Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 155–183 | Cite as

The Application of Missing Data Estimation Models to the Problem of Unknown Victim/Offender Relationships in Homicide Cases

  • Wendy C. Regoeczi
  • Marc Riedel

Abstract

Homicide cases suffer from substantial levels of missing data, a problem largely ignored by criminological researchers. The present research seeks to address this problem by imputing values for unknown victim/offender relationships using the EM algorithm. The analysis is carried out first using homicide data from the Los Angeles Police Department (1994-1998), and then compared with imputations using homicide data for Chicago (1991-1995), using a variety of predictor variables to assess the extent to which they influence the assignment of cases to the various relationship categories. The findings indicate that, contrary to popular belief, many of the unknown cases likely involve intimate partners, other family, and friends/acquaintances. However, they disproportionately involve strangers. Yet even after imputations, stranger homicides do not increase more than approximately 5%. The paper addresses the issue of whether data on victim/offender relationships can be considered missing at random (MAR), and the im-plications of the current findings for both existing and future research on homicide.

missing data victim/offender relationships homicide imputation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acock, A. C. (1997). Working with missing data. Fam. Sci. Rev. 10: 76–102.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, P. (2000). Multiple imputation for missing data: A cautionary tale. Sociol. Methods Res. 28: 301–309.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, P. (2002). Missing Data, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Best, J. (1988). Missing children: Misleading statistics. Public Interest 92: 84–92.Google Scholar
  5. Best, J. (1999). Random Violence: How We Talk About New Crimes and New Victims, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  6. Biderman, A. D., and Lynch, J. P. (1991). Understanding Crime Incidence Statistics: Why the UCR Diverges from the NCS, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Block, C. R., and Block, R. (1997). Homicides in Chicago, 1965–1995. Vol. ICPSR 6399. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  8. Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth violence, guns, and the illicit drug industry. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 86: 10–36.Google Scholar
  9. Browne, A., and Williams, K. R. (1989). Exploring the effect of resource availability and the likelihood of female-perpetrated homicides. Law Soc. Rev. 23: 75–94.Google Scholar
  10. Browne, A., and Williams, K. R. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethal violence. Gend. Soc. 7: 78–98.Google Scholar
  11. Browne, A., Williams, K. R., and Dutton, D. G. (1999). Homicide between intimate partners: A 20-year review. In Smith, M. D. and Zahn, M. A. (eds.), Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 149–164.Google Scholar
  12. Cardarelli, A., and Cavanagh, D. (1992). Uncleared homicides in the United States: An exploratory study of trends and patterns. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  13. Conklin, J. E. (1975). The Impact of Crime, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Cox, B. G., and Folsom, R. E. (1978). An empirical investigation of alternative item nonresponse adjustments. Am. Statistical Association. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods 219–221.Google Scholar
  15. Daly, M., and Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  16. David, M., Little, R. J. A., Samuhel, M. E., and Triest, R. K. (1986). Alternative methods of CPS income imputation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81: 29–41.Google Scholar
  17. Decker, S. H. (1993). Exploring victim-offender relationships in homicide: The role of individual and event characteristics. Justice Q. 10: 585–612.Google Scholar
  18. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., and Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood estimation of incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Series B. 39: 1–38.Google Scholar
  19. Dugan, L., Nagin, D. S., and Rosenfeld, R. (1999). Explaining the decline in intimate partner homicide: The effects of changing domesticity, women's status, and domestic violence resources. Homicide Studies 3: 187–214.Google Scholar
  20. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1999). Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.Google Scholar
  21. Flewelling, R. L., and Williams, K. R. (1999). Categorizing homicides: The use of disaggregated data in homicide research. In Smith, M. D. and Zahn, M. A. (eds.), Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 96–106.Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert, N. (1991). The phantom epidemic of sexual assault. The Public Interest 103: 54–65.Google Scholar
  23. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
  24. Heitjan, D. F. (1997). Annotation: What can be done about missing data? Approaches to imputation. Am. J. Public Health 87: 548–550.Google Scholar
  25. Hotaling, G. T., and Finkelhor, D. (1990). Estimating the number of stranger-abduction homicides of children: A review of available evidence. J. Crim. Justice 18: 385–399.Google Scholar
  26. Jenkins, P. (1994). Using Murder: The Social Construction of Serial Homicide, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  27. King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., and Scheve, K. (2001). Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95: 49–69.Google Scholar
  28. Little, R. J. A., and Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Little, R. J. A., and Rubin, D. B. (1989). The analysis of social science data with missing values. Sociol. Methods Res. 18: 292–326.Google Scholar
  30. Madow, W. G., Olkin, I., and Rubin, D. B. (eds.) (1983). Incomplete Data in Sample Surveys, 3 vols., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Maxfield, M.(1989). Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and validity. Criminology 27: 671–695.Google Scholar
  32. McIntyre, J. (1967). Public attitudes toward crime and law enforcement. Annals of the Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 374: 34–46.Google Scholar
  33. Messner, S. F., Deane, G., and Beaulieu, M. (2002). A log-multiplicative association model for allocating homicides with unknown victim-offender relationships. Criminology 40: 457–480.Google Scholar
  34. Pampel, F. C., and Williams, K. R. (2000). Intimacy and homicide: Compensating for missing data in the SHR. Criminology 38(2): 661–680.Google Scholar
  35. Petee, T. A., Weaver, G. S., Corzine, J., Huff-Corzine, L., and Wittekind, J. (2001). Victim-offender relationships and the situational context of homicide. In Blackman, P. H., Leggett, V. L., and Jarvis, J. P. (eds.), The Diversity of Homicide: Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Homicide Research Working Group, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  36. Regoeczi, W. C., Kennedy, L. W., and Silverman, R. A. (2000). Uncleared homicides: A Canada/United States comparison. Homicide Studies 4: 135–161.Google Scholar
  37. Regoeczi, W. C., and Riedel, M. (1999). Criminal homicides and missing data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto.Google Scholar
  38. Regoeczi, W. C., and Riedel, M. (2000). Estimating stranger homicides: Los Angeles and Chicago. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  39. Reuter, P. (1984). The (continued) vitality of mythical numbers. The Public Interest 75: 135–147.Google Scholar
  40. Riedel, M. (1987). Stranger violence: Perspectives, issues, and problems. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 78: 223–258.Google Scholar
  41. Riedel, M. (1993). Stranger Violence: A Theoretical Inquiry, Garland Publishing Co., New York.Google Scholar
  42. Riedel, M. (1998). Counting stranger homicides: A case study of statistical prestidigitation. Homicide Studies 2: 206–219.Google Scholar
  43. Riedel, M. (1999). Sources of homicide data: A review and comparison. In Smith, M. D. and Zahn, M. A. (eds.), Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 75–95.Google Scholar
  44. Riedel, M. (2000). Research Strategies for Secondary Data: A Perspective for Criminology and Criminal Justice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  45. Riedel, M., and Rinehart, T. A. (1996). Murder clearances and missing data. J. Crime and Justice 19: 83–102.Google Scholar
  46. Rinehart, T. A. (1994). An Analysis of Murder Clearances in Chicago: 1981–1991. Unpublished master's thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  47. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63: 581–592.Google Scholar
  48. Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data, Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
  49. Silberman, C. E. (1978). Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Silverman, R. A., and Kennedy, L. W. (1997). Uncleared homicides in Canada and the United States. In Riedel, M., and Boulahanis, J. (eds.), Lethal Violence: Proceedings of the 1995 Meeting of the Homicide Research Working Group, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.Google Scholar
  51. Spector, M., and Kitsuse, J. I. (1987). Constructing Social Problems, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  52. SPSS Inc. (1997). Missing Value Analysis 7.5. Chicago.Google Scholar
  53. Wellford, C., and Cronin, J. (1999). An analysis of variables affecting the clearance of homicides: A multistate study. Justice Research and Statistics Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  54. Wiersema, B., Loftin, C., and McDowall, D. (2000). A comparison of Supplementary Homicide Reports and national vital statistics system homicides estimates for U.S. counties. Homicide Studies 4: 317–340.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, K., and Flewelling, R. L. (1987). Family, acquaintance, and stranger homicide: Alternative procedures for rate calculations. Criminology 25: 543–560.Google Scholar
  56. Williams, K., and Flewelling, R. L. (1988). The social production of criminal homicide: A comparative study of disaggregated rates in American cities. Am. Sociol. Rev. 53: 421–431.Google Scholar
  57. Williams, K. R., and Pampel, F. (1998). Intimacy and homicide: Compensating for missing information in the Supplementary Homicide Reports. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy C. Regoeczi
    • 1
  • Marc Riedel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyCleveland State UniversityCleveland
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency and CorrectionsSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondale

Personalised recommendations