1932

Abstract

Examinations of the Native American experience in the US criminal justice system are still relatively sparse, despite earlier calls for increased attention to Native American crime and justice issues. This is unfortunate, as Native Americans are unique among all groups in US society and face distinctive criminal justice jurisdictional complexities. We argue that this uniqueness renders extant racial/ethnic theoretical framings incomplete for understanding the Native American experience with criminal justice in the United States. First, we describe the complexities of criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, discuss how internal colonialism shapes the Native American experience, and outline a set of directions for research to illuminate such jurisdictional complexities. Second, we discuss general theoretical frameworks and their strengths and limitations in explaining the Native American experience. We argue for a focus on the interlocking institutional power that shapes tribal, state, and federal justice coupling. We present an agenda for research on the consequences of contemporary criminal justice arrangements for individual Native Americans and for Native American communities collectively.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024805
2019-01-13
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/2/1/annurev-criminol-011518-024805.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024805&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Albonetti C 1986. Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: toward a theory of discretionary decision making in felony case processing. Criminology 23:623–44
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Albonetti C 1987. Prosecutorial discretion: the effects of uncertainty. Law Soc. Rev. 21:291–313
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Albonetti C 1991. An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Soc. Probl. 38:247–66
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alvarez A, Bachman R 1996. American Indians and sentencing disparity: an Arizona test. J. Crim. Justice 24:549–61
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barkan S, Cohn S 2005. Why whites favor spending more money to fight crime: the role of racial prejudice. Soc. Probl. 52:300–14
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumer EP 2013. Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Justice Q 30:2231–61
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beim A, Fine GA 2007. The cultural frameworks of prejudice: reputational images and the postwar disjuncture of Jews and communism. Soc. Q. 48:3373–97
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blalock HM Jr. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority Group Relations New York: Capricorn Books
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blumer H 1958. Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pac. Soc. Rev. 23:3–7
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bynum TS, Paternoster R 1984. Discrimination revisited: an exploration of frontstage and backstage criminal justice decision making. Soc. Social Res. 69:190–108
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cardani JF 2009. The jurisdictional jungle: navigating the path. Criminal Justice in Native America MO Nielsen, RA Silverman 114–33 Tucson, AZ: Univ. Ariz. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cockerham WC, Forslund MA 1975. Attitudes toward the police among white and Native American youth. Am. Indian Law Rev. 3:2419–28
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dimitrova-Grajzl V, Grajzl P, Guse AJ 2014. Jurisdiction, crime, and development: the impact of Public Law 280 in Indian Country. Law Soc. Rev. 48:1127–60
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dobie K 2011. Tiny little laws: a plague of sexual violence in Indian country. Harper's Magazine Febr. 55–64
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Droske TJ 2008. Correcting Native American sentencing disparity post-Booker. Marquette Law Rev 91:723–813
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Engen R, Gainey R 2000. Conceptualizing legally relevant factors under guidelines. Criminology 38:1245–52
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Eisenstein J, Flemming R, Nardulli P 1988. The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts Boston: Little Brown
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Eisenstein J, Miller L 2005. The federal/state criminal prosecution nexus: a case study in cooperation and discretion. Law Soc. Inq. 30:239–68
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Everett RS, Wojtkiewicz RA 2002. Difference, disparity, and race: ethnic bias in federal sentencing. J. Quant. Criminol. 18:189–211
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Feimer S, Pommersheim F, Wise S 1990. Marking time: Does race make a difference? A study of disparate sentencing in South Dakota. J. Crime Justice 13:86–102
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Feldmeyer B, Warren PY, Siennick SE, Neptune M 2015. Racial, ethnic, and immigrant threat: Is there a new criminal threat on state sentencing. ? J. Res. Crime Delinquency 52:162–92
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Folsom-Smith C 2015. Enhanced Sentences in Tribal Courts: Lessons Learned from Tribes Washington, DC: Bur. Justice Assist.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Franklin TW 2013. Sentencing Native Americans in US federal courts: an examination of disparity. Justice Q 30:310–39
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Giblin MJ, Dillon AD 2009. Public perceptions in the last frontier: Alaska Native satisfaction with the police. J. Ethn. Crim. Justice 7:2107–20
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gonzales A, Schofield G, Schmitt G 2005. Public Law 280 and law enforcement in Indian country: research priorities Natl. Inst. Justice, Off. Justice Programs, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gould LA 2002. Indigenous people policing indigenous people: the potential psychological and cultural costs. Soc. Sci. J. 39:2171–88
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hagan J 1989. Why is there so little criminal justice theory? Neglected macro- and micro-level links between organization and power. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 26:116–35
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hall EL, Simkus AA 1975. Inequality in the types of sentences received by Native Americans and whites. Criminology 13:2199–222
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Holmes MD, Antell JA 2005. The social constructions of American Indian drinking: perceptions of American Indian and white officials. Soc. Q. 42:2151–73
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jackson M 1990. Criminality and the exclusion of Maori. Victoria Univ. Law Rev. 20:23–34
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jeffries S, Bond CEW 2012. The impact of Indigenous status on adult sentencing: a review of the statistical research literature from the United States, Canada, and Australia. J. Ethn. Crim. Justice 10:223–43
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnson BD, Ulmer JT, Kramer JH 2008. The social context of guideline circumvention: the case of federal district courts. Criminology 46:711–83
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kramer JH, Ulmer JT 2009. Sentencing Guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee T 2016. Tribal Law and Order Act five years later: what works and what doesn't. Indian Country Today March 8. https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/politics/tribal-law-and-order-act-five-years-later-what-works-and-what-doesnt/
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lieber MJ 1994. A comparison of juvenile court outcomes for Native Americans, African Americans, and whites. Justice Q 11:257–79
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lieber MJ, Johnson J, Fox K, Lacks R 2007. Differentiating among racial/ethnic groups and its implications for understanding juvenile justice decision making. J. Crim. Justice 35:471–84
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Luna-Firebaugh E, Walker S 2006. Law enforcement and the American Indian: challenges and obstacles to effective law enforcement. Native Americans and the Criminal Justice System JI Ross, L Gould 117–34 Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lundman RJ 1974. Routine police arrest practices: a commonweal perspective. Soc. Probl. 22:1127–41
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lundman RJ 1994. Demeanor or crime? The Midwest City Police-Citizen Encounters Study. Criminology 32:4631–56
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Martín FA, Danner MJE 2017. Elusive justice: tribal police officers’ perception of justice in an American Indian community. Contemp. Justice Rev. 20:2175–92
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mitchell O 2005. A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: explaining the inconsistencies. J. Quant. Criminol. 21:439–66
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Myers M, Talarico S 1987. The Social Contexts of Criminal Sentencing New York: Springer-Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nielsen MO 2009. Introduction to the context of Native American criminal justice involvement. Criminal Justice in Native America MO Nielsen, RA Silverman 1–17 Tucson, AZ: Univ. Ariz. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Perry B 2006. Nobody trusts them! Under- and over-policing Native American communities. Crit. Criminol. 14:411–44
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Perry B 2009. Impacts of disparate policing in Indian Country. Polic. Soc. 19:3263–81
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Peterson R, Hagan J 1984. Changing conceptions of race: toward an account of anomalous findings in sentencing research. Am. Soc. Rev. 49:56–70
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Pommersheim F 1991. Tribal-state relations: hope for the future. ? S. D. Law Rev. 36:239–76
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Redner-Vera E, Galeste M 2015. Attitudes and marginalization: examining American Indian perceptions of law enforcement among adolescents. J. Ethn. Crim. Justice 13:4283–308
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rodriguez N 2003. The impact of “strikes” in sentencing decisions: punishment for only some habitual offenders. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 14:106–27
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rouse LP, Hanson JR 1991. American Indian stereotyping, resource competition, and status-based prejudice. Am. Indian Cult. Res. J. 15:1–17
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Savelsberg J 1992. Law that does not fit society: sentencing guidelines as a neoclassical reaction to the dilemmas of substantivized law. Am. J. Soc. 97:1346–81
    [Google Scholar]
  52. S. D. Advis. Comm. US Civil Rights Comm. 2000. Native Americans in South Dakota: an erosion of confidence in the justice system. Fed. Sentencing Rep. 13:293–97
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Skolnick JH 1966. Justice Without Trial New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Snipp CM 1986. The changing political and economic status of American Indians: from captive nations to internal colonies. Am. J. Econ. Soc. 45:145–58
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Snipp CM 1992. Sociological perspectives on American Indians. Annu. Rev. Soc. 18:351–71
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Spohn C 2000. Thirty years of sentencing reform: the quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. Policies, Processes and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, Vol. 3, Criminal Justice 2000 Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Spohn C, Fornango R 2009. U.S. attorneys and substantial assistance departures: testing for interprosecutor disparity. Criminology 47:813–47
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Steffensmeier DJ, Ulmer JT, Kramer JH 1998. The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: the punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36:763–98
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Steinman E 2012. Settler colonial power and the American Indian sovereignty movement: forms of domination, strategies of transformation. Am. J. Soc. 117:1073–130
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tauri J 2011. Indigenous perspectives. Introduction to Criminological Thought R Walters, T Bradley 187–210 Auckland, NZ: Pearson Longman
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Tredeau E 2011. Tribal control in federal sentencing. Calif. Law Rev. 99:51409–38
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Ulmer JT 1997. Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines Albany, NY: State Univ. New York Press
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Ulmer JT 2005. The localized uses of federal sentencing guidelines in four U.S. district courts: evidence of processual order. Symbolic Interact 28:255–79
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Ulmer JT 2012. Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Q 29:1–40
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Ulmer JT, Bradley M 2018. Punishment in Indian Country: ironies of federal sentencing jurisdiction over Native American crime. Justice Q 35(5):751–81
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Ulmer JT, Kramer JH 1996. Court communities under sentencing guidelines: dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology 34:383–408
    [Google Scholar]
  67. US Dep. Justice. 2004. American Indians and crime Bur. Justice Stat. Rep NCJ 203097, Off. Justice Programs Washington, DC: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/otj/docs/american_indians_and_crime.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  68. US Dep. Justice. 2010. Attorney General announces significant reforms to improve public safety in Indian Country Press Release, Jan. 11. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-significant-reforms-improve-public-safety-indian-country
    [Google Scholar]
  69. US Sentencing Comm. 2013. Quick facts: Native Americans in the federal offender population. Washington, DC: US Sentencing Comm http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Quick_Facts_Native_American_Offenders.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  70. United States v. Big Crow 898 F.2d 1326 1990.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Wells LE, Falcone DN 2008. Tribal policing on American Indian reservations. Policing 31:4648–73
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Wilmot K, DeLone M 2010. Sentencing of Native Americans: a multistage analysis under the Minnesota sentencing guidelines. J. Ethn. Crim. Justice 8:151–80
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Young TJ 1990. Native American crime and criminal justice require criminologists’ attention. J. Crim. Justice Educ. 1:1111–16
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Zatz M, Lujan C, Snyder-Joy Z 1991. American Indians and criminal justice: some conceptual and methodological considerations. Race and Criminal Justice M Lynch, E Patterson 100–12 New York: Harrow Heston Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024805
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error