Summary and Conclusions One of our main research goals is to make comparisons between Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, ...
Summary and Conclusions One of our main research goals is to make comparisons between Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, and here we have data comparing several measures of judicial fairness, such as speed of case processing, jury selection, sentencing patterns, and the effects of sentencing limits. Most of the direct comparisons on fairness issues come from Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents; our data only rarely support direct comparisons between criminal justice personnel in Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions. This resulted from extreme difficulty of obtaining data from United States attorneys. The data we have, however, give us information and results about differences in how court fairness is viewed by Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents,
and Public Law 280 criminal justice workers. Reservation residents in Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions do not express significantly different views on fairness measures between Public Law 280 and nonPublic Law 280 jurisdictions. Reservation residents say that state/county and federal courts are about equally fair on a variety of measures, such as rate of disposition of cases, judge and jury responses, jury selection, and disadvantageous sentencing. Differences in the administration and organization of courts in Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions do not lead to different perception of unfairness in state/county or federal courts, according to reservation residents. The reservation-resident respondents, however, establish a series of markers for understanding how well justice is administered in Indian country. Generally, Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents agree that justice is not fairly administered in Indian country. Only 40.5% of Public Law 280 reservation residents and 43.9% of non-Public Law 280 reservation residents say that the cases of Indian victims or defendants are handled at the same speed as non-Indian cases. Most Public Law 280 (53.7%) and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents (63.9%) say that judges and juries respond differently to Indian-related cases.
Between 17% and 25% of reservation-resident respondents believe that jury selection is disadvantageous for Indian victims and defendants. Public Law 280 reservation residents (52.2%) and 41.7% of non-Public Law 280 reservation residents say that courts give disadvantageous sentences in cases involving Indian defendants or victims. Reservation residents in both Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions have similar perceptions of the administration of justice. Jurisdictional differences between Public Law 280 and nonPublic Law 280 court systems do not create differences in the experience or perception of court fairness by reservation residents; respondents agree that there are significant and comparable degrees of unfairness in both jurisdictions.
Since we do not have comparative data for criminal justice workers in Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, we cannot make a comprehensive assessment of the effects of jurisdiction on the several fairness measures. So our results are tentative. 202 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Public Law 280 criminal justice workers and reservation residents make several comparative evaluations of court fairness in federal, state/county, and tribal courts. In Public Law 280 jurisdictions, criminal justice personnel and reservation residents disagree over the speed with which Indian-related cases are disposed, and over whether cases with Indian defendants or victims receive disadvantageous sentencing more so than non-Indian cases in state/ county courts. Public Law 280 criminal justice personal (71.1%) say Indian-related court cases move through the courts at the same rate as non-Indian cases, while fewer Public Law 280 reservation residents (43.9%) say the same. In Public Law 280 jurisdictions, a significantly higher proportion of criminal justice personnel say that Indian-related cases are managed at the same rate as non-Indian cases than do reservation residents. In addition, fewer Public Law 280 criminal justice personnel (20.9%) believe that Indian victims or defendants receive disadvantageous sentencing than do Public Law 280 reservation residents (52.2%). Public Law 280 reservation residents believe that Indians receive more disadvantageous sentencing in state/ county courts than criminal justice workers say. Public Law 280 reservation residents and criminal justice personnel have significantly different understandings, and disagree over the speed and sentencing of Indian cases. Public Law 280 reservation residents believe that Indian defendants and victims in state/county courts are managed differently, and their cases are sentenced differently than non-Indian cases. Similar proportions of Public Law 280 reservation residents and criminal justice workers agree that judges and juries in state/county courts treat Indian cases differently than non-Indian cases. However, most Public Law 280 criminal justice workers (50.0%) and reservation residents (53.7%) agree that Indian-related cases are handled differently and more negatively than non-Indian cases. Criminal justice personnel and reservation residents in Public Law 280 jurisdictions show similar awareness of court-diversion programs (22.7% to 33%) and double jeopardy cases (18% to 33%). Although Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents report that state/ county and federal courts are similar for fairness, the disagreements among Public Law 280 reservation residents and criminal justice personnel over sentencing and speed of disposition of cases suggest a significant difference in understanding and interpretation of court fairness in Public Law 280 jurisdictions. There is agreement among Public Law 280 criminal justice workers and reservation residents that judges and juries treat Indian cases differently than nonIndian cases, and similar awareness of court-diversion programs and double jeopardy cases.
However, the significant differences over the disposition rates of Indian cases and sentencing suggest that Public Law 280 criminal justice workers believe that state/county courts are fairer than is believed by reservation residents. Most Public Law 280 criminal justice workers and reservation residents agree that judges and juries in state/county courts give disadvantageous treatment to Indian defendants and victims. Half of Public Law 280 criminal justice respondents agree with slightly over half of reservation residents that judges and juries are treating Indianrelated cases differently.
Most Public Law 280 reservation residents view the state/county court system as relatively unfair in case speed, judge and jury responses, and sentencing, while the trend for Public Law 280 criminal justice personnel is to believe that the state/county courts are 203 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. fair for case speed and sentencing, and unfair for judge and jury responses when considering Indian-related cases. For non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, there is less data, but reservation residents say that judges and juries in federal courts are less fair than in tribal courts, although sentencing patterns are not significantly different between tribal and federal courts. These data are too few to make a reliable statement, but the trends are in the direction that non-Public Law 280 reservation residents tend to believe that federal courts are less fair than tribal courts. There is general agreement among Public Law 280 reservation residents, non-Public Law 280 reservation residents, and Public Law 280 criminal justice respondents that judges and juries respond differently and unfairly to Indian-related cases. Most Public Law 280 reservation and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents say that Indian cases work through the courts at different rates that non-Indian cases, while most Public Law 280 criminal justice workers disagree, saying that Indian cases go through state/county courts at about the same speed as nonIndian cases. Public Law 280 reservation residents and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents are in statistical agreement about disadvantageous sentencing in Indian-related cases, but most Public Law 280 reservation residents say that sentencing in state/county courts is disadvantageous, while less than half of non-Public Law 280 reservation residents say that sentencing in federal courts is disadvantageous for Indian defendants or victims.
Public Law 280 criminal justice workers significantly disagree with Public Law 280 reservation residents about the degree of disadvantageous sentencing for Indian defendants and victims, but agree with nonPublic Law 280 reservation residents. A minority of Public Law 280 reservation residents agree with non-Public Law 280 reservation residents that jury selection in unfair for Indian-related cases. In three out of four measures of fairness, most Public Law 280 reservation residents say that they are experiencing unfairness for the rate of case dispositions, sentencing, and judge and jury responses. Public Law 280 criminal justice workers agree that judges and juries are responding negatively to Indian cases, but disagree that the speed of Indian-related cases and sentencing are different from non-Indian cases. Most non-Public Law 280 reservation residents agree with Public Law 280 reservation residents that the disposition of Indian-related cases is different from non-Indian cases, and that judges and juries respond negatively to Indian-related cases; but a minority say that sentencing and jury selection are unfair.
No comments