964 resultados para 390110 Indigenous Law
Resumo:
The gross overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in prison populations suggests that sentencing may be a discriminatory process. Using findings from recent (1991–2011) multivariate statistical sentencing analyses from the United States, Canada, and Australia, we review the 3 key hypotheses advanced as plausible explanations for baseline sentencing discrepancies between Indigenous and non-Indigenous adult criminal defendants: (a) differential involvement, (b) negative discrimination, and (c) positive discrimination. Overall, the prior research shows strong support for the differential involvement thesis and some support for the discrimination theses (positive and negative). We argue that where discrimination is found, it may be explained by the lack of a more complete set of control variables in researchers’ multivariate models and/or differing political and social contexts.
Resumo:
In Australia, sentencing researchers have generally focussed on whether there is statistical equality/inequality in outcomes by reference to Indigenous status. However, contextualising the sentencing process requires us to move away from a reliance on statistical analyses alone, as this approach cannot tell us whether sentencing is an equitable process for Indigenous people. Consultation with those working at the sentencing ‘coal face’ provides valuable insight into the nexus between Indigenous status and sentencing. This article reports the main themes from surveys of the judiciary and prosecutors, and focus groups of Community Justice Groups undertaken in Queensland. The aim is to understand better the sentencing process for Indigenous Queenslanders. Results suggest that while there have been some positive developments in sentencing (e.g. the Murri Court, Community Justice Groups) Indigenous offenders still face a number of inequities.
Resumo:
The dramatic increase in restorative justice activity in western jurisdictions since the early 1990s has driven state officials, supported by some theorists and practitioners, to standardise the design and delivery of restorative justice programmes. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical indigenous examination of various rationale proffered in support of the standardisation process that is occurring in the neo-colonial jurisdictions of Canada and New Zealand. The paper ends with a call for Maori justice practitioners to develop their own standard for enhancing the delivery of restorative justice initiatives to Maori offenders, victims, families and communities.
Resumo:
This paper presents the main findings of a narrative examination of higher court sentencing remarks to explore the relationship between Indigeneity and sentencing for female defendants in Western Australia. Using the theoretical framework of focal concerns, we found that key differences in the construction of blameworthiness and risk between the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous female offenders, through the identification of issues such as mental health, substance abuse, familial trauma and community ties. Further, in the sentencing narratives, Indigenous women were viewed differently in terms of social costs of imprisonment.
Resumo:
One of the ways in which indigenous communities seek justice is through the formal recognition of their sovereign rights to land. Such recognition allows indigenous groups to maintain a physical and spiritual connection with their land and continue customary management of their land. Indigenous groups world over face significant hurdles in getting their customary rights to land recognized by legal systems. One of the main difficulties for indigenous groups in claiming customary land rights is the existence of a range of conflicting legal entitlements attaching to the land in question. In Australia, similar to New Zealand and Canada legal recognition to customary land is recognized through a grant of native title rights or through the establishment of land use agreement. In other jurisdictions such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea a form of customary land title has been preserved and is recognized by the legal system. The implementation of REDD+ and other forms of forest carbon investment activities compounds the already complex arrangements surrounding legal recognition of customary land rights. Free, prior and informed consent of indigenous groups is essential for forest carbon investment on customary land. The attainment of such consent in practice remains challenging due to the number of conflicting interests often associated with forested land. This paper examines Australia’s experience in recongising indigenous land rights under its International Forest Carbon Initiative and under its domestic Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act (Australia) 2011. Australia’s International Forest Carbon initiative has a budget of $273 million dollars. In 2008 the governments of Australia and Indonesia signed the Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership Agreement. This paper will examine the indigenous land tenure and justice lessons learned from the implementation of the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership (KFCP). The KFCP is $30 million dollar project taking place over 120,000 hectares of degraded and forested peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The KFCP project site contains seven villages of the Dayak Ngdu indigenous people. In 2011 Australia established a domestic Forest Carbon Initiative, which seeks to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and indigenous landholders while helping the environmental by reducing carbon pollution. This paper will explore the manner in which indigenous people are able to participate within these scheme noting the limits and opportunities in deriving co-benefits for indigenous people in Australia under this scheme.
Resumo:
This book examines the influence of emerging economies on international legal rules, institutions and processes. It describes recent and predicted changes in economic, political and cultural powers, flowing from the growth of emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Russia, and analyses the influence of these changes on various legal frameworks and norms. Its contributors come from a variety of fields of expertise, including international law, politics, environmental law, human rights, economics and finance. The book begins by providing a broad analysis of the nature of the shifting global dynamic in its historical and contemporary contexts, including analysis of the rise of China as a major economic and political power and the end of the period of United States domination in international affairs. It illustrates the impact of these changes on states’ domestic policies and priorities, as they adapt to a new international dynamic. The authors then offer a range of perspectives on the impact of these changes as they relate to specific regimes and issues, including climate change regulation, collective security, indigenous rights, the rights of women and girls, environmental protection and foreign aid and development. The book provides a fresh and comprehensive analysis of an issue with extensive implications for international law and politics.
Resumo:
Restorative practices have often been considered both as emerging from the customs of Indigenous peoples, and ways of responding to crime that might be most suitable for Indigenous individuals and communities. This paper, which consists of two parts, will reconsider these claims from a critical perspective. The first part of the paper draws on my Ph.D. research on the emergence of restorative justice in Western criminal justice systems. It will argue that although many advocates of restorative justice uncritically and unproblematically accept that restorative practices emerged from the customs of Indigenous peoples, the relationship between Indigenous justice customs and the emergence of restorative justice is much more nuanced than proponents imply. The paper will examine, therefore, the legitimating rationalities associated with the diverse historical ‘truths’ obscured in advocates’ accounts of the role of Indigenous customs and the emergence of restorative justice. The second section draws on the findings of recent research undertaken at the Australian Institute of Criminology, and will present data on the numbers of Indigenous juveniles who participate in restorative conferences in each jurisdiction. These data will be used to elucidate the disparity between the rhetoric or ‘promise’ of restorative justice, and its apparent impact in relation to Indigenous juveniles. This paper will conclude with a consideration of the continued relevance of restorative justice for Indigenous young people in Australia.
Resumo:
Submission recommended addition of a new 'self-enacting' preamble and enacting words to the Commownealth Constitution, and replacement of the 'race power' by a series of more specific powers relating to the recognition of native title and laws of the indigenous people.
Resumo:
The Review of Australian Higher Education (Bradley Review: 2008) identified the need for tertiary institutions to incorporate Indigenous knowledges into curriculum to improve educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians and to increase the cultural competency of all students. It recommended that higher education providers ensure that the institutional culture, the cultural competence of staff and the nature of the curriculum supports the participation of Indigenous students, and that Indigenous knowledge be embedded into curriculum so that all students have an understanding of Indigenous culture. While cultural competency has been recognised as an essential element of professional practice in health services internationally, and legal practice in the United States, very little work has been done to promote the cultural competency of legal professionals in the Australian context. This paper will discuss a pilot cultural competency professional development program for legal academics at Queensland University of Technology (Brisbane) developed with the assistance of a Faculty of Law Teaching and Learning Grant in 2011-2012, and tell one Murri’s journey to foster Indigenous cultural competency in an Australian law school.
Resumo:
Indigenous juveniles (those aged 10 to 16 years in Queensland and 10 to 17 years in all other jurisdictions) are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, and their over-representation becomes more pronounced at the most severe end of the system (ie in detention). Recent figures show that Indigenous juveniles are 24 times as likely to be detained in a juvenile correctional facility as non-Indigenous juveniles (Richards & Lyneham 2010). A variety of explanations for this over-representation have been proposed, including: • lack of access or disparate access to diversionary programs (Allard et al. 2010; Cunneen 2008; Snowball 2008); • systemic discrimination against Indigenous juveniles (eg police bias against Indigenous juveniles) (Cunneen 2008; Kenny & Lennings 2007); • inadequate resourcing of Aboriginal legal services (Cunneen & Schwartz 2008); and • genuinely higher levels of offending by Indigenous juveniles (Kenny & Lennings 2007; Weatherburn et al. 2003). A range of measures (including diversion and juvenile conferencing programs) has recently been implemented to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention, and minimise the contact of juveniles with the formal criminal justice system. Diversionary measures can only have a limited impact, however, and reducing offending and reoffending have been identified as critical factors to address if the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles is to be reduced (Allard et al. 2010; Weatherburn et al. 2003). While acknowledging that other measures designed to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles are important, this paper reviews the evidence on policies and programs that reduce offending by Indigenous juveniles in Australia. Where relevant, research from comparable jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and Canada, is also discussed.
Resumo:
Introduction • The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) is Australia's national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice. • The Institute seeks to promote justice and reduce crime by undertaking and communicating evidence-based research to inform policy and practice. • The AIC is governed by the Criminology Research Act and has been in operation since 1973. • The AIC is pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the Committee's Inquiry into the high level of involvement of Indigenous juveniles and young adults in the criminal justice system. • There is a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that Indigenous young people are significantly over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system in Australia.
Resumo:
Indigenous commentators have long critiqued the way in which government agencies and member of academic institutions carry out research in their social context. Recently, these commentators have turned their critical gaze upon activities of Research Ethics Boards(REBs). Informed by the reflections on research processes and by Indigenous Canadian and New Zealand research participants, as well as the extant literature, this paper critiques the processes employed by New Zealand REBs to assess Indigenous‐focused or Indigenous‐led research in the criminological realm.