Spouse Abuse: Proposal For a New Rule of Thumb

Since the mid-1970\u27s, the nation has been giving increased attention to the problem of spouse abuse. This increased attention arose a decade after the nation became acutely aware that child abuse was a problem in this country. Heightened awareness of the fact that violence occurs between family members was accompanied by recognition that available legal remedies were inadequate. The remedies available to the abused spouse in most states other than Virginia include not only prosecution through the criminal justice system but also civil protective orders which may be obtained by victims either as an alternative to or in conjunction with criminal prosecution. To insure that such orders accomplish the pur- pose of preventing further abuse, courts can decree that the abuser be denied use and possession of a shared residence for a specified period of time. This type of protection raises due process issues, in light of the fact that these orders may be obtained in an ex parte proceeding. Such protective orders, however, have thus far withstood constitutional attack

Advancing Tribal Court Criminal Jurisdiction In Alaska

Extensive case law already exists in Alaska on the jurisdiction of tribal courts over domestic relations cases, with one of the seminal cases—John v. Baker—establishing that Alaska tribes have jurisdiction even in the absence of Indian country. A common assumption, though, is that Alaska tribes do not have jurisdiction over criminal offenses. This Article argues that both under the logic of John v. Baker and the development of Indian law in the Lower 48, Alaska tribes already possess inherent jurisdiction over criminal offenses within their Native villages. With the gamut of social challenges facing Alaska Natives in rural Alaska, tribes need to be empowered to exercise this jurisdiction

Advancing Tribal Court Criminal Jurisdiction In Alaska

Extensive case law already exists in Alaska on the jurisdiction of tribal courts over domestic relations cases, with one of the seminal cases—John v. Baker—establishing that Alaska tribes have jurisdiction even in the absence of Indian country. A common assumption, though, is that Alaska tribes do not have jurisdiction over criminal offenses. This Article argues that both under the logic of John v. Baker and the development of Indian law in the Lower 48, Alaska tribes already possess inherent jurisdiction over criminal offenses within their Native villages. With the gamut of social challenges facing Alaska Natives in rural Alaska, tribes need to be empowered to exercise this jurisdiction

Survey of Tribal Court Effectiveness Studies

This article examines empirical studies that have been conducted on the effectiveness of tribal courts, both in terms of reduction in recidivism and participant attitudes, and a look at some of the challenges to implementing a tribal court effectiveness study in Alaska.[Introduction] / Alaska at a Glance / Studies of Effectiveness of Tribal Courts / Studies Conducted Throughout the Contiguous United States / Studies Conducted in Alaska / Additional Studies of Tribal Courts / The Need for More Research and Identified Obstacles to Overcome / Tribal Court Jurisdiction / Alaska’s Challenging Geography / Minor Consuming Alcohol as a Quantitative Measure / Conclusion / [SIDEBAR:] Tribal Court Studies — ReferencesYe

The Evolution of Judicial Power: How the Supreme Court Effectively Legalized Rape on Indian Reservations

According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, nearly one in five women in the United States have experienced sexual violence. While the statistics are staggering, the rate of sexual assault on Indian reservations is more than twice the national average. According to the Department of Justice, one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women have been raped or have experienced an attempted rape during their lifetime. Moreover, the primary assailants are males who are not members of tribal communities. Why has rape, perpetrated by non-Indian males, become effectively legalized on reservations? What explains tribal courts’ limited legal capacity to prosecute rape? I emphasize the pivotal Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe decision that changed the landscape of judicial power on reservations. The result has produced unintended consequences, which greatly diminished the legal capacity to prosecute sexual assault cases in tribal courts. Consequently, three phases of evolution in U.S. history indicate that rape was effectively legalized. These three phases of evolution are dependent on colonialism. The criminal behavior of non-Indian males can be explained through the historical evolution of judicial power, which has in effect legalized rape in tribal communities. An examination of the hidden institutional elements considers the evolutionary trajectory of interactions between the U.S. government and tribal reservations. This broader frame analysis provides new insights toward the impact of Oliphant on the lives of American Indian and Alaska Native women

Therapeutic Courts in the Alaska Court System

Therapeutic courts — often called “problem-solving courts” or “wellness courts” — have been a growing component of the U.S. court system since the 1990s. This article provides an overview of the development of Alaska Court System therapeutic courts, and describes the 12 therapeutic courts currently operating in Alaska as well as proposed pilot project courts. Includes a bibliography.[Introduction] / The Rise and Expansion of Therapeutic Courts / Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Courts / Alaska Court System Therapeutic Courts / Behavioral Health Data and Court Case Filings / Conclusion / Resource