Extending a geographic perspective to the study of jurisdictional consistency in sentencing outcomes

Consistency in sentencing has long been regarded a fundamental principle of justice. Yet despite its universal importance, research has been hindered by many theoretical and methodological challenges. This study identifies a new concern with strategies used to measure jurisdictional consistency: direct measures fail to account for sentencing patterns developed at the local level. The objective of this study is to assess the utility of applying a geographic perspective to analyses of sentencing outcomes – one concerned with proportionate comparisons between jurisdictions. This is achieved by proposing a variant of a common metric applied in geographic research: the location quotient. Analyses using the new strategy compare sentence outcomes across provincial/territorial jurisdictions in Canada (2014-15). The technique identifies new patterns of consistency and inconsistency that would otherwise have gone undetected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]