Justice by Geography: Urban, Suburban, and Rural Variations in Juvenile Justice Administration

Despite statutes and rules of statewide applicability, juvenile justice administration varies consistently with urban, suburban, and rural social structure and context. In urban counties, which are more heterogenous and diverse, juvenile justice intervention is more formal, bureaucratized, and due process-oriented. Formality is associated with greater severity in pre-trial detention and sentencing practices. By contrast, in more homogeneous and stable rural counties, juvenile courts are procedurally less formal and sentence youths more leni* Centennial Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School. Ph.D. (Sociology), Harvard University, 1973; J.D., University of Minnesota Law School, 1969; B.A., University of Pennsylvania, 1966. The data used in this study are housed in and made available by the National Juvenile Court Data Archive, which is maintained by the National Center forJuvenile Justice ("NCJJ") in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ("OJJDP"), United States Department ofJustice. The Minnesota Supreme Court's Judicial Information System collected the original data. The author's research was conducted under the auspices of the National Juvenile Court Data Archive's Visiting Scholar Program, which was supported by OJJDP. The author received exceptional support and assistance in assembling, organizing, and interpreting the data from Dr. Howard Snyder, NCJJ Director of Systems Research, Ms. Ellen Nimick, NCJJ Senior Research Assistant, and Mr. Terry Finnegan, NCIJ Computer Programmer. A number of colleagues generously provided constructive critiques of an earlier draft of this article: Gary Crippen, Dan Farber, Candace Kruttschnitt, Anne Rankin Mahoney, Michael Tonry, and two anonymous reviewers. Although the author attempted to address many of their concerns, he absolves them of any responsibility for his failure to follow their advice. Neither the Minnesota Supreme Court, the National Center for Juvenile Justice, nor the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention bear any responsibility for the analyses, interpretations, or conclusions presented herein. A version of this Article was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Reno, Nevada, November, 1989. JUSTICE BY GEOGRAPHY ently. The Article explores the implications of "justice by geography" for juvenile justice policy.