The "Tribal Provision" of the Violence Against Women Act - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: The "Tribal Provision" of the Violence Against Women Act

  1. #21
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    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.

  2. #22
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Alissa_Sal; 01-05-2013 at 10:06 PM.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  3. #23
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    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.

  4. #24
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wlillie View Post
    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.
    This is the issue I have with this provision. It does allow for a tribal court to rule over non-native land
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  5. #25
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mom3girls View Post
    This is the issue I have with this provision. It does allow for a tribal court to rule over non-native land
    According to the article:

    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.
    Bolding mine. Do you have another source that shows that it would extend to crimes committed outside of tribal lands as well?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  6. #26
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dewey View Post
    On the other hand if a native commits a crime off the reservation and makes it back to the reservation prior to being caught there is nothing the county law enforcement can do as long as the person stays on the reservation.
    This is the problem that I'm having trouble reconciling. On one hand, they want authority to prosecute white men who rape Native American women on tribal land, but on the other, they continue to actively harbor known criminals on reservation land. They seem to want justice when their people are the victims, but not when their people are the perpetrators, and I just can't buy into that. I'm sure my family history is swaying my judgement on this, though. My great-aunt's husband died in a quarry accident, which wasn't really an accident and everyone knew it. He was a Native American, and so were the two men who dropped their load on him, and they skedaddled onto the nearby rancheria and the sheriff couldn't get them. So it was written up as an accident and my aunt got a nice settlement from the quarry's insurance company, but my cousin still grew up without his father and with the knowledge that two men got away with murder.
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

  7. #27
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    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.
    Jessica80 likes this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  8. #28
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,224

    Default

    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. (

  9. #29
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,721

    Default

    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.

    Sixth Amendment
    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

  10. #30
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    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.
    So by that token do you also believe that no Native American can get an impartial trial in a non-Native American court system?

    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.)
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions