Cited by 41Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Justice and PenologyEducation Discipline and Inequality

The Impact of Indigenous Status on Adult Sentencing: A Review of the Statistical Research Literature From the United States, Canada, and Australia

Open access
Jeffries, Samantha, Bond, Christine E.W.·2012·Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15377938.2012.700830

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Federal criminal justice powers over Indian Country, complex jurisdictional authority in Indian Country, racial profiling, and overpolicing in Indian Country are cited across research as key factors contributing to the disparate carceral system experiences of Native individuals.

    “Federal criminal justice powers over Indian Country, the complex maze of jurisdictional authority in Indian Country, racial profiling, and overpolicing in Indian Country are cited across research as key factors contributing to the disparate carceral system experiences of Native individuals”

    From Indigenous Carceral System Inequalities in the US: A Synthesis of the Literature About the Nature and Sources (2025) · cites this paper as Jeffries and Bond 2012

    The Introduction (page unavailable) notes the over-representation of Indigenous Americans in prisons and jails, and “Native American Criminal Defendants and the Imprisonment Decision” reports some sentencing disparities. The paper does not identify federal powers or complex jurisdiction in Indian Country, racial profiling, or overpolicing there as factors contributing to those disparities. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ives, D.E. (2004). Inequality, crime and sentencing: Borde, Hamilton and the relevance of social disadvantage in Canadian sentencing law. Queen's Law Journal, 30, 114-155.
  2. Vasey, A. (2003). Rethinking the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders: The social value of s.718(e). Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues, 73, 73-97.
  3. Von Hirsch, A., & Roberts, J. (1997). Racial disparity in sentencing: Reflections on the Hood Study. The Howard Journal, 36(6), 227-236.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jeffries, S., & Bond, C. E. W.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Venue
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice
Published
2012-07-01
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
223-243
ISSN
  • 1537-7938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-7946
OpenAlex
W2118661158
Cited by
41
References
52
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education Discipline and Inequality
Keywords
indigenous peoples, sentencing disparities, racial discrimination in criminal justice, affirmative action, negative discrimination, Indigenous status

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review