This essay examines five key issues affecting the administration of justice in U.S. courts, with a focus on how minority populations are treated by the system. Topics covered include the absence of a federal juvenile justice system and its disproportionate impact on Native Americans, the expansion of tribal sovereignty under the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, stark statistical disparities in minority imprisonment and death row representation, racial profiling in traffic stops and police encounters, and the persistent failure to provide adequate legal counsel to indigent defendants. The paper argues that the quality of any justice system is most clearly reflected in how it treats its most vulnerable populations.
This essay comments on five issues that significantly impact the administration of courts and justice in the United States. The quality of any justice system is most clearly reflected in how it treats its minorities. While the historical record has been decidedly mixed, some initiatives introduced during the Obama administration represent encouraging progress. However, much more remains to be done. This analysis covers juvenile offenders in the federal system, justice and Native Americans, the disproportionate representation of minorities in the prison population, the targeting of minorities by police, and the affordability of legal counsel for the poor in the United States.
One issue that stands out immediately as a negative factor in the administration of courts and justice in the United States is the absence of a separate judicial system for juvenile offenders at the federal level, unlike what exists in most state systems. While this frequently results in the dismissal of cases by U.S. attorneys, the full weight of the federal criminal system in prosecuting juveniles falls disproportionately on Native Americans on reservations, where federal sovereignty is often paramount. Under these conditions, 61% of juvenile delinquents confined by the Federal Bureau of Prisons were Native Americans, and their cases are heard by a U.S. court magistrate in closed chambers and without a jury trial. This compares starkly with the broader figure: 37% of juveniles of all races and backgrounds adjudicated delinquent were committed to a correctional facility for an average of 34 months (Scalia, 1997, p. 1). In other words, the full weight of federal prosecution falls on Native American offenders, who are tried by a judge accustomed to adult cases and whose chances of being prosecuted and sent to federal prison are nearly twice those of non-Native Americans.
At the same time, a balanced view must acknowledge the protections the federal system does extend to juveniles. As the data above suggests, the federal system can be relatively lenient for minors outside this specific context. The U.S. Supreme Court has also banned the death sentence for crimes committed before the perpetrator turned 18 — a protection not uniformly applied across all state jurisdictions. This demonstrates that the federal system is not uniformly harsher than state systems, which are often more severe in their own ways (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2009, p. 4). The Annie E. Casey Foundation recommended that relevant functions be transferred and used to "restore the capacity of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to serve as a national incubator and catalyst for improving juvenile justice policies and practices" (ibid., p. 1).
The discussion of juvenile justice leads naturally to the broader question of the federal justice system's role on reservations. The way the U.S. government treats a minority group offers a meaningful measure of the health of the entire justice system. Given that many tribes hold the status of sovereign governmental entities, the federal government's relationship with Native Americans is unique and unlike its relationship with any other group. This issue has attracted ongoing attention at the United Nations, and the U.S. government regularly reports on the relationship between the federal court system and tribal nations.
In reporting to the United Nations on civil rights, the Obama administration was able to note meaningful progress in the area of tribal sovereignty. President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order Act on July 29, 2010. This legislation requires the U.S. Justice Department to disclose to tribal governments data on cases the federal government declines to prosecute. It also grants tribes greater authority to prosecute and punish criminals and expands federal support for Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal law enforcement officers, thereby strengthening tribal courts and police departments. Despite this progress, 1 in 25 adult American Indians remains under the jurisdiction of the nation's criminal justice system — more than twice the rate for Caucasian adults ("How is the," 2005, p. 1).
"Statistics showing minorities vastly overrepresented in prisons"
"Traffic stop and arrest data showing racial profiling patterns"
"Indigent defense failures undermining conviction legitimacy"
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.