Tag: criminal justice

The Indigenous Justice System: Over-incarceration of Indigenous People and the Need for Cultural Humility

by Eva Pechtl

To better understand the value of culturally centered practices in Indigenous justice, I encourage you to read my previous blog, “History of Limitations and Restorative Justice.” In this blog, I will be highlighting the resulting statistics on the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prisons. Then, utilizing reports from several justice-oriented organizations, I will summarize how professionals from Indigenous communities conclude problems and solutions that need to be addressed to neutralize these disparities in the Indigenous criminal justice system. 

 

Serious complaints arose around a decade ago about the food quality of the catering hired by the provincial Saskatchewan government.
An image of a man in adult provincial custody in Saskatchewan, Canada, looking out of his cell with his arms between the cell bars. The data on the overrepresentation index for Indigenous people in 2020/2021 was highest in Saskatchewan at 17.7 times higher than the non-Indigenous incarcerated population (Statistics Canada, 2023). Image Source: Don Healy/Regina Leader-Post via Yahoo Images

 

Visualizing the Statistics 

Indigenous people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system across several countries, including the United States, Canada, and Australia. Extensive research has been conducted by human rights organizations around the world, but collecting accurate data on Native populations in the United States has proven difficult. The visibility of crime has come a long way since the Not Invisible Act of 2019 was signed into law in 2020 to increase information sharing and track cases of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) crisis. However, data on Indigenous populations is still flawed in some ways. According to the Prison Policy Initiative (PPI) and a report by the Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC), categorizing people by a single race can wrongfully categorize people who identify with more than one race. The data that does exist is inconsistently labeled, meaning it could refer to Native people as Indian, American Indian-Alaska Native, Latino, or other. The number of incarcerated Indigenous people depends on how they are counted, and this generally underreports and, therefore, overlooks Native people in the system.  

According to the PPI, the data shows that Indigenous people are incarcerated in federal and state prisons at over four times the rate of white people. In the state prison systems of Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah, Indigenous people are highly overrepresented relative to the states’ Indigenous populations. The SJC report shows that in Montana, the Indigenous population is 7% but closer to 30% of the prison population. In South Dakota, Indigenous people convicted for aggravated assault received sentences 62% longer on average than any other racial group. 

 

Jurisdiction’s Impact 

Over-incarceration of Native Americans published by the SJC highlights complicated jurisdiction as a player toward overrepresentation. According to Indigenous experiences documented in the report, it is common for single crimes to be charged in more than one jurisdiction because of multiple police agencies patrolling reservation lands. Defendants may then face multiple charges with different requirements, which often results in punishment for failing to understand and/or follow those requirements. This is especially true for youth caught up in technical violations of probation or status offenses. 

A document titled Juvenile Justice, created by the National Congress of American Indians, speaks to the challenges of Indigenous youth in the justice system. Native youth are more likely to be subjected to the federal system and to be tried as adults, especially for drug-related crimes, leaving them with longer and harsher sentences.  

In Baytown, Texas, Olivia B. was arrested for a fight, expelled from her high school, and charged as an adult in court.
An image of a young girl being addressed by a judge in court beside her mother. The court proceedings for her misdemeanors, being charged as an adult, made it difficult for her to find employment and delayed her career goals of becoming a Psychologist (Open Society Foundations). Image Source: Michael Stravado/Redux via Yahoo Images

The federal system is not built for children, and sentencing often limits opportunities for diversion, parole, or services helpful in juvenile cases. Even if certain courts offer other options, youth are too often left with no support. Due to overlapping jurisdiction, professionals tend to assume that Indigenous youth will always be someone else’s responsibility. However, Tribal governments are often not informed when their youth interact with the state juvenile justice systems, and this prevents tribes from supporting reintegration and rehabilitation before, during, and after contact with the system. 

On the other hand, when Native children experience a culturally rooted court system like those of tribal courts and jails, they can have a better chance of receiving constructive intervention and support. For example, the Cherokee Talking Circle integrates Keetoowah-Cherokee cultural values that target substance use among youth. According to the Juvenile Justice document, researchers found that non-cultural education programs were significantly less effective in reducing juvenile delinquency compared to CTC. The Choctaw culture includes the practice of Immannumpuli, where an uncle or tribal court employee will educate youth offenders about the Choctaw justice system and talk to them about their life choices. Increasing collaboration between federal and tribal justice agencies to encourage US Attorneys to deter offenders to tribal court would be extremely beneficial for Native youth. 

 

Causes and Solutions 

The criminal justice system ultimately reflects an overreliance on locking people up, specifically Indigenous people, rather than offering services to rehabilitate offenders. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics displayed that in Indigenous areas specifically, the creation of more jails resulted in a direct increase in incarceration rates instead of being a remedy for overcrowding. As expected, the jail expansion also led to longer stays for both pretrial detention and actual sentencing.  

Especially in Indigenous communities, incarceration has harmful effects on health, as jails are not prepared to navigate chronic illnesses and are commonly dangerous environments. Incarceration is harmful to maintaining or finding employment, and this causes more poverty and debt among Indigenous individuals. Currently, because of high incarceration rates and a lack of restorative methods, many Indigenous people will be returning to their communities with significant challenges. Assisted reintegration is vital to the healing process needed after incarceration. 

The SJC report recognizes the long history of forced confinement of Indigenous people as a contributor to systemic inequities faced today. In the past and still today, disparities in justice are falsely attributed to the characteristics of Indigenous people rather than the more real factors of complex jurisdiction, deficiency of representation in court, racism, or violence. This is why legal professionals must consider the historical context of Indigenous trauma when analyzing current inequities.  

According to the SJC report, Tribal leaders have called for culturally relative alternative sentencing options that look to the roots of the crime problem. 15-16% of people in tribal jails were held for public intoxication or drug-related offenses, leading the Indian Law and Order Commission to state that drug abuse was a contributor to almost all crimes in Indian communities. Considering the serious financial and health effects of drugs, any efforts to prevent crime and recidivism would absolutely need to address substance use problems. 

Cultural Humility 

A reporter hears the story of an Indigenous man for the Intercontinental Cry report.
An image of a reporter listening to an Indigenous man, centering their focus on under-reported stories concerning Indigenous human rights. Image Source: Intercontinental Cry via Yahoo Images

 

Finally, the SJC report recognizes cultural humility as a necessary factor in supporting Indigenous communities. Practicing cultural humility means acknowledging your own inability to be an expert in a different culture. The disparities in representation in the criminal justice system can improve if non-Indigenous criminal justice professionals seek to understand that there is a lot they are not aware of concerning Indigenous experiences.  

Tribal agencies and activists across the United States have called for changes to be made, whether it is about legal jurisdiction, inadequate funding, or over-incarceration rates. Acknowledging the barriers that Indigenous communities and individuals face is a first step in creating cultural safety. Indigenous people are the best suited to handle justice and related problems facing their communities. It is time to listen to them. 

What Can We Do? 

To learn more about practices supporting native people, I encourage you to explore the lessons and solutions listed in the Over Incarceration of Native People. The document includes diverse proposals ranging from supporting Tribal Reentry programs, trauma-informed care, providing cultural mentoring, license restoration, victim assistance, housing, mental health services, and, most importantly, culturally relevant research and services. Juvenile Justice includes many evidence-based policy recommendations to change the status quo for Indigenous youth, helping them and their families to be better informed, tracked, assessed, represented, and treated. To find relevant services or contribute to their success, Tribal Justice also lists many resources and specified programs. 

Signs reading "Justice for Colten," "Indigenous Lives Matter," and "Murder is murder, lock him up!" advocate for justice for Colton Boushie, shot by farmer Gerald Stanley.
An image of a protest for Indigenous Justice In Canada in response to the shooting death of Colton Boushie and the acquittal of Gerald Stanley. Image Source: The Canadian Press/Jason Franson via Yahoo Images

In this series, I have reiterated many of the issues at the tip of the iceberg, but to continue supporting Native people, we must be able to acknowledge our ignorance of the rest of the iceberg that is the Native experience. With cultural humility in mind, we can work to unveil injustice in the Indigenous Justice System. 

 

Hopeless Efforts at Release on Parole from Alabama Prisons

by Eva Pechtl 

“They see me trying to do right, but my past is my problem,” said Terry Townshend, an inmate resembling countless others denied release on parole from Alabama’s prisons at astounding rates.

Two inmates sleep and one stands wearing prison uniforms. Some inmates will spend most of their time simply waiting, as not all prisons provide adequate opportunities for engagement in normal day-to-day activities.
An image of inmates waiting for the time to pass. Source: ProPublica via Yahoo Images

 

Before we begin, I encourage you to read Kala Bhattar’s posts on the extensive history and severity of the Alabama prison crisis concerning human rights. She offers valuable insights into the unique nature of the legal system in Alabama, and how its background connects to ever-present challenges in prisons today.

This post is going to explore the overwhelming decrease in parole rates being granted to prisoners by the Alabama Parole Board. The Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles (ABPP) considers inmates eligible for parole after serving most of their sentence, allowing them to be released early from prison to reenter the community and complete service outside of prison walls. The declining rates of parole being granted are a barrier to the multifaceted issue of prison overcrowding pressed by understaffed facilities and increased prison violence. There are widely differing perspectives on the best strategies to calm the swelling chaos of prison overcrowding. To Alabama’s parole board, parole is not one of them.

It’s important to understand that parole is a privilege, not a right. Even if approved, inmates are released on strict conditions that may include reporting to a supervising officer, maintaining steady employment, not buying alcohol, or attending counseling to name a few. At any point, individuals can have their parole revoked and be reimprisoned. 

Parole hearings are conducted based on guidelines set forth by the ABPP. They are meant to consider whether an incarcerated person is likely to reoffend. The board considers the severity of an offender’s criminal history, risk assessments, reports of institutional behavior, participation in programs or treatment, and plans for navigating problems the offender is likely to face again during reentry. These guidelines have recently been criticized as flat-out ignored by the Parole Board, likely sparked following the consistently declining rate of parole actually being granted. According to the ABPP’s Monthly Statistical Reports, Alabama has gone from a grant rate of 54% in 2017 to 10% in 2022, and it reached as low as 2% in January of this year. 

A significant event sparking this change was Jimmy O’Neal Spencer, an inmate who was paroled in 2018 and, upon release, murdered three people. This tragic case led to tremendous pressure to keep inmates in prison and aligned with the sudden drop in grant rates beginning that year. When releasing convicted felons became understandably more controversial after Spencer’s release, the parole board’s actions were put under a microscope. The primary concern of the parole board seemed to shift to avoiding negative headlines.

 

Guidelines Being Overrun by Discretion

To be clear, the parole board ultimately has complete discretion over a decision, and the guidelines are meant to serve solely as an aid. Consequently, in May of 2023, the recommended 78% grant rate indicated by the guidelines was actually 18%. This raises questions about the disparities between parole guidelines and parole decisions. For one, why are the guidelines in place if they are consistently overlooked? This breach is represented by the conformance rate, which indicates the number of cases that matched the guidelines’ recommendation for grants or denials. It amounted to 23% in May, 14% in June, and 5% in July of 2023. This adds to years of disparities between recommended grant rates and actual grant rates present in Alabama. So, what is going on at parole hearings?

The precise reasons remain unclear. The parole board does not always articulate its reasons for approving or denying parole, even though they are required to by Alabama Code 15-22-26. Decisions were also commonly made based solely on the severity of an offense. Alabama determines the criteria for parole eligibility of certain offenses outlined in Section 15-22-27, but decisions are still weighed based on that information which the system has already approved. The point of having an additional hearing is to judge an inmate on who they are now.

Furthermore, race was an illuminated factor toward reentry this May, where 30% of decisions for White individuals conformed to the parole guidelines while 17% of decisions for Black applicants conformed to the same guidelines. However, I cannot comprehensively address the topic of race on reentry in this single blog.

 

The Power of Decision Makers

The drop in grant rates came promptly with Governor Kay Ivey’s appointment of Leigh Gwathney as the current board chair in 2019. Years later, Gwathney granted 2.4% parole of cases in the summer of 2023. Board members of the ABPP have tremendous discretion by law and have by no doubt used it to impact grant rates. Parole Watch documented a lack of attention toward the cases by the board and expanded on concerns about the three-chair system. A main takeaway from many perspectives on the hearing system is the influence the third seat can have on a hearing’s outcome. With two seats, the majority rule turns to a unanimous vote. When the board shrank to Gwathney’s seat, plus one, so did the grant rate from 13.2% in June to 4.1% in July. 

If parole is denied, the board determines an inmates’ set off date, or how long they will wait before being reconsidered for parole. Gwathney voted for the maximum set off date in 73.4% of denied cases in the summer of 2023, more than any other seat. What makes overcrowding a progressively hopeless matter is the fact that Alabama’s Department of Corrections has an opportunity to clear crowded and understaffed prisons of inmates that are eligible by the guidelines and obvious recommendation to leave. With an 80% decrease in parole grants from September 2019 to June 2020, the population in custody increased, even as custody admissions decreased. The impact of denying parole to so many is daringly increasing the pressure of prisons that are already way above full occupancy.

Parole hearings are open to the public, but unlike other states, Alabama does not allow offenders to represent themselves. Also, no rebuttal is allowed by supporters after opponents give the final word. Often, victims or advocates will misrepresent the facts leaving supporters of parole with no opportunity to correct them. According to Parole Watch’s observations, some representatives claimed to advocate for the victim but still opposed parole even if it supported the victim’s wishes. Opponents of parole like Victims of Crime and Leniency (VOCAL) and the Attorney General’s Office, proved to have a tremendous influence on the decisions of the parole board. Of the 78.3% of hearings this summer where VOCAL was present, 96.6% were denied. 

Inmates Are People Just Like Us

Aging inmates are pushed in wheelchairs outside by prison staff. The population of elderly inmates has risen dramatically in the past fifty years.
An image of aging inmates being pushed in wheelchairs outside by prison staff. Source: Yahoo Images via Unprison

 

71 year old Leola Harris, who has end-stage kidney failure, diabetes, and cannot walk or use the bathroom on her own, will likely die before her next hearing in 5 years. Having certification by the Department of Corrections for medical parole, testimonies by nursing home staff for a confirmed living plan, a successful lie detector test denying that she murdered the victim, and two decades of good behavior was not enough to get her out of prison for her remaining years.

This is reflected by many inmates who have numerous accomplishments to advocate for their improvement but are swiftly rejected. Terry Townshend has faced a life of drug addiction and resulting imprisonment, demonstrating fighting efforts to stay away from pills and crime. His release on parole failed when he got back into drugs after being given take-home narcotics after cancer surgery. Terry did everything he could to build personal responsibility from completing substance abuse treatment programs to earning a degree in trade school, and this in turn helped him understand his addiction and how to handle it without crime. However, like many, he was held down by his failures and rejected.

Timothy Bille, a now free man who was denied parole 4 times in 18 years, expressed that “They tell you to do all these prison programs to increase your chances for parole, but when they deny guys like Terry, it feels like a lie.” 

Finally, Frederick Bishop was denied parole at his hearing scheduled 10 days after he died in prison. Justice is not denying release to a corpse. His case demonstrates a lack of attention by the entire justice system toward informing relevant parties of an inmate’s status and judging them accordingly. 

The reality is that Alabama prisons have become more unsafe than the free world. Overcrowding in prisons is not as much due to new crime but to repeated declines of release for experienced inmates. Advocates for less violence and victimization in prison populations would agree that prisoners of minimal risk to their community, especially under careful supervision, should be granted freedom, and therefore safety. 

Jimmy O’Neal Spencer has been convicted, denied parole, and sentenced to death. It is time that thousands of others who are stuck in Alabama’s combusting, debilitating conditions deserve real chances at parole.

Capital Punishment and the Right to Life

A black and white picture of a prison cot with five belts used to strap down inmates in order to give them a lethal injection.
While it may seem like a common practice throughout the world, only about 28% of countries still maintain the death penalty in both law and practice. Source: Yahoo! Images

 

Stay tuned for my next article, where I will explore how the process of the death penalty, as well as the methods used to end the lives of inmates, may bring up additional human rights concerns. That article will be posted in the upcoming weeks. 

October 10th is the World Day Against the Death Penalty. 

It was my eighth birthday. I had gotten home from school and after eating my snack, I sat down on the couch. My birthday is in January and my mom hadn’t gotten around to packing up the expensive nativity scene from my grandmother that was set out on the sofa table behind my head. I got bored with my show, as eight-year-olds do, so I turned around and started playing with the porcelain figurines. To me, they were no more than stiff, less fun Barbies. Little did I know all it took was one little high-five between Joseph and the wise man with the frankincense before *CRACK* Joseph lost a hand. 

I still remember my mother’s face when I told her what happened. This nativity scene from her mother-in-law meant so much to her and she was feeling so many emotions. I knew that I deserved to be punished in some way for my mistake. I sat in time out for a while, I got a “stern talking-to” when my dad got home, and I didn’t see my favorite (real) Barbie for weeks.

My eight-year-old, future-philosophy-student self couldn’t help but question why all of this was happening to me. It was my birthday; my parents were supposed to be nice to me that day, but I still got in trouble. I knew that I should’ve been more careful with the figurine, but I also knew that what I did was an accident. I knew as soon as it broke that I had caused a problem, but I almost immediately learned from it: this material is weaker than Barbie material so I would need to use gentler hands when holding it. But I still couldn’t figure out why my parents were doing this. As I grow up, this concern still follows me. What motivates society to punish people who break the law? How could our system of punishment improve to allow people to learn from their mistakes and to still participate in society?

A drawing of a man in an orange jumpsuit with his head down standing behind metal bars. One of the bars makes the shape of a noose around his head.
Minorities, especially racial minorities, make up a disproportionate percentage of prisoners on death row. Source: Yahoo! Images

Theories of Punishment

Retribution 

The Retribution Theory of punishment holds that people who harm others deserve to be harmed and that the justice system should give them what they deserve. I like to call this the revenge theory or the “eye for an eye” theory. The arguments for this theory are, in my opinion, not very strong. Sure, it seems intuitive that when somebody wrongs us we want to wrong them back, but what good does that do? And should we really set up an entire justice system based on retribution when that only causes more harm to people, despite if they “deserve it?”

Deterrence

The Deterrence Theory of punishment holds that societies should punish moral failings in a way that when people hear about the punishment for a certain crime, it deters them from committing it. For example, people may not use drugs because they are afraid of what would happen if they got caught. If we want people to stop doing drugs, according to deterrence theory, we should inflict harsher punishments for those caught with drugs. The main critique of this theory is that it does not deter people from doing the thing, it only deters people from getting caught doing the thing, thus driving the whole crime farther and farther underground. 

Restoration

The Restoration, Humanitarian, or Utilitarian theory of punishment is based on the idea that after a harm occurs, we should avoid any further harm coming to anybody involved. This may entail rehabilitating people with addictions to live addiction free or mandating driving school and road safety courses for negligent drivers. This doesn’t just apply to low-level crimes though. This may mean a prison system similar to Norway’s, where even the most violent criminals are kept in a remote community where their rights and privileges are upheld. The average sentence is around 8 months, and after they’ve had time to reflect on their actions, they are allowed to return to society as usual. Click here to learn about what went into the design of one of Norway’s most famously humane prisons.  This theory is often criticized as being “soft on crime,” saying that if we don’t make going to prison incredibly unpleasant, criminals will not have any reason not to re-offend. 

A wooden electric chair against a dirty wall in the background.
The youngest person to be executed by electric chair in the 20th century was 14-year-old George Stinney Jr. His conviction was later vacated as an unfair trial. Source: Yahoo! Images

Pragmatically, when we are deciding which theory of punishment to ascribe to, we are balancing the weight of the government’s function that motivates law enforcement with the human rights of everybody involved in the crime. 

So what is the government function of capital punishment and does it outweigh the most fundamental human right, one’s right to one’s own life?

Government Function

It is widely agreed upon that the government’s most fundamental function is to protect the rights of people in its jurisdiction. This includes mediating conflicts in which a person impedes on another’s rights. In these terms, the crime of theft is when a perpetrator impedes on the victim’s right to own property. In this case, the government then has an obligation to interfere in some way to bring justice to the victim. Most of the time, this interference will constitute the government temporarily impeding on the rights of the perpetrator themselves. This may mean keeping them in jail until their trial, imposing a fine on them, or even sentencing them to prison time. 

Human Rights

The right to life is inarguably the most fundamental natural human right that exists. All humans have a fundamental right to live their bodies’ natural lifespan through to its end. It can even be argued that humans have the right to the best healthcare available to extend their lifespan as long as possible. Without the right to life, no other human rights of any kind can be realized. This is why the most widely recognized phrase about human rights lists life as the first. 

As the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and from that, they derive inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 

To take someone’s life is to take away that person’s most fundamental, widely-recognized human right.

Balancing Both

Does the governmental function of societal safety ever justify taking away the perpetrator’s number one human right? Especially when, given that life in prison is an alternative option, societal safety is not even at risk by keeping these people alive. Many people will argue that keeping them in prison requires too many resources whereas the death penalty is a quick and easy way to save resources for the rest of society. Not only does this completely dehumanize people who have committed crimes, but it also switches the governmental interest from public safety to the much less compelling governmental interest of distributing resources. The interest in these resources is not compelling enough to justify the deprivation of someone’s life. Even if you think it is okay to impede on a perpetrator’s rights to prevent them from causing more harm to society, it is unclear that the deprivation of life would achieve this goal when life in prison is an alternative. 

The sun shines behind a wooden gallows with two nooses hanging down.
Three states still allow hanging as a possible execution method. Source: Yahoo! Images

According to the Retribution theory, people who took another life deserve to be killed solely on the “eye-for-an-eye” principle. But something doesn’t sit right when we try to defend this principle without dehumanizing people convicted of crimes. As a society, is it a good thing that we think a certain group of people deserves to die, even if their qualification into that group was voluntary?

According to the Deterrence theory, the death penalty may actually be an effective deterrence for prospective criminals. If they knew that committing this crime may literally mean the end of their lives, they may not commit the crime. However, it is unclear that the deterrence factor of life in prison, essentially ending people’s lives as they know it, is so much less effective than the deterrence factor of the death penalty that it justifies taking lives. 

According to the Restoration theory, capital punishment stands no chance. This theory is based on the hope of rehabilitation for criminals, even if that means they are only ever restored insofar as to live a meaningful life in prison. This theory is considered to be the most humane approach to punishment, and as far as research can tell, the one compatible with the lowest recidivism (re-offending) rates.