Kristine: You know, one of the things that I hear on a regular basis is that, you know, “Well, Judge, but for the alcohol, but for the methamphetamine, this never would’ve happened.”
But I don’t buy that.
I have a sticky note on my bench that says, “For every person who comes before you, even those with whom you disagree, is a person for whom Christ died.” It doesn’t matter what they’ve done. It doesn’t matter what they say. You know, you have to take the approach that, you know, we’re all flawed and fallen human individuals
Rob: We live in a messy world where relationships can go south, and people hurt each other, sometimes violently.
The criminal justice system is supposed to address that harm, but what happens inside the mind and heart of the person handing down the sentences?
Our guest today is Judge Kristine Osterday of Elkhart County’s Superior Court. She has a fascinating path to the bench and a bold perspective on faith, vocation, and the limits of justice itself.
Welcome to Just Stories, Judge Osterday.
Kristine: Thank you for having me.
Rob: I understand you didn’t always intend to practice law, much less become a judge. Tell me about the first time you considered what it might be like to be a judge.
Kristine: Well, that probably happened soon before I became a judge. I didn’t think I was going to be a lawyer, let alone a judge. I grew up in this area and grew up in a blue-collar family. Nobody in my family had gone to college. I just thought, if you work hard, you will get by and be able to support yourself.
I’ve always been kind of a pain in the rear end, so people thought maybe I should be a good lawyer. You know, like to argue with people. Um, joking aside, though, I think about my grandmother a lot, and she certainly, had a difficult life. Um, at one point in time, my grandfather was in prison.
You know, what she endured and all that she’d gone through. She was such a strong woman of faith, a wonderful woman who, you know, I definitely wanted to do right by and do good things.
Rob: What made you first think about law, practicing law? Where did that come from?
Kristine: I wish I could tell you. It’s almost like a blur. I didn’t go to college right away. I had several jobs. I worked in the community and, you know, I thought, “Well, criminal justice seems awfully interesting.”
Rob: Mm-hmm.
Kristine: So I enrolled at IUSB, became a criminal justice major. I had wonderful professors, and many of the professors that I had at IUSB were those that were working in the field that they were teaching.
So I had, I remember police officers, probation officers, several judges. I had a federal judge, a state court judge, and it was just very intriguing to me. I knew I wanted to help people, and I knew I found the whole criminal aspect just really interesting from a sociological, psychological perspective and how it all works, like how groups think, how individuals think, and what can I do to help in that instance.
And so I started thinking, “Well, you know, maybe I wanna be a police officer.”
Rob: Mm-hmm. You sound like some of my students.
Kristine: (laugh) When I, the professors that I had that, you know, the police officers and, you know, talking about some of the specifics, and I thought, and I know this is very selfish, but I, what am I gonna do when somebody throws up in the back of my car?I don’t wanna deal with that. (laugh)
And, you know, I, and I know it’s silly, but I thought, “Okay, I’m not sure how well I would handle that and how effective I would be.” And then I started thinking, “Okay, maybe a probation officer.” And I, Again, it’s, it’s just such a blur. I feel like next thing I know I was applying to law school, and I was in law school.
And I mean, I can only, you know, again, because of my faith, just God was leading me, and I was smart enough not to get in His way, just let it happen. After I had gone to school and started practicing law, I started off as a prosecuting attorney in Elkhart County, and it was great. I loved it. It was a great experience.
However, being an advocate on one side can be really challenging when you see the other side, how you might want to be able to take an approach that takes into consideration both. But the difficulty when you’re an advocate on one side limits what you can do to try to fully remedy the situation. So I think it was probably towards the end of my career as a deputy prosecuting attorney that I started thinking about, well, what if I had the ability to take all of these things into consideration and try to come up with a more global approach, a holistic approach to the problem that I’m seeing in front of me?
Rob: So you felt in your work as a prosecutor, you were tied to one party, and that hemmed you in and kept you from being able to think about all the options that could be on the table?
Kristine: Absolutely.
🎵[music]
Rob: We live in Indiana, northern Indiana. Is there anything unique about this state or this county that might come as a surprise to listeners who aren’t from this area?
Kristine: I do think that you have to qualify by saying northern Indiana, because I do think that-
Rob: Say more about that …
Kristine: I think that we’re unique statewide.
We have a large Amish population. We also have a largeHispanic population. Um, we have pockets of urban population, rural population, and very different dynamics within some of those communities. And I think that we are definitely unique in that area. I’ve also seen, because of our RV industry, the fact that people make money based upon how fast they work, how much production, the piece rate they turn out, that that maybe lends to some of the substance use issues that we see.
Rob: I never thought of it like that, but you’re, you’re onto something, I think.
Kristine: I did not come up with this idea. No. I’m just saying, those of us who-
Rob: Yeah …
Kristine: Who are in the system, it’s not new to us.
Rob: Yeah. For manufacturing, we often think of union jobs and a steady, very programmed rate of work. Um, that’s not how things are arranged here. If you pay people by how much product they churn out, sooner or later some of them are going to be tempted to use a stimulant like Adderall or meth to step on the gas so to speak.
Kristine: Certainly. And with that also in mind, you know, you have periods of boom, and periods of bust.
Rob: Yeah.
Kristine: You know, you look back to 2008. We were the epicenter of, you know, the recession. It was, it was scary. It was scary to be here.
Well, and then you also have to factor into that, that we are on the 80/90 corridor, so we are on the direct route between Detroit and Chicago, and so a lot of substances are trafficked through our area.
Rob: I hadn’t thought of that. That makes sense. We’re, we are the crossroads-
Kristine: (laugh) For better or worse.
Rob: For better and worse.
You take most or all of the domestic cases in the county. Um, tell me how that– why? Why are you taking those cases? How did that come to be?
Kristine: Elkhart County has a filing order. So that determines which type of cases go to which courts. And when I first became the judge of Elkhart Superior Court Number One, all of the felony domestic battery cases were assigned to that court, along with other cases.
And what, what I was seeing with those types of cases, that there were a lot of patterns and similarities and nuances to those cases. And when Elkhart County Courts decided that we were going to go into divisions, because prior to, I think it was 2024, most courts handled a little bit of everything. We were courts of general jurisdiction.
And we started to realize that over time, a lot of us had begun to specialize in types of cases, and that was one of the specialties of my court. So it was determined that then all of the misdemeanor domestic batteries as well as the felony domestic batteries would be filed in my court. It’s not for the faint of heart.
But I mean, take this for what it’s worth, I love it. I’m very passionate about overseeing that population. I consider it to be a great responsibility.
Rob: How can you love that work?
Kristine: So I have a sticky note on my bench that says, “For every person who comes before you, even those with whom we disagree, is a person for whom Christ died.”
And it doesn’t matter what they’ve done, doesn’t matter what they say, and I’ve seen people who’ve done some terrible things and say some terrible things, but everybody’s a person for whom Christ has died. And I think, you know, you have to take the approach that, you know, we’re all flawed and fallen human individuals.
And, I do the best that I can to try to usher somebody through their situation, take the appropriate action when I have the discretion to take that appropriate action. But I… We’re all in the same boat. We’re all flawed, fallen, sinful human beings. And again, I just consider this to be a great responsibility that I’ve been given to do the best that I can to hear somebody, see somebody, and try to do the best with the circumstances that are before me.
Rob: Can you give me an example of a case where you had to keep that front and center, that sense that this is a person for whom Christ has died, at a time where that was a really important thing to keep at the forefront.
Kristine: I would say probably, especially with the people that are before me with particularly violent offenses, where they are looking at potentially going to prison for the rest of their lives.
So certainly it’s something that I do the best that I can to impress upon that person, anybody around me that, you know, simply because you are going to prison for this amount of time, like I don’t want that person to lose hope. I don’t want them to just be thrown away, you know, neglected. It’s just… I mean, I can’t even imagine the prospect of, you know, being sentenced to, you know, decades long in prison where you maybe are never going to be able to get out in your lifetime.
But, you know, again, that being said, you know, I pray that, that they still hear the gospel, that they still have the opportunity to receive that, that very important, you know, ministering that they need to have while they’re in prison. And it’s certainly not something that I take lightly, but it’s also something that I don’t hesitate to do if the parameters are there and I believe that it’s what’s best for the community.
Rob: Can you describe a difficult case, obviously without names or anything like that? It’s not what we’re interested in, but a case that left you wondering, at least for a time, what was really the right judgment or sentence in that case?
Kristine: Most of the cases that come before me actually are resolved by plea agreement.
So the difficulty for me is, do I accept the plea agreement or do I reject the plea agreement? And I remembered fairly early on after becoming a judge where I was presented with a plea agreement, and it called for a lengthy prison sentence for a very horrific act. It was a husband and wife, and I thought that the plea agreement was pretty lenient based upon what I was seeing.
And I asked questions about, “Okay, help me understand this. You know, why is this plea agreement so low?” And after I got the information, I just wasn’t satisfied that it was appropriate, so I rejected the plea agreement. So then it went to trial.
And as I was hearing the facts come out, the facts were actually worse than what they had originally been presented, and I just thought, “Oh my gosh, you know, what happens if there’s not a conviction now?” And, and that’s one extreme.
On the other hand, I’ve had situations where I accept a plea agreement where I think, you know, this seems to be a little bit harsh, and is this the right thing to do? So you have those dilemmas on both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. It’s… I would say that there are many cases where it can be difficult.
Rob: And you don’t always control the outcome, not just in the sense of whether if it’s a jury case and then it could, get a conviction or not, but also you don’t control the pleas that are brought before you. And so you have to make a judgment as to whether or not this is a good enough plea. Is that what you mean?
Kristine: Certainly. Yeah. Okay. I don’t, I don’t control pleas whatsoever. In fact, the rules prohibit that I’m involved in, in plea negotiations. So I have very limited information to try to make an informed decision of whether or not the plea agreement that I have is appropriate, and it’s usually the word of the attorneys.
I trust the attorneys that appear in front of me, but I often feel that I’m in the dark, and it can be really difficult to make an informed decision.
Rob: Has there ever been a time or a situation that you doubted your legal profession or the justice system? Can you describe any time or feeling like that?
Kristine: That’s a loaded question. I mean, the simple answer is yes. You know, we are all flawed, imperfect human beings. I think in many ways, most of us are trying to do the best that we can with what we have. I think that there are a lot of matters that can and should be addressed outside of the justice system.
Um, but because there is no other either resource or group stepping up, we are kind of the, central repository for the unwanted, and a lot of Menno-Hof, health issues in general, substance use disorders, where people don’t have the support systems, don’t have the treatment that they need and they deserve, and they end up in jail.
That’s really, I think, probably the biggest area that makes me question the whole system.
🎵[music]
Rob: So within the movement to protect people from domestic violence or what we sometimes called intimate partner violence, IPV, there are voices arguing that the criminal justice system should be more involved, taking a more active role in arresting and prosecuting violators and those who believe that the justice system should be less involved, in part because survivors sometimes don’t want to be put into the position of having to terminate a relationship or send a, a loved one to, to prison. Where do you come out on this? And do you ever encounter survivors in a complicated relationship to the law?
Kristine: Very often.
Rob: Mm.
Kristine: It is a complicated situation for everybody involved, especially the survivor of intimate partner violence. I’m not sure that I necessarily have an opinion one way or the other whether the criminal justice system should be more involved or less involved.
I think it’s important to listen to survivors and try to help them navigate what they feel is best for them to thrive, to be safe, and also for their children to be safe. But I’m also aware of the fact, based upon the letters that I receive on a daily basis, that there’s just so much manipulation involved with intimate partner violence.
I can give you an example. So I had a trial a few months ago, and the survivor of the violence was no longer together with the defendant,and she had given to the prosecution a letter that the defendant had sent her from the jail that was written out, supposed to be from her saying, you know, “I want all this dismissed.” And her job was to sign it and just send it in to me so that I would see this, that it was like a dictation of, “Here’s, here’s what you’re saying. You just need to sign it and send it in.”
I often tell people that I am less concerned when I have a survivor come in, either into court at sentencing or writing me a letter saying, “Look, I know this happened. I know it was bad, but, you know, here’s some of the reasons.” And I understand that maybe, you know, it’s not going to justify it, but I’m actually less concerned in those situations than the majority of the situations where I have what I believe to be survivors who will write me a letter or come into court and say, “It never happened. The police lied. I lied. I was off my medication. I was drunk. I was high, but it never happened.” And that is, I mean, red flags are going off, and I’m just so concerned for that person and what’s going on.
So as far as more involved, less involved, I think we can’t lose sight of the children in those situations. We’re learning more and more about, you know, the physiological results of these children being subjected to violence on a regular basis. It actually affects their brain development. They’re hyper alert. It just creates so many issues for these families, and I think that’s a lot of why we can’t ignore it.
I think there’s a place for the system. I think we need to be involved. You know, maybe thinking about how we do things a little bit differently is not a bad thing, and I think that collectively, maybe we could come up with some better ideas of how to help survivors. But I think I’m more concerned by staying less involved.
🎵[music]
Rob: Advocates for restorative justice, including Christians, contend that because crime hurts, justice should heal. In other words, justice should be about more than applying state-mandated sentencing guidelines to convicted offenders. I’m sure that’s not a new thought for you. Is there any room for a judge to hand down sentences that heal, or is that simply outside your realm?
Kristine: Well, what are you trying to heal? Are you trying to heal the individual? Are you trying to heal the relationship? And trust me, I understand the concept of restorative justice, and I think that it’s critical. I think that we need to have those opportunities in the community.
But what I think is different about intimate partner violence is that that particular individual who’s the perpetrator of the intimate partner violence needs services, needs interventions, and there needs to be that protection built around that person, and in particular the survivor, to ensure that there’s that maybe a little bit more of an equal balance of power because until I think those services are rendered and there is some change in the perpetrator, you have such an imbalance of power and control that I don’t think that that’s a place yet for the restoration to take place.
Does that make sense?
Rob: Accountability first-
Kristine: Absolutely …
Rob: … and then talk about repairing harm or-
Kristine: Well, I mean, accountability is part of it, but I think interventions, at least the way that I see it, are a little different than the accountability. I mean, the way that I look at accountability is there needs to be some punitive aspect perhaps, but I’m not even talking about that necessarily.
I’m talking about interventions, whether it’s medication management, whether it’s, you know, psychological, um, behavioral, whatever that might be. Whatever that individual needs to try to determine, you know, why is there this imbalance.
Rob: That sounds like… in some ways, that sounds like healing or repairing harm, um, especially if there are addictions or habits or, uh, customs that are causing harm or underlying the harm.
Kristine: Perhaps. But, you know, one of the things that I hear on a regular basis is that, you know, “Well, Judge, but for the alcohol, but for the methamphetamine this never would have happened.” Perfectly lovely individuals otherwise, but oops, you add alcohol and they become ,it’s like Jekyll and Hyde. I just, I don’t buy that.
Rob: Mm-hmm.
Kristine: I, I think perhaps for some people that may be true, but I think what the research shows is that it lowers the inhibitions to do what somebody maybe is inclined to do anyway Um, so, uh, the whole point is getting at the root. What is- what is the root that’s causing some of this? I mean, you know, as believers, I mean, the root is sin.
Rob: But that’s not a remedy- But it’s not a… that you can give as a judge, right?
Kristine: Exactly.
Rob: So what do you do?
Kristine: Oh, yeah, I mean, I… One of the things that I have done over the years, and I’m grateful to have had buy-in from the attorneys, is that most of the plea agreements that originally would be submitted to the court would dictate, like, every single aspect of their case.
Probation, what kind of programs they were going to do. It just didn’t make sense to me. I’m not a, you know, a certified whatever, any type of therapist. Like, I have no business assessing and doing… Like, ordering this person to particular programming.
Rob: Mm-hmm.
Kristine: And neither do you. And the attorneys, after a while, started becoming receptive to it because also we had some huge changes with our probation department.
So, you know, I, I think the individuals who, um, have been involved in our probation department, also our community corrections departments where they’re doing case management plans, they’re meeting with people and trying to tailor their programming to meet their particular needs. Just trying to be a lot smarter and more tailoring the needs of our individuals.
Rob: Yeah, let’s talk about faith communities in relation to domestic violence and abuse. Have you seen examples of people afraid to come forward because of what their faith community might say or think?
Kristine: But I know that a lot of faith-based organizations, the default is, well, let’s try to keep this couple together.
Rob: Yeah. Let’s- save the relationship.
Kristine: Save the relationship. I
Rob: We don’t want divorce.
Kristine: Exactly. Yes. I did get invited one time to a guest speaker in LaGrange County who was speaking to mostly an Amish, that was the audience that was intended, and he was very clear about the church harming survivors, by their approach, by again, this idea that the focus is on you have to save the relationship, you have to save the marriage.
Rob: Mm-hmm.
Kristine: And kind of either ignoring or not seeing some of the other issues.
Rob: Choosing not to see or encouraging people not to report
Kristine: Exactly …
Rob: in some ways because that’s a violation of a larger, or, or what is thought to be a larger good, um, preserving a relationship or preserving a family.
Kristine: Yes.
Rob: I would wager that’s not just a problem within the Amish community.
Kristine: It is not.
Rob: Given what you’ve seen, are Christian faith communities doing what they need to be doing to reduce domestic violence and intimate partner violence or, or do we have our heads in the sand?
Kristine: I would say that they have their heads in the sand.
Rob: How do you know?
Kristine: I mean, I can only speak anecdotally.
I don’t know how most churches are generally. I feel that I’m regularly telling people in court, “I’m really glad to hear that you’re going through marriage counseling at your church. That’s great, maybe.” You know? but however, you’re the one who’s in front of me, and you’re the one who’s going to do the programming, not her or him, you, and if you don’t do it, then we are going to have a problem.
Rob: (laugh) okay. So I read in a brand-new report that came out from, um, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report looking at the last five years of data on domestic violence, and they report that 31% of all aggravated assaults were domestic in nature. That’s a huge proportion of the aggravated assaults happening in this country.
If you had a magic wand, something that you could do to try to bring that down… and by the way, that proportion went up slightly over the past five years. If you could do anything, you had the money or the political power and will to bring it to happen, what would you do?
Kristine: Boy, I mean, a lot of it’s going to be money because the money’s going to fund the centers, the therapists, the just the all-around wrap, wraparound support where somebody truly felt that they had somebody that they could go to and really get help.
You know, we have shelters, and they’re wonderful, and we’re so grateful to have them, but again, it’s… there’s such a stigma attached to that, and it’s also temporary, and it’s kinda depressing.
But a lot of that, too, comes down to your family. If you’re getting pushback from your family about, you know, either, “I told you so, I told you not to do this,” or, um, you know, “Why are you leaving?” You know, “What are you gonna do to your family?” I mean, more realistically, money to support a truly, a true safe space for somebody that they truly feel that they are safe, and they have some reassurance of that.
I would also say that people don’t know what they don’t know, and I think especially women have been conditioned to not trust their intuition and their gut. I think that well-meaning people sometimes make them feel as though they’re overreacting. Mm. They are misreading a situation, and it puts them in danger.
I’ve seen it many times.
Rob: There are people who believe that the US judicial system should look more overtly Judeo-Christian. For example, some want the courts to display the Ten Commandments publicly.
Others think that there should be prayer in court. And others think that such displays are dishonest, distracting, or in violation of the religious clause of the First Amendment. Where do you come out on this question?
Kristine: First of all, I love this question. I think it’s awesome. I think the people who want the Ten Commandments in court are the ones to let those people know, uh, that the law is applied to them. Anybody who loves the law, they love it because they think it applies to those people, not them. And I’m, I’m trying to be respectful here. As a Christian, I believe that God, you know, the Ten Commandments, was for good. But I also know there is no way that I cannot uphold, like there’s no way that I can uphold that.
Just like the law that’s written by our legislature, I mean, granted, I don’t think that I, you know, can break that law, you know, by thought, word, and deed, but I have a little bit of a lead foot.
Rob: (laugh)Yeah.
Kristine: … I’m sure that there are things that I do that maybe I don’t know about where I’m breaking the law. Again, I think the reason that people push that is it’s like a superiority thing.
Rob: They imagine that, that those laws really, they’re abiding by them, and they are going to put other people in their place.
Kristine: You said it much better than I did. But, absolutely. I think that there’s a place for the Ten Commandments.
I don’t think it’s displayed in the courthouse unless, you know, if you wanna have other historical things, that’s fine, but what’s the point? why are you wanting to display it? Again, you know, try to air your own superiority and how inferior everybody is to you.
Kristine: I don’t like it at all.
Rob: Okay. So related to this question, does your faith shape the way you approach the bench, or do you try to keep the two separate?
Kristine: No, I, I think that it does absolutely approach the way or affect the way that I approach the bench. You know, grace and mercy I think are at, at the forefront of how I think about things.
The people in front of me may not always feel that way, but that’s kinda where I start, you know, erring on the side of grace and mercy. I mean, I still remember about when I started practicing and some of the judges that I would appear in front of and, like practically wagging their finger or actually, you know, maybe literally wagging their finger at defendants and, you know, talking about like, you know, “You better not mess up,” like, “I better not ever see you again,” and just the damning feel of that.
And the way that I approach things, and there needs to be accountability, and trying to figure out what that accountability looks like is different in every situation. And what I often tell people is that, you know, you’re not perfect. I’m not perfect. There’s no, like there’s no way that I can hold you to the standard of perfection, but what I do expect is that you’re going to, you know, do X, Y, Z or whatever that is, but you’re going to own up to, like make a mistake, you, you know, you test positive on a drug screen, admit it. Go get the assessment. Work through it. I can work with you. But don’t lie about it.
Rob: Mm-hmm.
Kristine: So I think that extending grace and mercy for people who screw up is important because we all screw up, and we all deserve that benefit.
🎵[music]
Rob: Is there anything that we haven’t talked about that you’d like to discuss?
Kristine: I would just say that, again, the justice system is necessary. I believe that it’s necessary, but I also believe that it’s a work in progress, and that the justice system is only one component of how to handle these very complex situations and, you know, topics that we’re talking about.
When I’ve had the opportunity to talk about intimate partner violence, I talk about how it’s not just a criminal justice issue. It’s a community issue. But I think it’s also important that we collaborate, and we’re all in our silos, and we’re all handling different aspects of some of these issues.
I think that within the justice system, we have insight that we can offer our community partners to assist us because I think ideally, the goal would be to try to prevent people from coming to the system in the first place or providing that support for them when they come out of the system.
You know, again, when I talk about the judge who is like, “I never wanna see you again”. You’re banned from society. Like, what, what does that mean?
And I find myself telling people, “Okay, I don’t wanna see you in here again. I wanna see you when I’m at the grocery store. I wanna see you when I’m at the park.I wanna see you at the library with your kids.” That so many, It’s like they’ve been cast out of society, and they live in the shadows. And at one point, at what point are we going to try to bring them back into the fold, either again or for the first time?
So it’s going to take all of us, and I think we get a lot of grief in the criminal justice system about, why are you doing this, and why aren’t you doing that? And some of it is totally fair, and none of us are immune from that type of criticism. But, you know, we’re kind of the last end on the line. We need people in the community to help us to support us because without that, we’re Sisyphus, pushing that rock up the hill and, you know, getting run over by it.
Rob: Right.
Well. Thank you, Judge Osterday. I appreciate the work that you’re doing, the service you’re doing for this community, and I know that it can’t always be uplifting and yet is deeply necessary. Um, thanks for that work, and thanks for coming into our studio today.
Kristine: Thank you for having me.
Rob: Just Stories is a collaboration of the Communications Department and the Religion, Justice, and Society Department at Goshen College in Goshen, Indiana, with funding from the Lilly Endowment. I’m your host today, Rob Brenneman.
Today’s show was produced by Yebu Ji. Sound engineering by Grant Bachman and Alex Dugger. Theme music generously provided by Lotus the Band.
Our marketing manager is Melissa Troyer. And Courtney Dobrzykowski is our audience engagement manager.
Just Stories is part of the More Than Just Stories project, directed by Duane Stoltzfus,who would like the record to show that he is, in fact, not a straw person.
Thank you for listening.