Cited by 83Policing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisGun Ownership and Violence Research

RETRACTED: Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings

Open access
Johnson, David J., Tress, Trevor, Burkel, Nicole, Taylor, Carley, Cesario, Joseph·2019·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Despite extensive attention to racial disparities in police shootings, two problems have hindered progress on this issue. First, databases of fatal officer-involved shootings (FOIS) lack details about officers, making it difficult to test whether racial disparities vary by officer characteristics. Second, there are conflicting views on which benchmark should be used to determine racial disparities when the outcome is the rate at which members from racial groups are fatally shot. We address these issues by creating a database of FOIS that includes detailed officer information. We test racial disparities using an approach that sidesteps the benchmark debate by directly predicting the race of civilians fatally shot rather than comparing the rate at which racial groups are shot to some benchmark. We report three main findings: 1) As the proportion of Black or Hispanic officers in a FOIS increases, a person shot is more likely to be Black or Hispanic than White, a disparity explained by county demographics; 2) race-specific county-level violent crime strongly predicts the race of the civilian shot; and 3) although we find no overall evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities in fatal shootings, when focusing on different subtypes of shootings (e.g., unarmed shootings or "suicide by cop"), data are too uncertain to draw firm conclusions. We highlight the need to enforce federal policies that record both officer and civilian information in FOIS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1903856116This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, D. J., Tress, T., Burkel, N., Taylor, C., & Cesario, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2019-07-22
Volume
116
Issue
32
Pages
15877-15882
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2963913852
Cited by
83
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 8
FWCI
66.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Health › Gun Ownership and Violence Research
Keywords
racial disparities, Black officers, county demographics, suicide by cop, police use of force, retracted study
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Odds Ratio, Police, Racial Groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review