Big data obstacles and solutions
Having access to data is one matter, using it is another. Despite the ubiquity of data on sex offender registries, there are basic problems that relate not only to the usefulness of the data, but also to the willingness or interest of the general public to consume the data. Studies have shown, for example, that the few people in the general public actually use sex offender registries because of basic lack of interest, due to perceptions that their community is safe and thus likely does not have a sex offender presence, or because citizens do not have children and thus feel little sense of vulnerability or risk (Anderson & Sample, 2008; Kemsmith, Comartin, Crarrn, & Kemsmith, 2009). Others have also shown apathy and lack of knowledge among the public about sex offender registries and notification efforts (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007). To be blunt, the general public generally does not care about criminal justice data, big or otherwise.
Sex offender registries are not the only form of criminal justice data that are available to the general public. Most county jail rosters and state departments of corrections have extensive websites that provide the current roster of inmates in the case of jails and folly searchable databases of inmates and correctional clients in the case of state-level sites. Again, it is likely that most citizens are not aware of these data resoruces, likely for a variety of reasons, including apathy and disinterest, lack of application to their daily life, and limited victimisation experiences and associated fear of crime.
The crurent author proposes two solutions to boost the lack of interest in big correctional data. First, criminologists should use websites of criminal justice data in their classes to provide exposure and instruction on how to use the sites and the types of information they provide. For instance, showing the local jail roster provides insight into the types of charges that jail inmates have, demographic characteristics of jail inmates, data on bond, correctional holds, state statutes, and other information. The current author can personally attest to the popularity of using local jail data to inform classroom lecture and instruction and understand social processes that affect crime, srrch as the clustering of arrests for prrblic intoxication and other alcohol violations on the day of college football games. Similar, the use of local sex offender registries allows students the opportrrnity to search these websites and examine the number of registered sex offenders that live in close proximity to them. Anecdotally, most undergraduates have admitted to me that they have never used sex offender registries. The large exception to that are students who are also parents.
Second, criminologists should take advantage of online official criminal justice data for research purposes. Again, the cunent author has used online correctional data to conduct studies of institutional misconduct (DeLisi, 2003) and violent criminals (DeLisi, Beauregard, & Mosley, 2017). The latter study is particularly important since it covers exceedingly violent offenders that are unlikely to be found in general population and student samples, hr fact, it is probably impossible to find armed burglary offenders in the general population using conventional sampling approaches. Accessing data thus facilitates important teaciting and research endeavours and pennits inclusion of rare, forensically fascinating offenders that academics would otherwise never contact.
The epidemiological scope of III and NCIC data is unparalleled, unfortunately almost no one can access these data especially for research purposes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has a memorandum of understanding that prohibits the use of NCIC data for research purposes. Currently, only the Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Sentencing Commission, and Administrative Office of the US Courts Probation and Pretrial Services are able to access NCIC and III data to assess recidivism outcomes for persons under or formerly under federal supervision. This means that local and state law enforcement, county sheriffs, state and federal probation, state parole, and other criminal justice organisations cannot use these data for research even though these organisations can use the NCIC for law enforcement and other specific judicial or correctional tasks. At the very least, criminal justice organisations should be able to access III and NCIC data to conduct research that is consistent with the function of their organisation, such as risk assessment with follow-up of recidivism data. In the event that academic criminologists have associations with criminal justice organisations, III and NCIC access should also be provided. Greater data access could result in new insights into offender behaviour and the development of better risk assessment actuarial tools which in turn could enhance the effectiveness of the justice system and potential bolster public safety.
Another data source that is epidemiological in scope is sexual assault kits (SAKs), which is a forensic medical exam that is conducted on the victuns of sexual assault.4 According to a recent summary review on the national problem of untested SAKs (Campbell, Feeney, Fehler-Cabral, Shaw, & Horsford, 2017), there are more than 200,000 untested SAKs in the United States. SAKs are not routinely submitted for DNA testing for a variety of reasons including lack of victim consent or release of their SAK to be tested, financial limitations that law enforcement and county attorney offices have to DNA test the kits in a timely maimer, perceived utility of DNA testing for the investigation, and other reasons. Regardless of the reason, that so many untested SAKs sit on shelves in evidence rooms in the United States is an appalling disservice to victims of sexual violence and a fundamental affront to crime control and due process.
Fortunately, many jurisdictions are working to change the conversation on untested SAKs toward the realisation of justice. For instance, the Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, Ohio) SAK Task Force tested approximately 5,000 SAKs in its jurisdiction in part using a grant from the Cuyahoga Comity Prosecutor’s Office. In turn, academics at Case Western Reserve University obtained giant funding from the United States Bureau of Justice Assistance to analyse the SAK data (Lovell et al., 2017). Their research findings were critically important. Of the 433 SAKs in their sample, 56.3 percent were connected to serial sexual offenders. Compared to non-serial sexual offenders, serial sexual offenders were significantly more likely to rape strangers, to kidnap then victim, to perpetrate sexual assault while using or displaying a firearm or knife, and to employ verbal threats and physical abuse of their victim. Increasing the number of SAKs that are tested and analysed thus offers considerable opportunities for identifying sexual aggressors for arrest, prosecution, and incapacitation.
