I'm confused. Do the non-native men (or women) get prosecuted on the reservation no matter where the alleged rape takes place just because the woman is a native American? I disagree with that wholeheartedly. And why aren't the two different protection agencies working together instead of making stupid laws that don't seem to work?
We're military. We have an extra set of laws the people around us don't have to follow. We can't expect that someone who isn't military would get a military punishment that we would if they commit a crime against us and definitely can't expect a civilian to go to a military court for a crime against us. I know it's different, but the logic is basically the same.
I believe the law is talking specifically about abuse committed against Native American women on tribal land. Which is why it seems fair to me - if you commit a crime on their land, you are in their jurisdiction and subject to their trials. If I committed a crime in another state, I believe I would face trial in that state. I think this is kind of the same thing, but the states have long claimed that tribal laws have no jurisdiction over non-Native Americans, even on their own land. I don't know how the law can only apply to one ethnic group when we're talking about a crime committed on tribal land.
But where is this happening that this is true?
Currently, federal and state law enforcement have jurisdiction over domestic violence on tribal lands, but in many cases, they are hours away and lack the resources to respond to those cases.
Bolding mine. Do you have another source that shows that it would extend to crimes committed outside of tribal lands as well?Leahy explained the provision, probably the least understood of the three additions in the Senate bill: It gives tribal courts limited jurisdiction to oversee domestic violence offenses committed against Native American women by non-Native American men on tribal lands.
"No more hurting people. Peace."
-- Martin Richard, age 8, Boston, MA
Rest in peace, Martin.
So the reasoning against it is "They've been known to harbor criminals, so we want to retain the right to harbor criminals too?" I would be happy to let non-Natives get prosecuted by the tribal courts if they commit a crime on tribal land, and let Natives get prosecuted by the federal or state courts if they commit a crime off of tribal land. I don't think "Let's all continue to harbor criminals" is the best answer to the problem.
I agree with Alissa. If crimes are committed on tribal land than tribal court should prosecute. If it is non tribal land then federal/state court can prosecute.
I do think that proper representation should be allowed..meaning non tribal criminal gets lawyer that is non tribal and vice versa. (
I just don't see how the persons right to an impartial jury could be met when he would be an non-native being judged by a tribal system and jury. They how would the appeal process work? What if the rules of evidence are different in a tribal court? Could he appeal through the regular court system? I think this just opens up a whole bunch of problems that would never work out. I think it could seriously open up the door to someone being railroaded throught a tribal court system and possible someone being falsely accused by witness evidence or something that would never stand up in a regular court.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013
I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson
As far as different laws and whatnot, laws also vary from state to state. It's now legal for us to smoke pot in CO, but if I cross the border into KS they can still bust me, try me, and even jail me, using laws that don't apply in my state. Knowing that, my choices are to either stay in CO, or to at least not smoke pot in KS. Why would it be any different for reservations? Non-natives can be put on notice that if they do not want to be tried in tribal courts, they can either stay off of the reservations, or at least not break tribal laws (and yes, that means to a certain extent knowing what they are - just like I now need to know that I can't smoke pot in KS. Although, rape seems kind of like a no-brainer to me.)