Whose Geography?

The phrase “justice by geography” is sometimes used as a complaint about criminal justice systems. It is lamented that in some geographic areas wrongdoers are treated more harshly than in other areas. This leads to calls for more consistency in sentencing approaches, arguing that “geography” should not determine a person’s sentence. There are serious flaws in such arguments.

First, criminals choose where to commit crimes. Criminals, like all individuals, have personal agency. This agency is not removed by drug addiction, poverty or geography. To so believe robs individuals of personal agency, a devastatingly misguided assumption. Exercising this agency, criminals should commit crimes in more lenient jurisdictions if they are unwilling to risk more serious consequences.

In fact, it is the explicit aim in some jurisdictions to drive crime away, particularly in suburban and rural areas situated closely to urban areas. I know because I was a prosecutor for 16 years in a rural county forty minutes from a large city. Many drug dealers would not leave Louisville to come to Washington County because getting caught meant a significantly higher likelihood of going to prison. The people of Washington County appreciated and benefitted from this, which leads to the next point.

“Justice by geography” is not a bug, it is a feature. It is not “justice by geography” that critics are seeing; it is justice by democracy. Democracy is geographic in our federalized system. The citizens of Washington County Indiana, where I now serve as Judge, do not want justice by the geography of Louisville or Indianapolis. American cities are currently embroiled in record-setting criminal activity. When we Washington Countians go to Indianapolis, we see open-air drug dealing and use, theft, and violence. Indianapolis has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to communities of all sizes. The chance of becoming a victim of a property or violent crime in Indianapolis is one in twenty-four.   

Indiana trial court judges are elected by the people of our communities. As such, we have the closest connection to the opinions of the people. We know how the people of our communities want people in our systems to be treated. We talk to our people every day. If we start to get out of line with the values of our communities, they will replace us in the next election. And rightfully, so.  

The dismal conditions of our cities is driven in large part by policies of leniency toward drug and property crimes. So, when critics lament “justice by geography,” do they mean they want Washington County to be more like Indianapolis? No, thank you. If the people of Washington County wanted to live somewhere like Indianapolis, they would move there, or they would elect different judges.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the question of who decides what “geography” dispenses the correct “justice?” Whose geography do we go with? If consistency is the goal, then making Indianapolis more like Washington County seems like a good idea to me. I suspect that consistency is not the goal as much as making the rural systems look more like the urban systems.

The Indiana Supreme Court seems interested in answering the question of whose geography. It is, however, the least representative branch of government. The government most accountable to the people is the government closest to the people. In this instance, that is the local judges elected by county voters. There is no “justice by geography” problem. The problem is that some people think their justice is better than our justice. In a democracy, we resolve such disagreements by letting the people vote.