I think we have an answer… Part I

                Tribal law enforcement agencies, well, law enforcement agencies in general are fragmented when it comes to dealing with issues on Tribal lands. As my blog was created to finding out why, I think I’ve come to the answer (or at least something close to why).

In lieu of my research for the paper that will conclude my course called Blogging the Globe, I’ve discovered one article that will make anyone jump at the realization of why there are so many issues with Tribal governments in the first place, mainly dealing with jurisdictional claims over criminal actions. Lawless by Design: Jurisdiction, Gender and Justice is an article written by Laura E. Pisarello in the Emory Law Journal, and not only is this article extremely important to me and my search for answers on why these law enforcement agencies are so fragmented, but also for all Native American people and our understandings of why the justice system isn’t working for us. Here’s a little break-down for you all on a few of the reasons, and I promise this is interesting!

1. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe: Supreme Court ruled that Tribal governments don’t have the inherent criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians even when the crimes were committed against Tribal members on Tribal land (basically, Tribes can’t handle crimes that are against their members on their land).
2. The Major Crimes Act of 1885 which was enacted by Congress; basically, it gave the federal government jurisdiction over certain crimes committed in Indian Country (pretty much everything except misdemeanors), including rape. It was passed by congress in response to a S.C. decision that limited federal jurisdiction over members of Indian Tribes when federal courts were unsatisfied with the result of a murder case between two Tribal members (Crow Dog murder case), which just so happens to be why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did in Oliphant!
3. Public Law 280: Placed federal power into a specific list of states that would have jurisdiction over all crimes committed in Indian Country.  In other words, took all the sovereign power away from Tribes and placed them in the hands of the federal states. (W.T.F. I know…)
4. United States v. Lara: Lara was an American Indian who had been tried by a tribal court as a nonmember and challenged a subsequent federal prosecution for the same crime. This was considered by the Court on whether or not it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause (which basically states that you cannot be tried by the same court for the same crime more than once), and the Court held that in permitting tribes to prosecute certain crimes, Congress did not simply delegate federal prosecutorial power but rather restored inherent tribal power. (What this creates is some contradictory arguments that go against previous opinions that Tribes don’t have the means to claim jurisdiction over tribal members or tribal land.)
5. Duro v. Reina: The court extended the analysis from Oliphant to find that tribal governments lack criminal jurisdiction over all nonmembers, whether Indian or not.  This case also created contradictions in previous rulings and ammendments.
6. Indian Civil Rights Act: 1968 statute that is a bit confusing to me.. so check out some information on it here, it’s pretty helpful.

There are so many things wrong within the Tribal justice system that can be attributed to the US government and its lack of understanding of Native American tribes. What is most disturbing though is that they seem to come to their senses every so often, and yet they fall back ten paces later on once more. In the article there are issues of jurisdictional confusion is mentioned many times with the point of them being “barriers” to justice. Example:  American Indian women are the most victimized group in America; more than twice the amount of all other women. Why? Well let me explain to you: “jurisdictional barriers add one more obstacle between victims and law enforcement in Indian Country” (1517) because law enforcement agencies don’t know which agency holds jurisdiction over the location of the crime and the victim.

 “Due to confusion over jurisdiction, law enforcement response in Indian Country is complex, uncoordinated, and ineffective. Determining jurisdiction over any given crime committed in Indian Country ‘depends on the identity of the victim and the offender, the severity of the crime, and where the crime occurred.’ In these circumstances, federal and state officials may be unsure about their powers. Thus, non-Indians who commit crimes on Tribal lands may go unpunished, making Indian Country residents choice targets for criminals…” (1516-15171).

If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, then my own fear for my people should give you a clue on how detrimental this is for reform. As the saying goes (from what I read), “If you want to rape or kill somebody and get away with it, do it on an Indian Reservation” (1515). It’s horrifying to know that I could be raped and abused and not know who to call for help, and it’s even more horrifying to know that if I were to be murdered this weekend when I go home for break that my family could risk not ever finding justice for me. Put yourself in that situation and think about it for a second…