Relations of Aborigines, Police and the Justice System - Article Example

RUNNING HEAD: The relationship of the Aboriginal people of Australia with the policing and justice system Relations of Aborigines, Police and the Justice System [Student’s Name] Criminology [Professor’s Name] May 11, 2010 The relationship of the Aboriginal people of Australia with the policing and justice system Introduction Aborigines are an ethnic group alleged to be relatives of the race that is native to the Australian continent. Although the Aborigines are by all accounts natives of Australia, they hardly acknowledge their significance to Australia given the problems they encounter in their day-to-day undertakings. They are claimed to be citizens whose rights are hardly acknowledged by their own country. In this regard, Aborigines have continued suffering from many political, economical and social problems; one major problem is rise in delinquency among the Aboriginal community (Barak, 1991). Some researchers claim that bias and prejudice by non-Aboriginal police may be the cause of the high criminal levels recorded among the Aborigines. Other studies have, however, claimed there could be a behavioural pattern behind the high criminal levels among Aborigines. This field review report employs qualitative research to elucidate the reason behind high criminal levels among Aborigines and compares criminal levels among Aborigines living in homogenous and multicultural societies. Criminality and overrepresentation of the Aboriginal Community According to Parker, Kilroy and Hirst (2009) Aborigines in Australia are among the most incarcerated and those that hail from Western Australia form the greatest percentage of imprisoned Aborigines. Behrendt (1995) claims that manipulation of law and it utilisation as a tool of subjugation is not a new concept for the Aborigines. Brehrendt (1995) insists that no other Australian ethnic group has suffered under the rule of law in a way comparable to that of the Aborigines. Their rights have been breached over and over, not only by other non-Aborigines, but also by the criminal justice system in Australia without a hope of ever changing the situation. These injustices have been claimed by some researchers to be the rationales behind the high crime prevalence rate among the Aborigines. Barak (1991) claims that since Australia became an independent nation, the Aborigines have always been disgustingly overrepresented as defendants under criminal law. Blagg (2001) confirms that in the Western Australian states Aboriginal youth are the most overrepresented and as time goes by, the risk of an Aborigine being arrested goes up by shocking figures. For instance, in 1991 Aborigines were likely to be arrested 6.9 times more than the non-Aborigines; in 1997 the likelihood of Aborigines being detained rose to 8.3 times more than non-Aborigines (Blagg, 2001). Aboriginal youth are the most affected. For instance, even if the levels of arrest in 1997 went down compared to those realised in 1991, the likelihood of an Aboriginal juvenile being arrested was still 25 times more than that of a non-Aboriginal juvenile. Its rather shocking that even though Aboriginal youth account for less than four percent of Western Australia’s youth population, they constitute close to a quarter of all criminal offenders and over thirty percent of all the youth who usually have their cases heard under a court of law (Blagg, 2001). Though Western Australia is renowned for being the top state where Aborigines are overrepresented, the Northern Territory surpasses it in terms of overrepresentation of juvenile offenders. Blagg (2001) states that family conferencing was pioneered due to the high rates of overrepresentation. However, even with its introduction, most of the Aboriginal youth offenders are not referred to family conferencing. Only less than 20 percent are referred; this number is insignificant compared to the number of Aborigines implicated by the criminal justice system. Blagg (2001) continues to say that recommendations of consecutive reports tabled by the Western Australian Aboriginal Justice Council concerning Aborigines who die in custody as a result of overrepresentation are hardly implemented by the government. Most of these deaths are claimed to be as a result of police contact with Aboriginal offenders, incarceration and use of diversionary alternatives when dealing with Aboriginal offenders. For instance, the Australian Aboriginal Justice Council has incessantly complained that their recommendation that Aboriginal juvenile offenders be detained only as a last resort is never implemented. Moreover, the council has expressed disappointment over and over claiming that the reason as to why family conferencing system is not used in charging Aborigines is because the police have a negative attitude towards Aborigines and the Australian administration does not recognise them. Barak (1991) states that the criminal justice system rarely probes fully into Aboriginal related crimes. Their crimes are taken to be obvious; they are usually charged for crimes such as petty theft, street and domestic mugging, vagrancy, drunkenness, disorderly and resisting arrest. Barak (1991) rhetorically puts it that: Underprivileged aboriginals attract the attention of the police as they are susceptible targets to authorities who would wish to clean up the streets (p. 25). Research indicates that overrepresentation of Aborigines is already an entrenched concept into the Australian society; other findings claim that the degree of overrepresentation of Aborigines increase with the age of the Aboriginal suspect. In other parts of Australia, poor proficiency in English works against justice of Aborigines in the criminal justice system. On several occasions, cases of overrepresentation have arisen from misunderstandings in police interrogations and court hearings. Sercombe (1995) confirms that such cases of overrepresentation are clear indications that the problems inconveniencing Aborigines have become institutionalised into the arrangements and processes of the Australian criminal justice system. Overrepresentation of Aborigines in the Australian society can be substantiated by citing several examples that have happened in history. For instance, in 1983 five police officers from Western Australia were charged with manslaughter of John Pat; a youthful prisoner (Barak, 1991). This prisoner suffered from multiple bruises, had his head and body kicked and thrust against a concrete surface, and an autopsy disclosed that he died with a broken skull, internal bleeding in the brain, a broken artery in the heart and broken ribs. Albeit Aboriginal witnesses confirmed that the victim had been severely attacked by the police officers, the officers were exonerated when the prosecution evidence was dexterously torn into pieces by the defence. This is only one example illustrating one of the many instances in which Aborigines have had their rights breached and their justice denied by the Australian criminal justice system. During an eight-week expedition of aboriginal communities throughout Australia in 1986, Dr. Julian Burger, the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat, testified that there were numerous allegations of physical and psychosomatic abuse of men, women and juveniles of the Aboriginal community. In Burger’s report that was presented to the United Nations and the Australian government, the findings claimed that the oppression levels were sufficient to deduce that Aborigines are Australian outcasts in their own land. Burger claimed the study revealed that majority of Aborigines suffered from health problems, were uneducated, were jobless and the whole of the Aboriginal community was dismally poor (Barak, 1991). Allegations similar to Burger’s claims reached the media in 1987 through protests launched by Aborigines who claimed that their fellow Aborigines were dying epidemically in police custody and in prison. A research by press members disclosed similar occurrences throughout the whole of Australia. The large public outcry attracted the attention of various action groups with the most noticeable of all being the Committee to Defend Black Rights. This committee moved throughout Australia giving public talks and talking to government officials. This committee urged the government to launch a national inquiry into the deaths of Aborigines in detention. The committee spokesman insisted that the inquiry was supposed to include a thorough investigation into the conduct of police and prison guards (Barak, 1991). A disconcerting picture of individual disasters resulting from a large number of Aboriginal mortality in custody was coming forth. Albeit some aboriginals in detention were dying from illness or accidents, most deaths were officially recorded as suicide. According to Barak (1991) Coroner’s reports were frequently inconsistent and derisory, and autopsy reports favoured police or prison officer accounts. Aboriginal prisoners were hanging themselves with socks, blankets, shoe strings, tattered bed sheets and pieces of cloth from ceilings, bars or projections from the wall. Some deaths took place from lack of medical attention to prisoners who were clearly indicating signs of misery. Others took place during violent struggles with policemen and prison wardens; for instance deaths from shock induced by police officers during interrogation. Shockingly, most deaths took place within six hours of incarceration and mostly involved young men. In the contrary, reports that favour the police force and the criminal justice system in Australia hardly reveal the truth about misrepresentation of the Aborigines. For instance, the Muirhead report of 1989 was seen to be biased in its findings. According to Barak (1991) though Muirhead was critical of police officers and prison guards, his findings and recommendations were not comprehensive. Muirhead listened to four cases concerning prisoners in whose death the police claimed they were not involved. Muirhead observed inconsistencies and concealment of evidence by police officers and was doubtful of the claim that the prisoners had just taken their lives deliberately. In his opinion, he claimed that their death may have been caused by drug abuse or use of antidepressants or through a livid reaction to abuse. He disparaged the post-mortem investigations for not being comprehensive and was shocked that in one large jail no one had medical or first aid acquaintance to save at least one of the prisoners. In his conclusions, he acknowledged the fact that prisoners had not been treated with the requisite care or observation but established no clear grounds on which police and prison guards could be charged. The chairman for the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service accused Muirhead for evading his responsibility of making specific recommendations in relation to the evidence presented and claimed that his commission was in support of the police as it did not recommend criminal proceedings against them (Barak, 1991). There are many theories explaining why Aborigines have been taking away their own lives in prison. Some theories include perceptions that Aborigines suffer from stress and withdrawal symptoms following imprisonment. Other theories claim that a wave of impressionist suicide has come up and that Aborigines are despaired about their life situations. However, none of these theories absolves prison wardens and police of their blameworthiness and of their custodial duty for the physical and psychosomatic healthiness of the Aborigines. Aboriginal legal services throughout Australia have confirmed extensive accounts of methodical aggravation, beatings and mistreatment of Aboriginal juveniles and youths which are hardly accounted for, never appropriately investigated, and usually disregarded for lack of enough proof. At the root of the Aboriginal disenchantment with the Australian justice system is the inadequacy of investigatory and punitive measures taken against the prison guards and police officers who abuse their mandate and offend against the Aboriginal detainees (Barak 1991). Burger warned, in his report to the Anti-Slavery Society, that there was mounting confirmation in rural towns of physical abuse, aggravation, victimisation, and the progressively more extra-judicial role which police appeared to be taking with Aborigines mostly with the youths and the juveniles. He identified a widespread attitude among the law enforcements that all Aborigines are either criminals or potential offenders. Burger was of the opinion that that widespread attitude was probably the most injurious of all aspects to the enhancement of the police-Aboriginal relationships (Barak 1991). Studies done in Western Australia reveal that there is a negative relationship between Aborigines and the police. The negative attitude if further revealed by presence of antagonistic and stereotypical behaviour in the aboriginal society. Studies reveal that verbal abuse between policemen and Aborigines is usually likely to result into deadly violence. Barak (1991) confirms that following John Pat’s case, associations between the police and the aboriginal society were particularly aggressive. Studies reveal that associations between the police and Aborigines get worse when there is physical violence, verbal violence and social violence. Usually, verbal violence involves use of ridicule and abusive language while social violence involves non-verbal signs, isolation and offensive gestures. Aborigines-police relations can also aggravate if members of one faction felt that members of the other faction were biased against them. Force accusations of an Aborigine by the police or vice versa is not taken lightly. Humiliated cultural or racial dominance is also another cause of wrangles between police officers and the Aborigines. Other reasons why relations between law enforcers and Aborigines deteriorate are abuse of power, exploitation and sexual abuse of Aborigines by the police. Aboriginal Offenders and Behavioural Patterns Some researchers claim that although Aborigines may be overrepresented in one way or the other; the high rates of criminality among Aboriginals are associated with behavioural issues. For instance, besides acknowledging the issue of overrepresentation, Barak (1991) claims that the Aboriginal society could easily engage in criminal activities due to the severe problems they encounter; the main problems include frustration, depression and poverty. The behavioural connection is brought out well by looking at statistics illustrating the type of crimes committed by Aborigines. Aborigines are hardly criminals in white-collar and drug-related offences (Barak, 1991). For example, while Aboriginals are imprisoned for crimes against other people, non-Aboriginals are more involved in offences against property. Other crimes found to be high among Aboriginals are crimes involving disorder and traffic related crimes. In the contrary, non-Aboriginals are more involved in high profile burglary and extortion and drug related cartels than Aborigines. These unique groups of crimes prevalent among Aborigines are as a result of a broke, miserable and demoralised society. Disorderly manners, untailored sexual offences, domestic violence, street fights and such crimes characterise Aboriginal crimes against the person. These types of crimes are indicative of a deprived and socially isolated community. Crimes against the person usually entail turning against one’s own community and such crimes indicate social disorder. However, according to Sarre (1997) the future of the Aboriginal community may be uncertain but that does not mean that the Aboriginal society is a good example of a society where social disorder is manifest. Critics portray the Aboriginal community in a negative way; the child abandonment, violence, destruction of property, alcoholism and other petty crimes are taken as acts of behavioural disorder. Such critics however forget to probe into the real reason behind the behavioural patterns they claim that Aborigines have adopted. It is evident that the biased colonial policies, such as multiculturalism, which Aborigines have been subjected to for years have led to the demise of Aboriginal religious, societal and lawful restraints, and radically eroded the security, cultural integrity and self-esteem of the Aborigines. Traditional control mechanisms in Aboriginal community life have become immensely more convoluted than those which proved appropriate and effective in restricting social conduct in the past (Sarre, 1997). Such convolution weakens people’s aptitude to deal with disorder. Such intricacy also means that previous appropriate conduct among aborigines could have been affected to a great extent by colonial stress factors and therefore resulted into uncontrolled behaviour. For this reason, some researchers see aboriginal criminality as a behavioural disorder that can be changed by re-establishment of dignity and self-esteem amongst Aborigines. Other researchers claim that criminality has a strong relationship with indulgence in alcohol in the aboriginal society. Almost all observations on the current Aboriginal condition either mentions or critically talks about alcohol. Aboriginal drinking is normally acknowledged as extreme, venomous, demoralising and degrading. Aboriginal drinking is perceived to be commensurate to other serious offenses against the person since it brings about issues such as violent drunkenness and causes high prison populations. However, sometimes alcohol makes Aborigines excessively detectable in the criminal statistics. Stevenson, Lind and Weatherburn (1999) claim that in the recent past indulgence in alcohol has been linked to the offensive and criminal behaviour manifested amongst Aborigines. It has been found that offensive behaviour and damage of property is more prevalent in areas where alcohol is taken in large amounts. Though alcohol is taken in large amounts in Aboriginal societies with a higher population, alcohol consumption plays a fundamental role in criminal activity and alcohol sales are indicative of criminal activity. However, it is evident that indulgence of Aborigines in drug and substance abuse is indicative of a despondent society. Homel, Lincoln, and Herd (1999) confirm that alcohol plays a causal role in hostility in Aboriginal communities. For instance, while there weren’t any female deaths in custody in Northern Territory during 1989-1990, alcohol-connected murders during this period accounted for more female deaths than the overall deaths of prisoners in custody. Nevertheless, with regard to many recent rationalisations of Aboriginal alcohol interrelated violence it is of no significance to identify alcohol as the only drug or as the only cause of violence, even in alcohol-connected incidences both in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies. A hypothetical position that draws on structuralist and socio-cultural standards is preferable as opposed to a biomedical model in which the pharmacological consequences of alcohol are of prime importance. This position brings into focus the risk factors in the Aboriginal culture and the social environment. Homel, Lincoln, and Herd (1999) insist that alcohol is used in a controlled manner in Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal people have in the past declined housing and comfort opportunities provided to them by the government and opted to stay in their fringe camps so as to retain their autonomy. The Aboriginal community employs alcohol as a means of exchange with a foundation in traditional activities of reciprocity. For instance, in Darwin there is a fringe camp that is constructed to give its occupants a chance to free themselves from controls imposed by the state government. It is alleged that Aborigines living in Wiluna, Western Australia, agree to sentences given to them by the courts without stopping their drinking that later causes violence since alcohol influences them. Crammed with the power of alcohol, they choose to become violent as a means of protesting against the state due to the needy situations in which they find themselves in. Another prime factor blamed for causing Aboriginal violence is dependence amongst the Aboriginal community. Many Australian reports identify the dependent state of Aborigines as a crucial issue in Australia today. According to Homel, Lincoln, and Herd (1999) bureaucratic control is one of the aspects under dependence that plays a pivotal role in Aboriginal delinquency levels. Due to historical and current political, economic and social conditions that affect them, Aborigines are incapable of controlling their own lives. This finding is regardless of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody that necessitated that Aborigines be empowered and in spite of the policies of self determination that were adopted in the late 20th century. Aborigines are claimed to be almost entirely reliant on state governments for employment and for most of their basic needs. Most Aborigines that fall within the working class faction are employed by the government but, more often than not, in capacities that are concerned with the welfare of Aborigines. Even in these capacities, the departments in which the Aboriginal employees work are not independent. According to Homel, Lincoln, and Herd (1999) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission (ATSIC) is limited by its position as a government department and is not trusted by many Aborigines. Even in instances where Aborigines are given loans to start small and medium enterprises, their proposals have to pass through ATSIC which is liable to limitations imposed by the government. Those who are unable to find jobs elsewhere become reliant on unemployment paybacks or pensions. This situation is alleged to be the reason many Aborigines resort into drug and substance abuse; get angry when arrested by police and why crime continues to prevail in the Aboriginal society. Aborigines’ criminal behaviour in homogenous and multicultural societies Settlement of Aborigines in either rural or urban areas is highly connected to past forced removals. Forced removal has at least three long-term repercussions including marshalling together of inharmonious groups; physical, social and psychosomatic wreckage and centralism and bureaucratic controls manifest in Aborigines living in urban areas (Homel, Lincoln, & Herd, 1999). With regard to different language factions being placed together, it has been well recognised that Aborigines who experience bad relationships with bordering factions live in that area not because they chose to live there but they were forced to migrate to that area. Much of this bad feeling has continued and turned into contemporary quarrelling. Some of the displacement was caused by external conditions that left few alternatives for some groups to remain on their land. In other occasions, such as Queensland government reserves like on Palm Island, the displacement was directed to sites that were meant to lock up entire Aboriginal families, clans or societies. Homel, Lincoln and Herd (1999) confirm that tens of thousands of Aboriginals are affected by being part of a stolen creation. Though their feelings are hardly taken into account, it is imperative to note that the experience of children who were taken from their parents under duress has proven extremely disturbing for those involved and plays a crucial role in the present expressions of violence. This is entirely predictable given what is now acknowledged about the impact on children of the interference of family and community supports. It is also substantial that this is not just a past observable fact as the practice continues in some areas where children are removed, for a range of reasons; for custody or guardianship. Furthermore, there are many people who are currently unable to trace their parents or their other relatives due to the general ectopic nature of Aboriginal settlements. The subsequent loss of identity contributes to social seclusion and a sense of emotional defeat, as well as to the attrition of the authority of men who are unable to be initiated as adults in their native soil. In the urban areas, forced removals have seen bureaucratic control increase to unmanageable levels. Even though more Australian Aborigines live in rural areas and remote communities than is the case for non-Aborigines, a considerable fraction of Aborigines now live in urban areas as a result of past policies of dislocation. Such centralised living arrangements mean that many Aborigines are highly bureaucratised because of the levels of white government that have been imposed upon them in non-Aboriginal terms and without local control. Urban Aboriginals, for instance, protest that state agencies are reactive, shallow and racial-driven in dealing with clients, and that the perception present in indigenous communities on the way in which issues should be addressed in a more comprehensive fashion is basically ignored (Homel, Lincoln, & Herd, 1999). Consequently, ignorance of Aboriginal opinions results into criminal activities and protests. Other studies take a different stance on crime rates amongst Aborigines in urban and rural areas. According to Povinelli (1998) it makes no significant difference for aborigines to live in a multicultural urban society. Even though most of the urban areas have all the requisite amenities as opposed to rural areas, Aborigines living in urban areas are more susceptible to racial tensions and exclusions. In this regard, there is no significant difference in crime rate between rural and urban Aborigines. Other researchers, however, reveal the contrary. Gale and Wundersitz (2008) reveal that in the 1960s the delinquency rates of Aboriginal youth were lower in Adelaide compared to rural towns but from 1980 onwards criminality became more prevalent among urban Aborigines as opposed to rural Aborigines. Gale and Wundersitz (2008) claim that although suburban Aborigines are subjected to police summons, urban Aborigines are more likely to be arrested officially. Urban Aboriginal juveniles are also likely to be charged in a children’s court which is hardly the case in the rural aboriginal society. The likelihood of an Aborigine without a past criminal record being arrested is also much lower in urban areas as compared to rural areas where police stereotype Aborigines as criminals. In fact, rural Aborigines view Urban Aborigines as more privileged and have a tendency to migrate to urban areas. However, following these tendencies, a virtual cessation has been imposed on Aborigines trying to migrate to Adelaide from suburban areas. The Australian Aborigine population is a mostly urbanised demographic though a significant number of Aborigines hail from suburban settlements usually located where church missions used to be. However, the wellbeing and economic complexities facing both urban and rural Aborigines are significant. Both groups have unpleasant ratings on quite a number of social issues, including joblessness, poverty, lack of educations and crime. For this reason, even though urban Aborigines may have obvious advantages over their rural counterparts, they are still secluded from special facilities by their non-Aboriginal counterparts. Conclusion Crime rates amongst the Aboriginal society are shockingly high and various studies have differing theories with regard to this issue. While racial seclusion, prejudice and bias by the police and criminal justice system may not be the only factors that account for the high rates of crime amidst the Aboriginal society, these factors play an overriding role. This fact is manifested by poor relations among Aborigines, some non-Aborigines, the police and Australia’s legal structures. Even though factors such as dependence, indulgence in alcohol and frustration may account for crime prevalence, they are all related to colonial effects such as displacement, seclusion and racial bias; studies that claim alcohol is related to Aboriginal criminality are all related to law enforcement biases. Even though the needs and crime rates of urban and rural Aborigines differ unsystematically, it is evident that both groups usually commit the same offenses: crimes against the person. References Barak, G. (1991). Crimes by the capitalist state: An introduction to state criminality. SUNY Press. Behrendt, L. (1995). Aboriginal dispute resolution: A step towards self-determination and community autonomy. Federation Press. Blagg, H. (2001). Aboriginal youth and restorative Justice: Critical notes from the Australian frontier. In A. Morris & G. Maxwell, Restorative justice for juveniles: Conferencing, mediation and circles. Hart Publishing. Gale, F., & Wundersitz, J. (2008). Rural and urban crime rates amongst aboriginal youth: Patterns of different locational opportunity. Australian Geographical Studies, 24(2), 179-186. Homel, R., Lincoln, R., & Herd, B. (1999). Risk and resilience: Crime and violence prevention in aboriginal communities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32(1), 1-23. Parker, J., Kilroy, D., & Hirst, J. (2009). Women, health and prisons in Australia. In D. C. Hatton & A. A. Fischer, Women prisoners and health justice: Perspectives, issues and advocacy for an international hidden population. Radcliffe Publishing. Povinelli, E. A. (1998). The state of shame: Australian multiculturalism and the crisis of indigenous citizenship. Critical Inquiry, 24(2), 575-610. Sarre, R. (1997). Is there a role for the application of customary law in addressing Aboriginal criminality in Australia. Critical Criminology, 8(2), 91-102. Sercombe, H. (1995). The face of the criminal is aboriginal: Representation of aboriginal youth people in the West Australian newspaper. Journal of Australian Studies, 19(3), 76-94. Stevenson, R. J., Lind, B., & Weatherburn, D. (1999). Property damage and public disorder: Their relationship with sales of alcohol in New South Wales, Australia. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 54(2), 163-170. Read More