do not permit an examination of alternative sanctioning as such data are not systematically incorporated into CJA’s computerized database. As a result, the extent to which far larger numbers and proportions of defendants in 1998, in comparison to 1989, had alternative sanctions attached to the disposition of their cases, either as part of a guilty, or ACD, plea agreement, could not be examined. Criminal history greatly affects court outcomes, and is one of the key differences, along with age distributions, found in the defendant populations in the studied nonfelony summary-arrest cases in the two time periods. In far larger numbers and percentages of cases in 1998 defendants had no prior adult convictions, as could be seen on Table 28. After decades of criminal justice research it has become almost axiomatic that the criminal justice system deals more harshly with recidivist convicted, less likely to have charges reduced upon conviction than convicted defendants without offenders than those without prior adult convictions for crimes. That is: In comparable types of cases, defendants with criminal records are more likely to be prior criminal convictions, and more likely to receive more punitive sanctions than those without prior convictions even when convicted of charges of comparable severity. This research confirms these themes in its findings about case dispositions in each period studied when comparing court processing and outcome decisions by types of criminal histories of defendants.
-75 -
As was shown on Table 21, in 1998, cases of defendants without prior adult convictions were less likely in most, but not all, crime categories to have a conviction disposition than in 1989, and the relationship between criminal history and court outcomes in terms of both volume and percentages can be reviewed on Table 33. But cases in 1998 in which defendants had previous adult convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity were as, or more likely, to have conviction outcomes than in 1989, in almost every crime category. In addition, in cases in which convicted defendants had no prior criminal convictions, in 1998 the likelihood of charge reduction between arrest and conviction charge was greater in almost every crime category, in comparison to cases in 1989. Once again, however, cases of defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severities appear to have been treated comparatively more harshly in regard to whether or not there was a conviction in 1998 than in 1989. In addition, there was less likelihood of charge reduction in cases in which convicted defendants had prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity in 1998 than in 1989 in almost every crime category, as could be seen on Table 22. To some extent the different, and seemingly harsher, treatment of defendants with prior convictions of both misdemeanor and felony severities in prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in the later period may in part reflect that in the 1998 cases, defendants with this type of criminal history had, on average, a greater number of prior convictions than their counterparts in 1989. But differences found also may have been affected by the nature, as well as the number, of these prior convictions, a subject that would appear to warrant further investigation. In summation, this research has shown that there were substantial differences in the volume of non-felony, non-VTL, summary-arrest cases prosecuted in New York City’s criminal courts in comparing 1998 with 1989, in the attributes of defendants in these cases, in the mix of non-felony cases by crime category of the top arrest charge and, in some categories, even the nature of the charges. In addition, changes in the proportional volume and the mix of cases were not uniformly distributed among the boroughs, although in 1998 each borough’s criminal court processed more cases than in 1989. The court system adapted to these changes in various ways, including by disposing, in 1998, a far greater number and percentage of cases at, rather than subsequent to, the Criminal Court arraignment appearance, and with a smaller percentage of cases with a conviction outcome, but a larger percentage with an ACD outcome, in comparison to 1989. In both time periods, however, virtually all convictions were by a guilty plea, regardless of the court appearance at which the conviction occurred, and the vast majority of convictions continued to occur at arraignment. There also were different sentencing patterns in regard to the use of jail, and whether or not a sentence of jail was for time served, or post-conviction jail time. However, once a decision was made to impose upon convicted defendants a sentence of post-conviction jail time, there were many similarities among the boroughs in each time period in regard to the appropriate amount of jail days to be imposed. There also were notable differences in some of the characteristics of defendants in prosecuted non-felony summary-arrest cases in 1998 in comparison to 1989. Among these differences were age and types of criminal history. In 1989, the distribution of defendants in the 1989 cases gravitated toward the young adult years, mainly in the twenties, while in the 1998 cases the defendant population in misdemeanor and lesser
-76 -
severity cases seemed more bifurcated, falling into either the youngest, sixteen to eighteen, or oldest, forty-one and older, age groups. The more bifurcated age-group distributions in 1998 may reflect, at least in part, the substantially larger proportion of defendants in the 1998 cases with no prior adult convictions, and the larger proportion of defendants with prior convictions for crimes of both misdemeanor and felony severity, and more such convictions in 1998 than in 1989. This also suggests that changes in the types of offenses in law enforcement initiatives in the later time period may have been bringing into the court system a different type of defendant population. That is, types of charges have participants of particular characteristics. This is another one of the findings of this study that suggests the need for further research. The mix of prosecuted misdemeanor and lesser-severity summary-arrest cases differed among the crime categories, and in some categories the charge configuration was different as well in comparing 1989 to 1998. This may in turn have affected differences found in defendant attributes such as age and criminal history, and in court outcomes. Future research might refocus some of the materials presented in this study to more comprehensively highlight the ways in which case and defendant characteristics appear to be interrelated, at least for the largest charge and crime category groups in the two time periods. In addition, this research only analyzed cases and defendants in which both the top arrest and prosecuted charge at Criminal Court arraignment were for charges of misdemeanor or lesser severity, excluding VTL charges. Other current CJA research suggests that court processing and case outcome are somewhat different if one examines prosecuted non-felony cases based only on court charges at arraignment, thereby incorporating cases in which a felony arrest charge was lodged at a less severe level for prosecution in the criminal courts. As discussed in the Introduction to this report, the pendulum has once again focused attention on the work of the lower, criminal courts. In New York City part of this attention has manifested itself in the creation of a number of specialized courts, designed to replace traditional adjudication with a broader mandate to attempt to fashion sanctions that might provide redress for the harm caused by the criminal conduct, or more effective interventions in patterns of criminal conduct. One such type of specialized court currently under discussion would be courtrooms dedicated to the cases of persistent misdemeanor offenders. The goal of such specialization, according to proponents, would be to focus criminal justice resources on what is believed to be a problematic population, presumably drug involved, who they contend receive neither adequate punishment in terms or jail nor any other effective alternative intervention. 37 Proponents argue that this has resulted in a revolving door cycling of recidivist misdemeanants through the criminal courts. There is evidence that recent changes in enforcement practices in the City have resulted in increasing numbers of recidivist defendants in misdemeanor cases. But the findings of this study also indicate that recidivist defendants receive, at least comparatively, more harsh treatment than defendants with no or lesser adult criminal histories. Much still is to be learned about
37
Confronting the Cycle of Addiction and Recidivism. A Report to Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye by the New York State Commission on Drugs and the Courts. (June 2000)
-77 -
this population of defendants, especially the nature of the criminal careers of such offenders, and the type of crimes involved in prior convictions. Another issue is that for those who advocate court mandated and supervised drug treatment, such legally coerced drug treatment must be accompanied by a threat of meaningful jail time for failure. The patterns found in jail sentences even for those cases in which the jail sentence included post-conviction jail time, would not appear to be conducive to this protocol without change in current practices throughout the criminal court system. In addition, many of the courtrooms dedicated to problem solving in specific areas such as the existing drug or domestic violence court parts require review of cases after Criminal Court arraignment. How to triage cases to accommodate additional court appearances for more groups of targeted cases given current caseload volume and court capacity poses new challenges for court administrators.