D. Discussion and Conclusions

1. Viewed as a Whole

Our empirical analysis concludes with a discussion of the frequency of concerns for discrimination. American Indians were disadvantaged in a majority of the 30 relationships we tested in this research. The employment of the 20% threshold test, along with a common sense approach, suggests that American Indians are not treated equally in the South Dakota criminal justice system. Their treatment in case disposition, bond determination, and sentence length in violent crimes does not coincide with the severity or number of charges associated with their cases in the dataset. Further, they experienced disadvantages in the length of prison time served and in the type of release from prison. However, these measures have changed considerably since the 1996 parole reform and are expected to continue to increase parity between the two groups in the future.

There were instances in this research where Whites were disadvantaged, which must not be overlooked with analyzing fairness in the process. Whites experienced longer sentences in non-violent crimes, in two violent crime areas, and they were charged with more frequent and more serious crimes overall.

If we look at the current research in terms of identifying the specific challenges of each racial group in the state, rather than in terms of which groups receive the worst treatment, we see that Indians have greater problems with victimization from violent crimes (BJS, 1999), perpetration of non-sexual violent crimes, alcohol dependency, and lower levels of completed education, while Whites have greater problems with substance abuse, family violence, rape, sex crimes, and non-violent crimes generally. Although we saw that both communities have their own unique challenges, American Indians have the additional burden of over representation in the criminal justice system. While this is likely a function of confluence of factors, the general experience presents a greater challenge to advancement for American Indians, as a group, than Whites in South Dakota. The impacts are felt in future job opportunities, family security, criminal justice activity, and self-respect.

The current research has been productive in examining a wide range of phenomena that show challenges facing both communities. Still we must consider what motivates some of the more difficult outcomes observed here, particularly those that create the appearance of a double standard in our criminal justice system. To begin, it seems likely that a profound lack of trust exists between both communities. This was palpable in our focus group meetings and represented in some of the data. The speed with which American Indians move through the criminal justice system, their acceptance of more plea agreements, and less challenges in court result in longer sentences and a more negative criminal history. Longer sentences and criminal history then lead to harsher treatment in the process in the future, as plea agreement, sentencing, and parole decisions are based in part on these factors. We observed this in several instances of harsher sentencing for individuals with more than one felony charge and with more than one trip through the system. The ultimate result is a true dilemma for the American Indian community, insofar as these outcomes can be linked in small but important ways to their lack of faith in the system. American Indians seem to neither trust the system nor be effective in advocating their interests in it. This behavior may be the result of a historic lack of confidence in the American law generally, particularly when viewed from the perspective of the Sioux Tribes.

On the other side of the equation, it seems that the history between these two groups has made the White community particularly distrustful — even fearful -- of American Indian defendants charged with violent crimes (particularly weapons crimes and crimes resulting in the loss of life) even though White defendants outnumber American Indian defendants in each of these areas and are over represented in some. Similarly, while there is widespread belief in the White community that American Indians have greater problems with alcohol-related crimes than Whites, we observed that Whites get longer sentences for their felony DWI cases and, when we consider drug crimes, have far greater instances of and sentences for alcohol and drug crimes together. As such, the perception that this is an American Indian problem is supported by stereotype not empirical evidence. In the end, we have shown that problems exist at multiple levels and should not be oversimplified or supported by historic generalization and prejudice — on either side.

It is true, however, that the lack of trust on both sides has resulted in greater disadvantages for American Indians; a result which has been observed in other minority group contexts and needs to be remedied by individuals in positions of power. One can not underestimate the impact that legislative reform can have on criminal justice outcomes. The efficacy of the 1996 parole system reform must be held out as a model of system change that can improve race relations and help to build the much-needed trust in the community-at-large. Instances of such success become the platform on which the ideational shifts necessary to achieve greater racial harmony and greater parity in the administration of justice will occur. While much of the work needs to be done in the hearts and minds of citizens, we should not overlook opportunities to use legal change to lead social change. Here, we saw first hand how a procedural change can level the playing field in an otherwise disparate environment.

2. Advancing the Research

From a theoretical perspective, our findings showed inconsistencies with conflict theory as used in previous studies of disparate treatment of ethnic and racial minorities (Alvarez and Bachman, 1996; Cureton, 2000). The conflict theory suggests that minority groups experience disparate treatment in property crimes, but not in violent crimes because of the intra-racial character of violent crime. However, in South Dakota, American Indian violent crime defendants receive longer sentences than most White violent crime defendants. This contradictory finding should be examined in greater detail in a follow-up research project directed at contributing to the scholarly discussion of minority group treatment in the US.

This is but one smaller piece of research that will come out of the current study. Others include (1) an in-depth analysis of the 1996 Parole Reform and the use of formulas to reduce racial disparities, (2) a study of the treatment of single v. multi-offense defendants, and (3) an examination of the role of gender and race in the criminal justice system.

Still, the larger question underlying much of this research is: Are the lives of minority group members in South Dakota criminal justice valued as much as the lives of Whites in the community? This was prevailing question present in much of our public focus group meetings. It was clearly present in US Civil Rights Commission Report. It also exists explicitly and implicitly in much of the news accounts of controversial cases across the State.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to address this issue without access to data on the race of victims and other crime demographics such as financial impact of the crime, use of force, use of weapons, as well as a more complete criminal history of the accused. This would afford a much-needed look at whether crimes with American Indian victims are pursued with the same intensity as crimes with White victims. Similarly, we would be able to examine the treatment of White and American Indian defendants in the context of the race of their victims.

The lack of reliable data in these areas represents the greatest shortcoming of the current research. In order to examine the larger question of whether a double standard exists, it will be necessary to engage in detailed case studies of the South Dakota criminal justice system. This would be possible through the random selection of a subset of the GRB dataset so that existing data from local law enforcement, state attorneys, and (if possible) court services could be added to provide a more comprehensive analysis of criminal and environmental factors that create disparities within the state.

We are also interested in expanding this research beyond the State of South Dakota. Our main objective here is to include additional state, tribal and federal data in order to examine the impact that jurisdiction has on the administration of state criminal justice. This national study would be focused on gaining a better understanding of whether the existence of federal jurisdiction is a benefit or burden to the American Indian community. Here, we are also interested in examining the impact that reservation sovereignty and jurisdictional arrangements generally have on the administration of state criminal justice.