As I
continue my lit review, I will try to feature my summaries and analyses of
articles and books on this blog. This post features Criminal Justice in Native America, edited by Marianne O. Nielsen
and Robert A. Silverman. (Marianne O. Nielsen & Robert A. Silverman. Criminal
Justice in Native America (Univ. of Ariz. Press 2009)).
The
introduction of the book explains clearly why it is important to address the disadvantages
faced by many Native American populations, saying, “History and current living
conditions of Native Americans contradict this country’s ideals of equality of
opportunity and justice” (pg. 4).
Native
Americans are overrepresented in terms of their population in the criminal
justice system, and also in terms of the length and severity of their
sentences. From 1984 to 2005, the Native American crime rate decreased, but was
still higher than white population and total population. However, Native American
overrepresentation is often overlooked by scholars and policymakers, and
overshadowed by the overrepresentation of African American and Hispanic
populations.
Many
of the disadvantages Native American populations face stem from their
colonization by European-based societies. Colonizers used social Darwinism and
paternalism to justify the cruel treatment and marginalization of Native
Americans. The impacts of colonialism (stemming from the loss of societal control)
are severe and are felt strongly today.
The
book identifies a few main causes of crime in Native American societies,
including: lack of social integration, marginalization leading to poverty,
social isolation, drug and alcohol abuse, and high rates of unemployment.
Additionally, special problems arise while dealing with the criminal justice
system due to historical and contemporary marginalization. The book identifies these problems:
·
Individuals
may not be familiar with Euro-based laws and justice
·
Individuals
may lack education about the criminal justice system
·
Individuals
may not know about legal assistance
·
Individuals
may lack money to pay lawyers, fines, or bail
·
Individuals
may lack knowledge of resources to help with criminogenic conditions such as
alcoholism and unemployment
·
Individuals
may be discriminated against at one or more levels of the criminal justice
system from arrest to parole
In
solving the issues that face Native American populations, we must emphasize
their rights to sovereignty (“inherent right or power to govern”) and
self-determination (“catch-all term that covers a variety of concepts including
tribal restoration, self-government, cultural renewal, reservation resource
development, self-sufficiency, control over education, and equal or controlling
input into all policies and programs arising from the American Indian-federal
government trust relationship”). This means that we must allow tribes and indigenous
communities to regain control of criminal justice administration, and we must
ensure the availability of urban Native American criminal justice services that
can serve indigenous populations outside of tribal governance.
With
self-determination and sovereignty, Native American populations will be able to
balance old and new justice values and pursue justice practices that work for
them. In this process, however, many problems are faced by indigenous communities. These problems are highlighted in the book's conclusion, written by Marianne Nielsen. One of the most prominent of these issues is lack of financial resources,
including lack of control of resources. For example, since 1887 the Department
of the Interior has misused or lost nearly $100 billion of Native American
trust money. Other issues faced by indigenous communities include lack of
facilities, lack of skilled staff (community members with cultural and field expertise
to operate specialized programs like drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, support
networks for victims of sexual assault, etc.), lack of service support networks
(ie., community resources to help mentally ill offenders), and lack of
legitimacy, both with state and federal governments and with tribal
populations.
The
book ends emphatically with a quote that could not be more true: “Native
American crime and incarceration are not ‘Native American problems’; they are
‘societal problems’. The cost in the waste of human life and potential is
shared by us all” (pg. 222).
This
was just a brief summary of some of the book’s contents, arguments, and ideas; I would encourage
anyone interested to read the book itself. Here’s the Google Books link: https://books.google.com/books?id=aS15OpUQ6r0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=criminal+justice+in+native+america&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OaXaVP7MMI3woATv2oK4CA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=criminal%20justice%20in%20native%20america&f=false
Marianne
O. Nielsen & Robert A. Silverman. Criminal
Justice in Native America. (Univ. of Ariz. Press 2009).
Mia, what does your post or the book mean by this? I'm a little confused.
ReplyDelete"...This means that we must allow tribes and indigenous communities to regain control of criminal justice administration, and we must ensure the availability of urban Native American criminal justice services that can serve indigenous populations outside of tribal governance."
-Josh
Josh-
DeleteBasically it means that:
1. We need to allow Nations to regain control their own criminal justice systems, many of which are currently basically controlled by the federal government. This would ensure autonomy and self-determination.
2. We need to ensure that American Indians who are incarcerated within state or federal prisons have access to cultural or religious services if they would like them. For example, while many prisons may offer religious accommodations for Christian-based religions, many do not offer tribal healing services. Legally, prisoners have the right to exercise religion, and so ensuring that all populations have the resources they need to exercise that right is critical.
Does that make sense?
-Mia
Yes, it does. But, I do have some follow-up questions.
DeleteFirst, what are some of the effects of achieving self-determination and autonomy?
Second, how will we go about providing religious accommodations for prisoners? And what is deemed as a 'proper' religion (Flying Spaghetti vs. Native American religious practices)?
Most people would argue, and I would agree, that autonomy is a fundamental human right and also that nations (like the Navajo Nation) have the fundamental right to self-determination. Thus, these principles are ends in themselves. The opposite of self-determination and autonomy is colonialism.
DeleteOne way to provide religious accommodations is to allow outside organizations to come into prisons to provide services. One great example of an organization to serve that purpose is the Navajo Corrections Project. The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development writes "In 1983, the Navajo Nation Corrections Project emerged as the only tribally funded program in the country to provide American Indian inmates in tribal, state, and federal prisons access to traditional religious ceremonial practices. A pioneer in the realm of prisoner advocacy, the Navajo Nation Corrections Project not only promotes Native inmates' dignity and recovery through access to culturally appropriate religious rites, but also wages a passionate defense of a basic human and civil right already guaranteed to non-Native inmates: the free practice of their religions.”