Using National Incident-Based Reporting System Data for Strategic Crime Analysis

The utility of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) forstrategic crime analysis has yet to be explored. The NIBRS represents anadvancement over existing reporting systems and possesses considerableutility to frontline law enforcement with respect to strategic crimeanalysis. This paper discusses the utility of the NIBRS for identifyinglocal and regional trends in narcotics related offenses. As an example, weselected four localities from the 1997 Virginia NIBRS data to examine trendsin the sale/distribution and possession of narcotics. Our analysis showsthat the NIBRS provides significantly more incident-related detail than hasheretofore been available for strategic crime analysis at the regional orstate level. Moreover, the NIBRS provides neighboring communities theopportunity to compare information on emerging crime patterns and criminalenterprises which extend beyond local boundaries. Finally, enhancing localreporting compliance by highlighting the strategic utility of the data tolocal law enforcement will ultimately ensure the quality of the data set,which can then be employed by larger entities as well as criminal justiceresearchers for policy development and planning.     

Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues

Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitutionally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spending clause issues)? 2. May jurisdiction be created in non-article 3 tribunals, and may claims be decided without trial by jury (the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment issues)? 3. Would pilot programs that require some claims to be pursued in a federal administrative forum while other claimants are left to pursue traditional state tort law remedies be constitutional (the equal protection issue)? The article concludes that a federal compensation system through administrative health courts should be constitutional provided the statute is appropriately drafted and that appropriate factual findings are made concerning the benefits to patients and the public as well as to doctors and their insurers.