IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v3y2013i4p2158244013511826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relationship Between Individual Police Officer Work Habits and the Stated Reasons Prosecutors Reject Their Domestic Violence Investigations

Author

Listed:
  • Eric L. Nelson

Abstract

In the United States, 70% of all non-arrest domestic violence (DV) police investigations are rejected by prosecutors. Using DV investigation data, the routine work habits of two groups of police officers were compared across six measures. Cases submitted by routinely lower effort (RLE) officers are rejected 270% more often, sustaining an average of 4.00 criticisms each, compared to 2.21 for routinely greater effort (RGE) officers. RLE officers submit ambiguous investigations (58% v. 0%), and cases with insufficient evidence (74% vs. 36%). The Proficiency Score ( P Score) quantitative monitoring method is presented and validated. This method identifies RLE officers, and also specific areas of deficient individual investigative practice in need of improvement. With improvement, rates of prosecution and conviction for DV crime should increase substantially.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric L. Nelson, 2013. "The Relationship Between Individual Police Officer Work Habits and the Stated Reasons Prosecutors Reject Their Domestic Violence Investigations," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:3:y:2013:i:4:p:2158244013511826
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244013511826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244013511826
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244013511826?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yassine Gargouri & Chawki Hajjem & Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Les Carr & Tim Brody & Stevan Harnad, 2010. "Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Sun, Ivan Y., 2003. "Officer proactivity: A comparison between police field training officers and non-field training officers," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 265-277.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eric L. Nelson, 2014. "If You Want to Convict a Domestic Violence Batterer, List Multiple Charges in the Police Report," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440135, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ajiferuke, Isola & Famoye, Felix, 2015. "Modelling count response variables in informetric studies: Comparison among count, linear, and lognormal regression models," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 499-513.
    2. Barbara McGillivray & Mathias Astell, 2019. "The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega-journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 817-838, November.
    3. Juliana Loureiro Almeida Campos & André Sobral & Josivan Soares Silva & Thiago Antonio Sousa Araújo & Washington Soares Ferreira-Júnior & Flávia Rosa Santoro & Gilney Charll Santos & Ulysses Paulino A, 2016. "Insularity and citation behavior of scientific articles in young fields: the case of ethnobiology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1037-1055, November.
    4. Wang, Zhiqi & Chen, Yue & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    5. Eberhard Feess & Marc Scheufen, 2016. "Academic copyright in the publishing game: a contest perspective," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 263-294, October.
    6. Schrape, Jan-Felix, 2011. "Der Wandel des Buchhandels durch Digitalisierung und Internet," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2011-01, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    7. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Open Access as a Crude Solution to a Hold‐Up Problem in the Two‐Sided Market for Academic Journals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 301-349, June.
    8. Martorell Cunil, Onofre & Otero González, Luis & Durán Santomil, Pablo & Mulet Forteza, Carlos, 2023. "How to accomplish a highly cited paper in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    9. Danielle H. Lee, 2019. "Predictive power of conference-related factors on citation rates of conference papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 281-304, January.
    10. Alessio J. G. Brown & Klaus F. Zimmermann, 2017. "Three decades of publishing research in population economics," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 11-27, January.
    11. Guoqiang Liang & Haiyan Hou & Qiao Chen & Zhigang Hu, 2020. "Diffusion and adoption: an explanatory model of “question mark” and “rising star” articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 219-232, July.
    12. Hajar Sotudeh & Zohreh Estakhr, 2018. "Sustainability of open access citation advantage: the case of Elsevier’s author-pays hybrid open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 563-576, April.
    13. Isabel Bernal, 2013. "Open Access and the Changing Landscape of Research Impact Indicators: New Roles for Repositories," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-22, July.
    14. Xin Gu & Karen Blackmore, 2017. "Characterisation of academic journals in the digital age," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1333-1350, March.
    15. Zhiqi Wang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Yue Chen, 2020. "The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1403-1423, November.
    16. Jonathan Wheeler & Ngoc-Minh Pham & Kenning Arlitsch & Justin D. Shanks, 2022. "Impact factions: assessing the citation impact of different types of open access repositories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4977-5003, August.
    17. Brady D. Lund & Sanjay Kumar Maurya, 2020. "The relationship between highly-cited papers and the frequency of citations to other papers within-issue among three top information science journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2491-2504, December.
    18. Isabel Basson & Jaco P. Blanckenberg & Heidi Prozesky, 2021. "Do open access journal articles experience a citation advantage? Results and methodological reflections of an application of multiple measures to an analysis by WoS subject areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 459-484, January.
    19. Jim Ottaviani, 2016. "The Post-Embargo Open Access Citation Advantage: It Exists (Probably), It’s Modest (Usually), and the Rich Get Richer (of Course)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-11, August.
    20. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Leonardo Grilli, 2024. "The role of non-scientific factors vis-à-vis the quality of publications in determining their scholarly impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 5003-5019, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:3:y:2013:i:4:p:2158244013511826. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.