Crime and Punishment in Indigenous Communities

[Dre89]

If a member of an indingenous tribe (that exists in a developed country eg. Aboriginals in Australia) commits a crime within their community, should they be exempt from punishment by the state, and only receive punishment from the tribe?

If so, why are these indigenous people entitled to such an exemption? Also, in forming new tribes, at what point does a member of a tribe become immune from punishment by the state? Does the tribe have to have indigenous heritage?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

No.

Living in a country means that you must follow the laws set forth by that country's government. The indigenous people are of no exception.

If one were to argue that they were forced into this society without their free will and consent, they would make a good point. However, these are free people and no one is preventing these indigenous peoples from leaving and willfully joining another country.

Australian aborigines, which you mentioned, are a great example of this. Since most Aborigines live in a relatively civilized and structured state, the law enforcement can catch Aborigine offenders just as easily as any civilian. In fact, Aborigines are many times more likely to be incarcerated than the average Australian. However, this is another issue.

 

[fragbait]

I disagree with indigenous peoples being subject to normal law.

Simply put, they don't receive Government Services, aid, or the benefits of Tax. Therefore, as long as they don't encroach on other's ability to do the same, they should not be subject to normal law.
Besides, those peoples deal with criminals just fine. Their justice systems can sometimes be worse than a civilized one.

Let me go a bit further. In the "Is tax theft" thread, it was mentioned that, in exchange for paying taxes, you get security, among other things. The way I see it, the Laws of the State are part of that security, as they are put in place by officials paid with Taxes, enforced by police that are funded with Taxes, locking up criminals who break it in Tax-Funded jails, etc. Using this argument, one could say that an indigenous people who do not pay taxes should not get the benefits and consequences of a taxed society.

 

[Yakal]

This boils down to the type of crime and who was affected; essentially if the crime involved someone from a tribe and an individual from the city it would be necessary to invite the one at fault to their victims court (assuming assault or something of the like). However, if the situation were reversed, with the victim being a part of a tribe and the one who committed the act were from the city (hate crime etc) then would that mean the same would happen and the accused to be punished by the tribe? I'm sure most of you would disagree with this, so by leading the accused of either side being held by state law, it would only make sense that even those indigenous people would be subject to the law of the state they are currently residing in.

However, the fact remains that tribal sovereignty is a favorable statute within most areas resulting with little regulation of any act within the tribe itself. Although at the same time if one were to have U.S. citizenship AND tribal membership it is still brought to state law. I find it difficult to imagine state having total control of tribes without imposing taxes and what-not without there being some sort of outburst with those of us who must do all these things; just as well, those indigenous people would also fight to continue without taxes. So what is in place now is the best I can see as far as law goes.

 

[.Marik]

Actually, many of you are incorrect.

If a crime is committed on an Aboriginal reserve, the offenders are instead persecuted by the laws of that reserve. This is land specifically left alone for indigenous communities to carry out daily living, and as a result, is left undisturbed.

Naturally, not being persecuted by national law leaves a lot of loopholes. This is also why several reserves are ghastly to live in, where violent crime is an everyday occurance.

On a similar note, some areas co-operate in terms of judicial matters, making conditions a bit more favourable for victims.

Usually though, even on a reserve, someone won't get away with murder or ****.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

That's not true at all Marik.

Aborigines represent only about 2% of the population, yet they make up for over 14% of Australia's prison population.

This shows that Aborigines are equally subject to the Australian law, if not more so.

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law/aboriginal-prison-rates.html


Leaving justice to tribes and reserves of people instead of the established government is akin to Southern justice during the Jim Crow era of segregation in the US, which many now know as lynching.

 

[.Marik]

I was more or less thinking along the lines of indigenous communities living in Canada, not Australia.

But, as I stated before, some governments and reserves co-operate and work together to settle judicial matters.

However, for example, Canadian reserves in Ontario and Quebec are fairly sophisicated, while reserves in Manitoba and Alberta are poverty stricken and several lack even basic necessities, such as running water and electricity.

Naturally, you can imagine the crime rate for a secluded area without proper government interference, especially when conditions are so forlorn.

 

[Jun.]

If the indigenous group uses and relies on government funded resources and/or laws then yes the crime should be taken care of by the state.

If not then they have no part in the government at all and therefore should just be settled within the tribe.

 

[.Marik]

If the indigenous group uses and relies on government funded resources and/or laws then yes the crime should be taken care of by the state.

If not then they have no part in the government at all and therefore should just be settled within the tribe.

Beautifully summarized post.

 

[El Nino]

Should all nation states be subject to international law regardless of whether the national government or the general populace of that nation agrees with it? Should there be an international authority that overrides the sovereignty of individual nations?

 

[Thino]

Should all nation states be subject to international law regardless of whether the national government or the general populace of that nation agrees with it? Should there be an international authority that overrides the sovereignty of individual nations?

I believe there are certain laws that should be internationally enforced regardless of the nations legislation , such as laws regarding crimes for example.

that is why institutions such as the International Criminal Court are useful for people that would abuse nations sovereignty to be exempt of a law they disrespected in another nation

but of course , it should be ( and is currently ) a compromise , this is why diplomatic asylum and fiscal paradises still exist.

this is why, to get back on the topic , as much as it sounds morally wrong to convict people from indigenous communities just because they dont belong to the same society , therefore dont have the same laws ; applying strictly society or nation-wide laws would result in dangerous criminal taking refuge in said tribes and claim they belong to that society

Said criminal is now a Aborigene.
He doesnt pay taxes nor uses the countries ressources anymore.
from a purely tribal point of view he did not commit any crime.

Does that really mean the state shouldnt interfere anymore? should it really depend on the type of crime and where it has been committed?

..but at the same time , how fair is it to claim that one society as better laws than another just because it covers a larger area , and that, as such, the laws from the bigger society should be applied , leaving the taxes and ressources arguments aside?

 

[fragbait]

Most tribes won't let you just JOIN afaik. You usually have to be born in.


And it's not fair at all, so as long as the justice system remains at a level of "Fair" then they should not be applied.

 

[Thino]

Most tribes won't let you just JOIN afaik. You usually have to be born in.


And it's not fair at all, so as long as the justice system remains at a level of "Fair" then they should not be applied.

yes it seems indeed true that tribes dont let people join so I'll scratch that.

but what exactly are you talking about when you say "fair" , and how exactly to decide which justice system is the most "fair"?

because to me , it seems that based on the Aboriginal Prison Rate posted earlier , its pretty clear that the laws from the "bigger" society are automatically considered more fair and applied on that basis.

which is the right criteria that should be considered to choose laws ?

 

[Pragmatic]

Most tribes won't let you just JOIN afaik. You usually have to be born in.

You definitely have to be born in, and live in a secular society on Aboriginal reserves for mainstream governmental resources not to interfere.

 

[fragbait]

which is the right criteria that should be considered to choose laws ?

Pretty simple, but mostly left to the ways of the people of a country/nation/whatever

A law should form some sort of social contract, clearly defining what you can/can't do, and the punishment for doing it. It's that simple.

 

[Thino]

Pretty simple, but mostly left to the ways of the people of a country/nation/whatever

A law should form some sort of social contract, clearly defining what you can/can't do, and the punishment for doing it. It's that simple.

Im sorry , I may have worded it incorrectly.

I meant what 's the right criteria to choose between a law from a nation and another one