The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 157 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda
Open accessAbstract
Examinations of the Native American experience in the US criminal justice system are still relatively sparse, despite earlier calls for increased attention to Native American crime and justice issues. This is unfortunate, as Native Americans are unique among all groups in US society and face distinctive criminal justice jurisdictional complexities. We argue that this uniqueness renders extant racial/ethnic theoretical framings incomplete for understanding the Native American experience with criminal justice in the United States. First, we describe the complexities of criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, discuss how internal colonialism shapes the Native American experience, and outline a set of directions for research to illuminate such jurisdictional complexities. Second, we discuss general theoretical frameworks and their strengths and limitations in explaining the Native American experience. We argue for a focus on the interlocking institutional power that shapes tribal, state, and federal justice coupling. We present an agenda for research on the consequences of contemporary criminal justice arrangements for individual Native Americans and for Native American communities collectively.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review argues that Native Americans’ dual status as US citizens and tribal nationals, combined with internal colonialism and complex tribal-state-federal jurisdiction, makes standard racial/ethnic theories incomplete for explaining their criminal justice experiences. It proposes a research agenda centered on interlocking institutional power and tribal-state-federal justice coupling, especially under the Major Crimes Act, Public Law 280, and the Tribal Law and Order Act.
Key findings
- The paper describes a “jurisdictional jungle”: approximately 573 federally recognized tribes; the Major Crimes Act gives the federal government jurisdiction over 15 categories of crimes in Indian Country; Public Law 280 created mandatory and optional state jurisdiction arrangements; and tribal courts were limited to one year’s imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine before the TLO Act, which allowed up to three years per offense and access to federal correctional resources.
- It reports growing federal exposure and disparity: Native Americans grew by 27.2% among federal offenders from 2009 to 2013; victimization rates have traditionally been more than twice the national average; and Native Americans have higher imprisonment rates than any other group except African Americans. Droske’s South Dakota example is cited: average state assault sentence of 29 months versus 47 months for the same offense prosecuted federally in Indian Country.
- The TLO Act initially provided more than $87 million; by 2012 the DOJ had awarded 169 grants, and by 2017 the number had risen to 212 grants totaling $101 million. It also enabled T-CHRIP criminal history data sharing and enhanced tribal sentencing authority.
- Cited empirical studies find mixed but context-dependent patterns: Franklin (2013) found Native Americans more likely to be imprisoned, especially for violent and drug offenses, with young male Native Americans singled out for particularly severe sentences; Ulmer & Bradley (2018) found Native Americans moderately less likely to be imprisoned and received shorter sentences overall, but were substantially less likely to receive downward guideline departures, and district Native American caseload share, PL 280 Major Crimes jurisdiction, and greater TLO Act funding were associated with longer Native American prison sentences.
Methods
- Design: a review and theoretical/empirical agenda, not an original empirical study; it synthesizes legal history, statutes, prior criminological research, and policy commentary.
- Data or sample: no new dataset; it draws on legal cases and laws (Marshall Trilogy, Major Crimes Act, PL 280, TLO Act) and cited prior studies, including federal sentencing analyses in 28 districts with substantial Native American caseloads and older state-court studies.
- Main analysis: conceptual synthesis and theory building; it evaluates focal concerns, racial/ethnic group threat, court community, and Steinman’s interlocking institutional power/organizational coupling, then proposes research questions on policing, prosecution, sentencing, and tribal perspectives.
Limitations
- The paper states that examinations of the Native American criminal justice experience remain relatively sparse, that much knowledge is underdeveloped and dated, that very limited research can adjudicate between federal underenforcement and tribal sovereignty development, and that there is very little research on Alaskan Native communities and criminal justice.
- It also states that its discussion is not a comprehensive review but a focused theoretical and agenda-setting piece.
- Evident from the text: as a review/agenda, it presents no original data or causal tests and relies on prior studies, legal commentary, and selected empirical findings.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
58 No full text of the sources · 39 Own interpretation · 35 Sources not found · 23 Not checked yet · 12 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Though tribes may have concurrent jurisdiction over Native American defendants in mandatory and optional PL 280 states and jurisdiction over non-Major Crimes offenses in non-PL 280 states (as well as Major Crimes that federal authorities might choose not to prosecute), in practice tribal courts in such areas tend to be less developed and less funded than elsewhere because of the expectation that”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Courts
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Tredeau 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In United States v. Big Crow (1990), the Eighth Circuit affirmed a downward departure from the US Sentencing Guidelines for the defendant, Big Crow, who grew up on the notoriously violent Pine Ridge reservation and made efforts to overcome the adverse living conditions there.A downward departure was deemed warranted based on Big Crow's employment history, strong community ties, and reservation”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Individual Level: Native Americans and Focal Concerns
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Tredeau 2011 source
In “B. Departures Below the Guidelines,” the paper says the Eighth Circuit affirmed Big Crow’s downward departure and identifies his employment history, strong community ties, and Pine Ridge reservation background as the relevant factors. Footnote 84 identifies the case as a 1990 decision. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Tight federal-tribal justice coupling might take the form of wardship, where federal authorities may view Native American communities as wards subject to federal crime control efforts”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Franklin 2013 source
- Supportedcites Tredeau 2011 source
Footnote 105 describes the federal–tribal trust relationship as paternalistic and quotes the analogy of tribes as wards of the United States. The Federal Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction section also describes tribes as historically treated as federally protected wards and explains federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. Together, these support the claim's qualified description of wardship linked to federal crime control. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Examinations of the Native American experience in the US criminal justice system are still relatively sparse, despite earlier calls for increased attention to Native American crime and justice issues.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
“In contrast, examinations of the Native American experience in the US criminal justice system are still relatively sparse despite several previous calls for increased attention to Native American crime and justice issues (e.g., Franklin 2013, Nielsen 2009, Pommersheim 1991, Young 1990).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Abstract
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that this uniqueness renders extant racial/ethnic theoretical framings incomplete for understanding the Native American experience with criminal justice in the United States.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
“We argue that this uniqueness likely renders popular racial/ethnic theoretical framings incomplete for understanding the Native American experience with criminal justice in the United States.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most of the literature on criminal justice disparities among racial and ethnic minorities and certain gender and age groupings is focused on black-white comparisons or, in the past decade and a half, black-white-Hispanic comparisons (see reviews by Baumer 2013, Mitchell 2005, Spohn 2000, Ulmer 2012).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baumer 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mitchell 2005 source
- Not matchedcites Spohn 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is unfortunate, as Native Americans are unique among all groups in US society and face distinctive criminal justice jurisdictional complexities.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
“This is unfortunate, as Native Americans face distinctive criminal justice jurisdictional complexities.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“For centuries, Native Americans have experienced internal colonialism (Snipp 1986(Snipp , 1992)), a situation in which a more powerful majority physically, socially, and/or culturally isolates an indigenous people and maintains economically exploitive relations with that minority.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“BIA agents and agencies were semiautonomous local policy makers in control of their own arenas of influence (Steinman 2012).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Major Crimes Act
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Steinman 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Specifically, federal courts often process major crimes committed on tribal lands (Indian Country), even those that would otherwise be handled by state courts (Droske 2008, Franklin 2013, Pommersheim 1991).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Droske 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Franklin 2013 source
- Not matchedcites Pommersheim 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 78
- It may state two separate claims as one. 52
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is unfortunate, as Native Americans are unique among all groups in US society and face distinctive criminal justice jurisdictional complexities.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This intersection uniquely shapes their experiences of agency and power, as they are subjected to internal colonialism across multiple interlocking institutional spheres (Steinman 2012), including criminal justice (Nielsen 2009).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Native Americans are US citizens but also tribal nationals.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Native American tribes and Alaskan Native communities are sovereign but colonized nations, and their experience with US criminal justice reflects this (Cardani 2009, Nielsen 2009).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Legal critics argue that federal jurisdiction and sentencing systematically create harsher punishments for Native American defendants than for non-Native American defendants (Tredeau 2011).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Major Crimes Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tredeau 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More broadly, the status of tribes as domestic dependent nations translates into complicated and often contentious arrangements regarding criminal authority over Indian Country.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > JUSTICE AND JURISDICTION IN INDIAN COUNTRY
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In South Dakota, a defendant convicted of assault in state court receives an average sentence of twentynine months.However, if a Native American defendant were to commit that same offense within one of the Indian reservations in South Dakota, the defendant would be prosecuted in federal court and receive an average sentence of forty-seven months.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Major Crimes Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Droske 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“State law enforcement agencies have similarly criticized PL 280, noting it does not provide the necessary funding for extending law enforcement services within Indian Country.They point out the difficulty of carrying out these duties given the ambiguity of jurisdiction and unfamiliarity with tribal communities (Gonzales et al. 2005).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Courts
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gonzales et al. 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Relatedly, the focal concerns model of sentencing, and criminal justice decision making more broadly, argues that subjective definitions of offenders and offenses in relation to three focal concerns of punishment-blameworthiness, protection of the community, and practical constraintsdetermine punishment decisions (see Kramer & Ulmer 2009, Steffensmeier et al. 1998).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Individual Level: Native Americans and Focal Concerns
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kramer & Ulmer 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Steffensmeier et al. 1998 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This is an issue of growing importance, as Native Americans account for a small but increasing portion of federal offenders: growing by 27.2% from 2009 to 2013 (US Sentencing Comm.2013).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites US Sentencing Comm.2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Under a pilot program, tribal courts can utilize federal correctional facilities and resources for tribal court felony sentences, as well as felonies that could be, but are not, prosecuted by USAOs under the Major Crimes Act (Folsom-Smith 2015).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Folsom-Smith 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Among other provisions, the TLO Act directs US Attorneys' Offices (USAOs) with jurisdiction over Native American lands to: (a) appoint an Assistant US Attorney to be a tribal justice liaison and (b) appoint special Assistant US Attorneys to prosecute Indian Country crime, in consultation with tribal authorities, where”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Duties Imposed on United States Attorneys by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, many Native American communities have long been beset by high rates of violent crime, much of it connected to alcohol and drugs (Alvarez & Bachman 1996, Dobie 2011).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Alvarez & Bachman 1996 source
- Not matchedcites Dobie 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act also extended many of the safeguards in the Bill of Rights to tribes, but it, along with a 1986 amendment, also limited tribal courts' sentencing authority to a maximum of one year's imprisonment, a fine of $5,000, or both [Droske 2008; see also 25 CFR 11.315 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.315)].”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Courts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Droske 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites 25 CFR 11.315
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“PL 280 placed Native American defendants and Native American communities under state jurisdiction without originally requiring tribal consent, thus failing to recognize Native Americans' status as members of domestic sovereign nations (Droske 2008, Snipp 1992, Steinman 2012).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Major Crimes Act
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Wells & Falcone (2008), 52% of tribes have tribal law enforcement, but this varies greatly by state PL 280 status: 71% of non-PL 280 state tribes have their own police, whereas only 22% of PL 280 state tribes do.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Courts
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wells & Falcone (2008) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the historical context underlying US government-tribal relations, it is not surprising that federal law enforcement on tribal lands and federal district courts' distinct jurisdiction over Native American criminal defendants have long been at the center of considerable legal and political confusion and conflict.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > JUSTICE AND JURISDICTION IN INDIAN COUNTRY
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In sum, the federal justice system has jurisdiction for the following offense situations (see Droske 2008): federal crimes committed by Native Americans in PL 280 mandatory states; Major Crimes Act offenses committed in Indian Country by Native Americans against Native Americans or non-Native Americans, in all states but the six PL 280 mandatory states; and non-Major Crimes Act offenses committed”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Major Crimes Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Droske 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Importantly, however, the Major Crimes Act still applies in all nonmandatory PL 280 states, so in both the nine optional states and the non-PL 280 states, the 15 major crime categories are still under federal jurisdiction (Droske 2008).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Major Crimes Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Droske 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Albonetti (1987Albonetti ( , 1991) ) argued that prosecutorial and court decisions are made in a context of bounded rationality, in that court actors make decisions with insufficient information, which produces uncertainty.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Individual Level: Native Americans and Focal Concerns
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“PL 280, even in its optional status, has also been widely criticized for stifling the development and effectiveness of tribal courts and generating considerable confusion about jurisdiction regarding criminal activity (Droske 2008).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Major Crimes Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Droske 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They found that many tribal police were understaffed, not paid well, and struggled with jurisdictional overlap and complexity.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Courts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Luna-Firebaugh & Walker (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“According to Wells & Falcone (2008), the organization and operations of tribal police agencies typically resemble those of nontribal local police.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Courts
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wells & Falcone (2008) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Decision makers then fall back on attributions about reoffending risk and/or rehabilitation potential that can be linked to race, ethnicity, gender, and other social status stereotypes.This can then result in extralegal sentencing disparity connected to these statuses.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Individual Level: Native Americans and Focal Concerns
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 2017, the TLO Act was reauthorized until FY 2022.The reauthorization renewed and expanded programs focused on Indian Country law enforcement, illegal drug trafficking control, alcohol/drug abuse prevention, and juvenile justice (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th- congress/senate-bill/1953).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th- congress/senate-bill/1953
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The BIA continues to provide law enforcement and justice services to tribes, and substantial variations in local and tribal experiences with the federal government persist (http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/index.htm).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Major Crimes Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/index.htm
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most obvious variable affecting tribal-state-federal justice coupling is PL 280 jurisdiction”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, federal law enforcement and courts might view Native American defendants as less blameworthy/more sympathetic and as facing distinctive practical difficulties.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Individual Level: Native Americans and Focal Concerns
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wells & Falcone's (2008) three modalities of Indian Country policing provide examples of different levels of tribal, state, and federal law enforcement coupling.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wells & Falcone (2008) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to this view, as the relative sizes and/or salience of minority racial populations increase, majority groups may feel threatened and feel that their positions of power and privilege are jeopardized”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Blumer 1958 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Others have argued that negative stereotypes of Native Americans have perpetuated and encouraged general anti-Native American criminal justice system bias (Alvarez & Bachman 1996, Lieber et al. 2007, Perry 2006, Rouse & Hanson 1991, Zatz et al. 1991).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Individual Level: Native Americans and Focal Concerns
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The focal concerns perspective maintains that stereotypes and biases based on race/ethnicity or other extralegal defendant characteristics can influence the sentencing process in a social context where such stereotypes and biases exists”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kramer & Ulmer 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Majority groups then would use the levers of social control institutions to control the perceived crime threat from minority groups”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Feldmeyer et al. 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In mandatory PL 280 jurisdictions, criminal cases in Indian Country are processed by nontribal local and state criminal justice systems.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Judges, and perhaps prosecutors, might seek to ameliorate what they see as overly harsh treatment.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Individual Level: Native Americans and Focal Concerns
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Group threat theory implies that when perceptions of minority group threat are more pronounced and when criminal justice actors perceive particular racial/ethnic groups as more dangerous or morally disrespectable, such minorities may receive more severe and punitive social control.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blalock (1967) argues that as minority racial groups grow in size relative to whites, they are likely to develop greater power, economic resources, and political influence in the community and are better able to compete with whites for power.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Blalock (1967)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“For some scholars, the group threat position implies that large or salient minority populations may elicit stereotypes and fears about crime, safety, or immorality”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, federal judges and even prosecutors might feel sympathy for those Native American defendants, whom, but for being Native Americans, would be prosecuted in state court and would almost certainly face less severe sentences than those provided in the federal sentencing guidelines.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Individual Level: Native Americans and Focal Concerns
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the court community perspective, which argues that interorganizational relations between criminal justice agencies (Eisenstein et al. 1988, Ulmer 1997), including local, state, and federal justice agencies (Eisenstein & Miller 2005, Ulmer 2005), are vital for understanding the contours of localized justice.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eisenstein et al. 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ulmer 1997
- Not matchedcites Eisenstein & Miller 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In mandatory PL 280 states, crimes that violate federal law committed by Native Americans are, of course, still handled in federal court.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We argue that Steinman's (2012) interlocking institutional power perspective is most applicable to understanding criminal justice and Native American nations and is very compatible with the implications of the court community perspective.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Steinman (2012) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Like Nielsen (2009), we view the Native American criminal justice experience as inherently shaped by the history of US internal colonialism, which is not accounted for by racial/ethnic group threat explanations.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nielsen (2009) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In non-PL 280 jurisdictions, US Attorneys and federal district courts prosecute and sentence Major Crimes Act offenses; thus, there is by definition greater federal presence in Indian Country criminal justice in non-PL 280 jurisdictions.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If so, Native Americans may be more likely to receive more lenient treatment, such as lesser charges and more lenient sentences, due to federal prosecutors and judges interpreting focal concerns in light of harsh conditions on reservations and Native American disadvantage.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > The Individual Level: Native Americans and Focal Concerns
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Instead, critics contend that Native American tribes are better characterized as captive nations and internal colonies, necessitating a more institutional focus”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Snipp 1986 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Feimer et al. (1990) examined sentence lengths among a sample of 602 South Dakota prison inmates in 1985 and found that Native American inmates had longer sentences than whites, net of conviction offense or prior record.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > State Sentencing of Native American Defendants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Feimer et al. (1990) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, some federal districts might take a hands-off approach to Indian Country crime, and tribal-federal justice might be relatively loosely coupled.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is a tactic sometimes used with state prosecutors outside Indian Country (Eisenstein & Miller 2005), and it appears to be encouraged by the TLO Act.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Prosecution and Court Jurisdiction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eisenstein & Miller 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Federal courts and prosecutors in mandatory PL 280 states might engage in selective impact prosecutions of specific types of offenses in Indian Country that can be prosecuted under federal as well as state law”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Prosecution and Court Jurisdiction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eisenstein & Miller 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Much of our knowledge and research is underdeveloped and dated.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They found that Native American defendants were more likely to be incarcerated than whites and that whites received more lenient outcomes such as deferred or suspended sentences.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > State Sentencing of Native American Defendants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hall & Simkus (1975) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More recently, Wilmot & DeLone (2010) found that Native Americans received more severe sentencing outcomes in state courts under Minnesota's sentencing guidelines and that the degree of Native American-white disparity varied by county and offense.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > State Sentencing of Native American Defendants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wilmot & DeLone (2010) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Such cross-designation of tribal personnel has been reported in some tribal areas”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lee 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Some other studies of state court sentencing (Engen & Gainey 2000, Rodriguez 2003) included but did not focus on Native Americans in their analyses and found that Native Americans were not punished significantly differently from whites.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > State Sentencing of Native American Defendants
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Lieber (1994) found that Native American youth received more severe state juvenile court case processing outcomes than white youth but less severe outcomes than black youth.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > State Sentencing of Native American Defendants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lieber (1994)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“their crime-specific models found that Native Americans received longer sentences for robbery and burglary, whereas whites received longer sentences for homicide.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > State Sentencing of Native American Defendants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Alvarez & Bachman (1996) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specifically, the district caseload share made up of Native American defendants was associated with greater odds for Native Americans being sent to federal prison and with modestly longer Native American prison sentences.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Federal Punishment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ulmer & Bradley (2018) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Native Americans were even more likely to be imprisoned, and for longer periods, compared to whites when convicted of violent and, to a lesser extent, drug trafficking offenses.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Federal Punishment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Franklin (2013) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In areas where such a wardship view is common, federal justice authorities may emphasize tough federal policing and punishment as a mechanism of crime control over what federal judges and prosecutors see as disorderly and crime-ridden communities.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these variations in law enforcement coupling are likely sites of interlocking institutional power that vitally shape justice consequences for Native American and Alaskan Native individuals and communities.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, district courts might give out tougher sentences to Native American defendants where federal justice is more present and coupled with Indian Country justice.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One condition of TLO Act funding is participation in the T-CHRIP program, which provides grants to tribes to improve data collection and sharing across tribal, state, and federal criminal records systems.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cardani (2009) aptly called the complexities and variations of Indian Country criminal justice a jurisdictional jungle.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cardani (2009) source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Everett & Wojtkiewicz (2002) found that Native Americans were more likely to be imprisoned than whites, especially for violent crimes.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Federal Punishment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Everett & Wojtkiewicz (2002) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some older studies suggest that Native Americans are more likely to be arrested than whites in urban areas outside Native American lands.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Policing
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“At the individual level, Native American defendants were moderately less likely to be imprisoned and received shorter sentences overall, but they were substantially less likely to get downward guideline departures (that is, more lenient sentences than called for by guidelines) of any kind compared to white defendants.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Federal Punishment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ulmer & Bradley (2018) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Federal courts in such districts might reward tribal justice coupling with the greater services of federal crime control in the form of greater law enforcement resources and more severe punishment for Native American offenders”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cases involving Native American defendants would make up a comparatively greater proportion of federal court caseloads, and USAOs would be proactive in prosecuting crime in Indian County, seeking to leverage greater federal capacity for incapacitation and deterrence than state or tribal justice.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If it became widespread, this would be a major example of tribal-federal justice coupling.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“TLO Act funding might even entail cross-designation of tribal prosecutors as temporary Assistant US Attorneys”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eisenstein & Miller 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Similarly, Lieber et al. (2007) found that Native American youth received more punitive state juvenile justice outcomes than whites and outcomes similar to African American youth.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > State Sentencing of Native American Defendants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lieber et al. (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In a later follow-up study, Lundman (1994) found that Native American adults were more likely to be arrested for public drunkenness and traffic violations (net of control variables such as type of event, suspect demeanor, and others), but Native American juveniles were not more likely to be arrested than white youth.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Policing
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lundman (1994) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hall & Simkus (1975) argued that such findings implied that state courts saw Native American defendants as a greater risk for future criminality.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > State Sentencing of Native American Defendants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hall & Simkus (1975) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There is evidence that USAOs and federal judges view the federal system as more effective and better resourced than state and local criminal justice for providing high-impact crime control”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eisenstein & Miller 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tribes can give longer sentences than one year and can obtain federal funding to house offenders in tribal facilities or send them to federal prisons.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Federal-tribal integration might promote a federal-centric deterrence-and incapacitationbased crime control approach for Indian Country, leveraging federal law enforcement resources and meting out tougher federal sentences to incapacitate and deter Native American defendants.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Contextualizing the Native American Criminal Justice Experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We know of only a handful of published studies that focus on the sentencing of Native Americans in federal courts.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Federal Punishment
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They found that Native Americans did not receive longer sentences, but they were significantly less likely to be paroled and more likely to serve out their maximum sentences.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > State Sentencing of Native American Defendants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bynum & Paternoster (1984)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Criminology also knows little about issues of prosecution and court jurisdiction in Indian Country.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Prosecution and Court Jurisdiction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Redner-Vera & Galeste (2015) reported that both Native American youth and Hispanic youth had more negative views toward police than white or black youth.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Redner-Vera & Galeste (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the TLO Act contains provisions that are aimed at enhancing tribal justice resources and infrastructure, and may foster tribal sovereignty.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the seeds of another, different model of federal-tribal justice coupling seem to be nascent in the TLO Act-one that is based on a more complete recognition of tribal sovereignty.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many ways, these challenges (and the proposed solutions) are similar to those experienced by other indigenous populations in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In districts with more integrated tribal-federal justice relations, more aggressive use of these sentencing incentives might be a marker of more active and involved US Attorney's Office investigative efforts in Indian Country.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Federal Punishment
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, these officers often experienced stress due to cognitive conflict between the two justice styles and felt they sometimes lost the respect of other Navajos for using non-Native American policing methods.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gould 2002 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As Steinman (2012, p. 1,121) predicts,”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Steinman 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This coincides with many criticisms of PL 280 as a limitation to tribal sovereignty (Perry 2006, Snipp 1992).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > ; see https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/politics/tribal-lawand-order-act-five-years-later-what-works-and-what-doesnt/).
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is consistent with other studies suggesting that the role of race is contextually situated, in that differential severity and leniency are both possible.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“(c) interactions with police fostered perceptions of Native American marginality and alienation.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Perry 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Wells & Falcone (2008) specifically argue that, where it exists, PL 280 mandatory jurisdiction stifles the development and sovereignty of tribal law enforcement.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > ; see https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/politics/tribal-lawand-order-act-five-years-later-what-works-and-what-doesnt/).
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wells & Falcone 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many commentators we reviewed here argue that PL 280 fails to recognize tribal sovereignty, hinders the development of tribal justice institutional capacity, and is of questionable crime control and safety value.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Martín & Danner (2017) reported that half of the tribal officers interviewed thought that their tribal courts were effective, the other half stated that factors such as ineffective tribal judges, tribal politics, and federal restrictions hindered the tribal courts' effectiveness.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Martín & Danner 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Native Americans strongly perceived that federal court sentences given to Native American offenders were disproportionately severe due to discrimination, overly severe federal prosecution and sentencing guidelines, and racially/ethnically unbalanced juries (e.g., juries that excluded/underrepresented Native Americans).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, federal PL 280 Major Crimes jurisdiction and greater district TLO Act funding were associated with markedly longer prison sentences for Native Americans.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Federal Punishment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ulmer & Bradley (2018) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, they also found that Native American youth of higher socioeconomic status showed more negative views of police than Native American youth of lower socioeconomic status.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Redner-Vera & Galeste (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example,Peterson & Hagan (1984) concluded that courts viewed African-American drug users more as victims than villains, a distinction that resulted in more lenient sentences compared to white users.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peterson & Hagan 1984 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, at a recent assessment of the effectiveness of the TLO Act in a roundtable discussion held by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, tribal authorities raised several criticisms (Lee 2016”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lee 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Much of the current tribal-federal justice coupling efforts seem to take the form of law enforcement, prosecution, and courts exerting crime control through growing federal presence and federal-centered corrections for Native American offenders.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These types of guideline departures are widely used and well known as prosecutorial tools to leverage informant cooperation with federal law enforcement”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Federal Punishment
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They attributed this effect to the likelihood that Alaskan Natives live in rural villages with little local law enforcement resources and thus see urban law enforcement in places such as Anchorage more favorably.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Giblin & Dillon 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For example,Jackson (1990) argued that Māori autonomy and justice practices are suppressed and marginalized through colonial practices that imposed British law.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jackson 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“(b) interactions with non-Native American police reinforced hostility and distrust;”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Perry 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In surveying the literature and legal commentary discussed here, many have called for an end to PL 280 jurisdiction over Indian Country crime in the remaining mandatory PL 280 states.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There appears to be very little research on Alaskan Native communities and criminal justice.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“For example, indigenous rights groups have long argued that a parallel or separate Māori justice process should be implemented in New Zealand, run by Māori and based on Māori justice philosophies and conflict resolution practices ( Jackson 1990, Tauri 2011).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jackson 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Tauri 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Notably, Dimitrova-Grajzl et al. (2014) found that, historically, PL 280 implementation was associated with increased crime in affected tribal areas and also decreased Native American household income.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dimitrova-Grajzl et al. 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Among the themes regarding non-Native American police emerging from Perry's (2009) interviews were (a) overrepresentation of Native Americans in criminal justice contact was salient to the Native American subjects;”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Perry 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This study found that Navajo tribal officers mixed Navajo and non-Native American justice and law enforcement styles.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gould 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Many Native Americans in South Dakota have little or no confidence in the criminal justice system and believe that the administration of justice at the federal and state levels is permeated with racism”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > Tribal Perspectives on Justice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites S.D. Advis.Comm.US Civil Rights Comm.2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Comparable themes can be found in work on other indigenous populations(Tauri 2011).”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tauri 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Native Americans are US citizens but also tribal nationals.
“Native Americans are US citizens, but they are also tribal nationals.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Three different types of institutions can prosecute crimes committed in Indian Country: tribes, states, and the federal government.
“That is, three different types of institutions can prosecute crimes committed in Indian Country: tribes, states, and the federal government.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Each sovereign's jurisdiction depends on the type of crime committed, location, and identities of both the defendant and any victims.
“Each sovereign's jurisdiction depends on the type of crime committed, location, and identities of both the defendant and any victims.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Major Crimes Act of 1885 is the key source establishing federal criminal jurisdiction over crime in Indian Country.
“The key source establishing federal criminal jurisdiction over crime in Indian Country is the Major Crimes Act of 1885.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Major Crimes Act currently grants the federal government jurisdiction over 15 categories of crimes committed by Native Americans against either Native Americans or non-Native Americans in Indian Country, and also by non-Native Americans against Native Americans in Indian Country.
“This act currently grants the federal government jurisdiction over 15 categories of crimes committed by Native Americans against either Native Americans or non-Native Americans in Indian Country, and also by non-Native Americans against Native Americans in Indian Country.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Tribal courts hold exclusive criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native Americans against Native Americans that are not covered by the Major Crimes Act.
“Tribal courts hold exclusive criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native Americans against Native Americans that are not covered by the Major Crimes Act.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Public Law 280 allowed states to decide whether to assume complete or partial jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against Native Americans in Indian Country.
“as with all federal crimes, PL 280 also allowed states to decide whether to assume complete or partial jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against Native Americans in Indian Country.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Nine states chose to assume partial control under PL 280: Nevada, South Dakota, Washington, Florida, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Iowa, and Utah.
“Nine states chose to assume partial control and are referred to as optional under PL 280.These optional PL 280 states are Nevada, South Dakota, Washington, Florida, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Iowa, and Utah.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In 1968, an amendment required optional PL 280 states to receive tribal consent to allow for the transfer from federal to state jurisdiction.
“In 1968, an amendment required optional PL 280 states to receive tribal consent to allow for the transfer from federal to state jurisdiction.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The TLO Act appropriates funds to the BIA for public safety and justice programs, initially providing more than $87 million to enhance law enforcement practices and sustain crime prevention and intervention efforts in Indian Country.
“Enacted in July 2010, the TLO Act appropriates funds to the BIA for public safety and justice programs.The grants initially provided more than $87 million to enhance law enforcement practices and sustain crime prevention and intervention efforts in Indian Country.”
The paper relies on this without support.
As of 2012, the DOJ had awarded 169 grants to Native American tribes, Alaskan Native villages, tribal consortia, and tribal designees; by 2017, the number of grants had risen to 212, totaling $101 million.
“As of 2012, the DOJ had awarded 169 grants to Native American tribes, Alaskan Native villages, tribal consortia, and tribal designees.By 2017, the number of grants had risen to 212, totaling $101 million.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The TLO Act enacts a program of enhanced federal and tribal sentencing, giving tribal courts authority to hand out sentences of up to three years per offense, provided tribal courts meet certain due process standards.
“In addition, the TLO Act enacts a program of enhanced federal and tribal sentencing.The TLO Act fosters enhanced sentencing of Native American defendants in the federal courts and gives enhanced tribal authority to hand out sentences of up to three years per offense (longer than the one-year sentence limit previously authorized by the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act), provided tribal courts meet”
The paper relies on this without support.
The TLO Act enables the Tribal Criminal History Record Improvement Program (T-CHRIP), which provides grants to participating tribes to improve data collection and sharing across tribal, state, and federal criminal records systems.
“Furthermore, the TLO Act enables the Tribal Criminal History Record Improvement Program (T-CHRIP).This program provides grants to participating tribes to improve data collection and sharing across tribal, state, and federal criminal records systems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Tribes receiving TLO Act funding are required to participate in T-CHRIP, and other tribes are sometimes required to report criminal history information through T-CHRIP to receive some other types of federal funding.
“Tribes receiving TLO Act funding are required to participate in T-CHRIP, and other tribes are sometimes required to report criminal history information through T-CHRIP to receive some other types of federal funding.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The US Eighth Circuit and others have since affirmed the Big Crow logic in cases coming from other reservations.
“The US Eighth Circuit and others have since affirmed the Big Crow logic in cases coming from other reservations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The federal justice system has the capacity to exert deterrence and incapacitation through tough federal law enforcement and punishment.
“As the federal justice system indeed has the capacity to exert deterrence and incapacitation through tough federal law enforcement and punishment, perhaps priority could be shifted toward assisting tribal justice institutions themselves to protect the safety and security of their communities.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“there remains sparse research that explicitly focuses on CJS involvement of Indigenous adolescents and resulting adult outcomes (Ulmer & Bradley, 2019).”
From Adult Outcomes of Justice Involved Indigenous Youth (2023) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley, 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“fewer studies include a direct examination of Indigenous individuals (Ulmer & Bradley, 2019).”
From Adult Outcomes of Justice Involved Indigenous Youth (2023) · cites this paper as Ulmer & Bradley, 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > INTRODUCTION
“This article is structured in two sections.”
§ Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda > INTRODUCTION
“Third, we present an agenda for future research on the consequences of contemporary criminal justice arrangement and decision making for individual Native Americans and for Native American communities collectively.”
Citations
Cites
Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position
Blumer, H. (1958) · The Pacific Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/1388607 · Cited by 3,487
Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations
Davies, I., & Blalock, H. M. (1967) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/588680 · Cited by 2,958
STEFFENSMEIER, D., ULMER, J., & KRAMER, J. (1998) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x · Cited by 1,592
Self-citationAn Integration of Theories to Explain Judicial Discretion
Albonetti, C. A. (1991) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/800532 · Cited by 751
A Meta-Analysis of Race and Sentencing Research: Explaining the Inconsistencies
Mitchell, O. (2005) · Journal of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10940-005-7362-7 · Cited by 492
Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research
Ulmer, J. T. (2011) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.624115 · Cited by 449
Self-citationReassessing and Redirecting Research on Race and Sentencing
Baumer, E. P. (2012) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.682602 · Cited by 356
Prosecutorial Discretion: The Effects of Uncertainty
Albonetti, C. A. (1987) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3053523 · Cited by 337
Changing Conceptions of Race: Towards an Account of Anomalous Findings of Sentencing Research
Peterson, R. D., & Hagan, J. (1984) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095557 · Cited by 330
(1997) · Cited by 328
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Blumer H, 1958, Pac. Soc. Rev., 23, 3
- Bynum TS, 1984, Soc. Social Res., 69, 90
- Dobie K. 2011. Tiny little laws: a plague of sexual violence in Indian country. Harper's Magazine, Febr., pp. 55–64
- Droske TJ, 2008, Marquette Law Rev, 91, 723
- Eisenstein J, 1988, The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts
- 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2005.tb01012.x · DOI
- Folsom-Smith C, 2015, Enhanced Sentences in Tribal Courts: Lessons Learned from Tribes
- Jackson M, 1990, Victoria Univ. Law Rev., 20, 23
- 10.2307/799572 · DOI
- Pommersheim F, 1991, S. D. Law Rev., 36, 239
- Skolnick JH, 1966, Justice Without Trial
- Spohn C, 2000, Policies, Processes and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, Vol. 3, Criminal Justice 2000
- Tredeau E, 2011, Calif. Law Rev., 99, 1409
- US Dep. Justice., 2010, Attorney General announces significant reforms to improve public safety in Indian Country
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hartley, R. D., Testa, A. M., & Martínez, E. (2020) · Sexual Abuse · doi:10.1177/1079063220981062 · Cited by 32
“…go beyond Black–White–Hispanic comparisons, in fact, only a handful of studies have examined the treatment of Other races compared with Whites, such as Asian defendants (Johnson & Betsinger, 2009) and Native American defendants (Franklin, 2013; Franklin & Henry, 2020; Ulmer & Bradley, 2019).”
BackgroundNative Americans and Monetary Sanctions
Stewart, R., Watters, B., Horowitz, V., Larson, R. P., Sargent, B., & Uggen, C. (2022) · RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences · doi:10.7758/rsf.2022.8.2.07 · Cited by 22
Sentencing Members of Minority Groups: Problems and Prospects for Improvement in Four Countries
Roberts, J. V., Watson, G., & Hester, R. (2023) · Crime and Justice · doi:10.1086/725721 · Cited by 17
Crum, J. D., & Ramey, D. M. (2022) · American Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1007/s12103-022-09669-6 · Cited by 15
“…identify Native Americans experience greater arrest risk (Barnes et al., 2015), traffic stops (Arizona ACLU, 2008), booking for drugs and alcohol (Camplain et al., 2020), and criminal justice system discrimination (Ulmer & Bradley, 2019), especially in the Southwest (Nielsen & Silverman, 2009).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLantz, B., & Ward, C. (2022) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/00224278221120691 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Criminology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2019-01-13
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 337-357
- ISSN
- 2572-4568 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2909715413
- Semantic Scholar
- f00781b9bb28a6bbb27278fce13e916d5fcf4b03
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annual Review of Criminology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Keywords
- Indian Country, tribal jurisdiction, federal jurisdiction, internal colonialism, Native American tribes, criminal jurisdiction
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
