DMC Contributing Mechanism: Justice By Geography

Justice by geography concerns the concept that youth in general, and minority youth in particular, may be processed or handled differently in separate jurisdictions within the same state. Differing responses may occur based on whether the youth was processed in an urban versus a rural setting or an urban versus a suburban setting, differences in resources (availability of diversion services), or differences in operating philosophies between jurisdictions (for instance, how a jurisdiction defines “accountability” for youthful misconduct or whether a jurisdiction uses deterrence as a primary rationale for system action as opposed to other philosophies of public safety) (e.g., Bridges and Steen, 1998; Feld, 1991). For example, in Iowa, a study discovered that in one jurisdiction, the juvenile court adhered to an ideology of juvenile accountability and racial stereotyping of African American youth as being more delinquent and in need of intervention. This resulted in blacks being subjected to different case processing and case outcomes than similarly situated whites. In another jurisdiction, the juvenile court espoused a strong emphasis on parens patriae at a time when multiple minority groups were moving into the area and local perceptions held that these groups did not adhere to middle-class standards of dress, demeanor, marriage, and respect for authority. As a consequence, the court responded to minority youth differently than white youth (Leiber, 2003).

Another example of justice by geography can occur when minority youth in a large jurisdiction (e.g., a state) are concentrated in areas or jurisdictions (communities) where rates of processing differ from those prevalent in other portions of the larger jurisdiction. The end result is that minority youth are more likely to live in jurisdictions where higher rates of contact with the system occur; therefore, in the aggregate state-level calculations, minority youth are more likely to have high rates of system contact compared with white youth who live in other jurisdictions. A similar explanation can lead to lower levels of DMC when minority youth live in jurisdictions in which lower levels of system processing occur.