The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The never-ending Native saga
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is in the news today after asserting that an independent body should be set up to settle land-claim disputes, such as the one at Caledonia, because the federal government has a conflict of interest. According to the Globe and Mail, the premier says Ottawa is in the “untenable position” of deciding whether it has to give up some of its own land.
Two points here: First, McGuinty is correct in pointing out Ottawa's difficult position. Not only does it have to decide on the fate of its own land in some circumstances, but it also, by law, has a fiduciary duty towards native Indians throughout Canada. One can hardly expect Ottawa to take a strong position at a bargaining table, on behalf of the non-Native taxpayer, because of this.
Second: A supposedly independent treaty commission was established in B.C. in 1992 to facilitate the settlement of dozens of land claims, but it has been a miserable failure so far--with not a single treaty to its credit--primarly because several court decisions have raised Natives' expectations so high that they won't settle for anything less than the moon. So, even if McGuinty's suggestion is adopted, there's no guarantee anything will be settled.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The never-ending Native saga:
I remember an event many years ago where a Newfoundland MP got into a bit of trouble after he was overheard whispering to another member, "we should have killed them all when we had the chance" regarding Indian issues back then.
As time goes on with this eternal Indian insanity I am beginning to understand that man's frustration.
I no longer believe they want to settle anything. That may lead them finally taking responsibility for themselves, the welfare checks may stop, they may have to pay taxes and perhaps even run their own always filled to brim prisons.
The treaty process is far more lucrative and the present state of affairs has these losers at the trough full time with impunity.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-05-08 9:48:49 AM
Read this well documented article written by a Prof from the Maliseet Nation at Tobique at www.newtfn.com/poverty .
And according to the World Bank 80% Indigenous live in poverty.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
Posted by: Indigent vagabond | 2007-05-08 11:29:35 AM
Yanni, was that many years ago when they did kill off the Beothuk natives? You clearly don't know your history. Treaties were signed in good faith because the government wanted settlers to be able to live on the land without fear of conflicts with the original inhabitants of the land. As for welfare checks, maybe if people like you gave us a chance to further ourselves without the racism that seems to to emerge whenever we are doing good without having to lose our identity and culture. In other words , " act white ". Also there are more non natives on welfare and newly arrived immigrants who by the way are treated way better than us in Canadian society. I always find it strange that with all that is happening in the world, there are still people like you that hate us. If Osama was walking with a native , who do you think the cops would arrest?
Posted by: Lawrence L | 2007-05-08 12:10:47 PM
Yanni's comments in his first couple of paragraphs are a little ironic, in the sense that many native people are beginning to feel the same way, in reverse. He also might be somewhat surprised to learn that many natives are also in sympathy with his attitude toward the current influx of immigrants to this continent, they've realized the depth of that "problem" for the past 400 years.
Posted by: Blue Velvet | 2007-05-08 12:36:28 PM
"Yanni, was that many years ago when they did kill off the Beothuk natives?"
The law of evolution. Tribes come and tribes go.
If North Central Regina is the example, how do you elevate a people with such a low mean IQ?
"The project is one of the most visible efforts to help this small prairie centre, population just under 200,000, deal with some awfully big-city problems. Inner-city Regina -- effectively two neighbourhoods, North Central and the area east of the downtown known as the Core -- is among the poorest spots in urban Canada. Thirty per cent of residents depend on government assistance. Local food banks deal with more than 3,600 requests a month. The health authority, which last year distributed 1.8 million needles, estimates there are more IV drug users per capita than on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Girls as young as 11 or 12 regularly work the stroll. Regina's high incidence of break and enters, car thefts, street robberies and violent assaults has placed the city at the top of Canada's urban crime rankings for nine of the past 10 years. (An overall 15 per cent drop in criminal code offences proved just enough to land the city second place in 2005, right behind Saskatoon -- 13,194 incidents per 100,000 population versus 13,236.)"
Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-08 12:57:30 PM
I am metis, and I live in an urban core area.most of the people around me are native or metis, and at least 75 per cent of these folks are on assistance. I work and when I ask my people around me why they dont the answers are always the same. Why work when I get paid to be drunk? If I work I will only get a few hundred more a month, its not worth it. When will Canada finally wake up and see that its to late to change this now. most of the peple i know on welfare think its their right, since the white man stole their lands. Pathetic I know, but they really do say and feel this way, its all a free ride.
Posted by: tattoo | 2007-05-08 1:23:18 PM
First comes poverty. With poverty comes a multitude of 'iq' threatening circumstances.
How intelligent is it to live in the 'land of plenty' as a priviledged individual (by world standards) and decide that its your own intelligence that got you there? Replace God with yourself? Exchange eternity for a world that ends with your own death?
The problems of the world cannot be reduced to 'iq' measured by the questionable standards of an 'intelligent' society.
The wealth/poverty of the Canadian indigenous is very dependant on where they live. Not all reserves are equal in living standards. Also, some of the reserves with the lowest 'standards' are the happiest people, living closely with their families, less troubled by outside garbage.
'Poor' does not mean unhappy. It also does not mean unintelligent. It may mean unhealthy, or uneducated (by our standards). It may mean not as useful to US as WE would like.
Posted by: lwestin | 2007-05-08 1:39:18 PM
"First comes poverty." It's just not the case. Murray & Herrnstein show, by using extensive date, that lower IQ siblings from non-poor families, continually display higher levels of poverty, marital breakdown and illegitimacy, to name a few.
David Sloan Wilson, in his book Darwin's Cathedral, has argued that Christianity is adaptive. Encouraging monogamy, more K selected behaviour, family investment and discouragement of non-reproductice sexual activity ultimately led to a higher rate of survival. Even an evolutionary biologist can believe in the system because it enhances the well-being of the group or organism. However, Christianity, or any faith based system will not change the mentally challenged [to be politically correct :)] into Mensa members.
These people, mentioned in the paragraph above, are not just poor, they are whores, pimps, druggies, laggards, thiefs and violent thugs.
It has nothing to do with whether WE [presumably, the evil Cracker] have use for it or not.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-08 2:28:48 PM
I lived with my family for three years on a reserve in Manitoba. My children went to the school. My husband taught there. We west to the Church. We were part of the community.
I was not personally aware of any pimps,whores or druglords.
This was a remote reserve, fly-in. They had less exposure to our garbage, and were fairly happy while on the reserve, although the living standards, compared to other Canadians, were low. I did not find them to be morons. They had a variety of personalities and abilities, as in most communities. Same probably goes for your community. Or your family.
Intelligence is individual. Racists claim otherwise.
Intelligence does not equal value. All humans are inherently valuable, even if they are not nice, good, or intelligent. To be fully human is to recognize the humanity of others.
Posted by: lwestin | 2007-05-08 5:05:18 PM
You know who killed the Beothuks?
It was the Micmac.
Now, there are many things going on with the Aboriginal Communities. Yes, poverty is a very big problem.
What most folks ignore is the fact that most Aboriginals opperate from small groups. And, these small groups have little in terms of economic resources. They share small pools of education funds. Not all get to go get an education. It is not true that just because there is poverty that it is the result of their IQs.
Most of the remote reserves have lost large numbers of their members to the BIG cities. But most who have been drained to the Big cities, are not on the streets.
All people see, when they see a drunk Aboriginal in the streets, is an Aboriginal. When they pass by a healthy Aboriginal, they don't even notice--because they have decided in advance that the drunk one is representative. The sad thing, is they also disuss the Aboriginal who sets up a road block, and pass by their co-worker, who happens to be Aboriginal--without even considering their origins. Maybe they think they are latin or something like that?
Discussions that portray people in a manner to which they would not perscribe for themselves, is really very sad. It is a sad reflection of those who choose to lay those descriptions onto those who don't want it in the first place.
I am all for treaties being signed and this tragic historical tragedy being placed where it ought to have been placed, a very long time ago-- in the past. We are very fortunate country, to have Aborioginal people. They are funny, have good art, are sporting, and an interesting part of the history of Canada--when you remove the tragic parts out of the picture. The tragic parts, such as the residential schools, are something that Canada is well within its rights to say, is not anything to be proud about. They rank as low as the pedophiles who molested children in the Catholic Church.
In terms of road blocks, there are literally thousands of ABoriginal Communities in Canada. Just because one community here or there has a stupid idea, and uses roadblocks to get attention, does not mean that people should go and apply the same stroke to everyone else. It is sad, and needs to end.
The Native Saga seems to never end, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the Canadian issue of not ending the Saga which was created by the Canadian government, is really the root of the problem. It should really be called the Canada Saga. People are making their careers off of this so called Saga. If all were settled, and the Indian Act done away, everyone could move on and we would all just be Canadians. Until then, there is a real mess to clean up. And, there is nothing to be proud about, until it is all taken care of. Those who are acting as apologists, on both sides of the problem, really need to focus on the resolution, for the sake of themselves, and everyone else. If not, our great-grandchildren will be wondering what on earth we were all doing. And, that will include those in and out of the Aboriginal Community, who were at the negotiating tables.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-08 5:14:01 PM
Finally an intelligent reply. Thank you Iwestin. I still can't believe that people like DJ are still around. Evolution, no , that was an outright massacre what happened in NFLD, if not for one lone Beothuk woman who survived to tell the story of her people, they would have never been spoken or written about.The "proud " Metis Tattoo obviously hasn't worked in northern bc or ab. I did and at one time there was not a native to be seen or they were hired and not paid. I grew up with the derogatory word " Squaw " spoken in native's presences by " rednecks " without any regard for them or anyone else and for some reason they always seemed to get really young girls drunk when bragging about their exploits, also if anyone thinks that only natives are on welfare, I suggest they have a look around on welfare cheque day or go to a welfare office to observe the clientele! Deal with the treaties and maybe, hopefully we will start to get along. It has been a long 500 plus years we have tried, and then, hopefully some of the conditioned racists will " evolve " into decent human beings. By the way Tattoo, I am also Metis with strong ties to the native side. I also have to add info about all the First nations peoples and the Metis who signed up for both world wars and fought, however were not compensated like their non-native comrades.They lost their status and also their land was stolen from them while they were oversees. Soldier settlement act WW1, Veterans land act WW11. Many of these non-natives started up businesses while the native and metis were returned to their settlements and reserves. Some people say that natives are racist, however I say that we react to racism which is why I got so much into this discussion. Again deal with the treaties fairly like it should have been done in the first place !
Posted by: Lawrence L | 2007-05-08 6:05:46 PM
Finally an intelligent reply. Thank you Iwestin. I still can't believe that people like DJ are still around. Evolution, no , that was an outright massacre what happened in NFLD, if not for one lone Beothuk woman who survived to tell the story of her people, they would have never been spoken or written about.The "proud " Metis Tattoo obviously hasn't worked in northern bc or ab. I did and at one time there was not a native to be seen or they were hired and not paid. I grew up with the derogatory word " Squaw " spoken in native's presences by " rednecks " without any regard for them or anyone else and for some reason they always seemed to get really young girls drunk when bragging about their exploits, also if anyone thinks that only natives are on welfare, I suggest they have a look around on welfare cheque day or go to a welfare office to observe the clientele! Deal with the treaties and maybe, hopefully we will start to get along. It has been a long 500 plus years we have tried, and then, hopefully some of the conditioned racists will " evolve " into decent human beings. By the way Tattoo, I am also Metis with strong ties to the native side. I also have to add info about all the First nations peoples and the Metis who signed up for both world wars and fought, however were not compensated like their non-native comrades.They lost their status and also their land was stolen from them while they were overseas. Soldier settlement act WW1, Veterans land act WW11. Many of these non-natives started up businesses while the native and metis were returned to their settlements and reserves. Some people say that natives are racist, however I say that we react to racism which is why I got so much into this discussion. Again deal with the treaties fairly like it should have been done in the first place !
Posted by: Lawrence L | 2007-05-08 6:07:35 PM
"All humans are inherently valuable, even if they are not nice, good, or intelligent."
I basically agree, with the exception of those humans who rape, molest children and murder. They have lost their "inherent value" and should be permanently removed from society - whether we execute them or imprison them for life with NO chance of parole.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-08 6:17:30 PM
SORRY for double posting, that's what I mean about reactions.
Posted by: Lawrence L | 2007-05-08 6:19:12 PM
The non elected Native leaders and the Indian Affairs bureaucrats have a vested interest in keeping the situation as is. There are plenty of law-abiding working Native people and there are those who do not want to be weaned from the welfare state. I might add that being addicted to welfare is not limited to Natives, nor is intelligence limited to Whites.
It is past time to work towards full integration of Natives into Canadian society and to end the dependence on welfare.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-05-08 7:07:30 PM
On the Extinction of the Races of Man.-
"The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known. Humboldt saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living creature that could speak a word of the language of a lost tribe.
Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race...and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct."
"I basically agree, with the exception of those humans who rape, molest children and murder."
And they who commit those crimes display, disproportionately, lower IQs.
"In 2003/04, Aboriginal people accounted for 21% of admissions to provincial/territorial sentenced custody, 18% of admissions to federal custody, 18% of admissions to remand, 16% of probation admissions and 19% of conditional sentence admissions. At the same time, Aboriginal people represented 3% of the Canadian adult population.
. . .
Aboriginal people had higher levels of representation in sentenced custody compared to their representation in the adult population, most notably in Manitoba (68% versus 11%), Alberta (39% versus 4%), Saskatchewan (80% versus 10%), British Columbia (20% versus 4%) and Ontario (9% versus 1%)."
And the reason aboriginals are over-represented criminally is, of course, the fault of Paleface;
"the “white” criminal justice system is, and will always be, inherently incapable of responding appropriately, effectively, and acceptably to these Aboriginal realities."
"I grew up with the derogatory word " Squaw " spoken in native's presences by " rednecks " without any regard for them or anyone else and for some reason they always seemed to get really young girls drunk when bragging about their exploits..."
Scary, but not as frightening as the fact that;
"Compared to other Canadian women, Aboriginal women are three times as likely to report that they have experienced some form of violence perpetrated by their spouse and Aboriginal women run eight times the risk of being killed by their spouse after a separation. Twenty-five percent of Aboriginal women were assaulted by a current or former spouse during the 1999 General Survey's five-year period, twice the rate for Aboriginal men (13%) and three times the rate for non-Aboriginal women and men. 2 Violence, including sexual assault, whether inflicted by a spouse or a stranger, is one of the most fundamental transgressions of the human rights of Aboriginal women."
It appears those "squaws" have less to fear from druncken rednecks than they do from drunken redmen.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-08 7:20:27 PM
"And they who commit those crimes display, disproportionately, lower IQs."
Agreed - regardless of race.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-08 7:30:41 PM
If you think Darwin is a credible source, I don't. I don't follow Margaret Sanger or Tommy Douglas either in their eugenics ponderings. Social 'science' isn't. And Darwin's 'science' has been abandoned by even the evolutionists!
You can't get anywhere talking about humans, if you think you can decide who's more human.
Maybe the 'more' human person is the 'unintelligent' person who suffers at the hands of a 'genius' like you?
Saying that they are human does not preclude justice. Justice is owed to humans (not animals).
Posted by: lwestin | 2007-05-08 8:49:46 PM
"Saying that they are human does not preclude justice. Justice is owed to humans (not animals)."
I didn't mean to imply anything else. I totally agree.
" I note the Pope has no problem with him."
Sure - he's dead!
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-09 12:40:17 PM
The Pope is an intellectual and respects efforts to understand (even if he doesn't agree.) I don't think that you could count him as a Darwin 'follower'.
Perhaps its fair to say that the popular representation of Darwin is not necessarily true. Idon't believe his intention was to eliminate God, for instance. Whether his 'science' stands up is another thing. Even evolutionists don't think so.
Posted by: lwestin | 2007-05-09 2:54:42 PM
As I said on another thread:
If any of these Leftoids had bothered to open a Bible even once, they would see Darwin in the story of Creation. The first creation was light, followed by the waters, then vegetation, then fish & birds, then animal life, then humans. The difference is that Creation in the Bible was not an accident but guided by a Higher Power.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-09 3:06:11 PM
It is a good thing you have trotted out the statistics.
There is a correlation between the level of education achieved, economic status, and per capita in prison.
It is true that the lower the education level achieved, the lower the income. And it is also true, the lower the income, the greater the pervalence of criminal behaviour--such as drug abuse, B & E, etc.... When you compare palefaces with Aboriginals of the same education level, you find the same prison rates.
Yet, crime for crime, you find that Aboriginals get longer prison sentences for the same crimes that palefaces commit. When you remove the coefficient for race, there is no difference. Yet, Aboriginals get longer sentences, meaning at any given point in time, you will have more Aboriginals, because crime for crime, they do more time. And, crime for crime, more palefaces get off without doing any time at all, for the same crime that an Aboriginal would end up serving.
And, this analysis has been done by the court on itself, and not any biased third party.
If you are as smart as you think you are, you would do the math.
10 pale faces commit a crime each--all the same.
10 Aboriginals commit a crime each--all the same as pale face crimes above.
Pale faces get three years each on average.
Aboriginals get six years each, on average.
After one year, the palefaces are out.
But the Aboriginals are still in for another year.
Meanwhile, there have been more sentenced.
10 more palefaces--repeat scenario.
10 more Aboriginals--repeat scenario.
Now though, you have a ratio of 2 Aboriginals for every one paleface.
Add to the equation, a fear of authority, as a result of parental experience with residential schools, and mistrust for other reasons, and racial bias, and the ratio gets even worse.
Those who have had long sentences, will get even longer sentences on residivism.
So, it is not surprising that there are more Aboriginal people in prison per capita. It is what you would expect, under the current system.
If there were a reform of the system, you would not see this at all. I am all for equitable prison sentences for those who have done the same crimes.
Further to this, people who are uglier than other people, also suffer longer sentences than people who are attractive. Health and nutrition plays a role there, as well. Yet, people who are attractive, who are caught using their looks in a crime, have the same length of sentences as do those who are on the ugly side of things.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-09 3:46:30 PM
Well some good news today out of Ontario...CN rail (under American control now) is suing the blockading natives. About time!
I think that the gov't needs to settle these claims, and cut the cords so these people can get on with their lives, but setting up blockades gets no sympathy.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-05-09 4:19:06 PM
"When you compare palefaces with Aboriginals of the same education level, you find the same prison rates."
True, however, there are proportionately less of them.
"Yet, crime for crime, you find that Aboriginals get longer prison sentences for the same crimes that palefaces commit."
True because they have higher rates of recidivism.
"Those who have had long sentences, will get even longer sentences on residivism."
You answered your own question.
"So, it is not surprising that there are more Aboriginal people in prison per capita."
True because aboriginals, disproportionately, have a larger population with lower IQs. Compare Jews to the aboriginal population. Why the massive difference in outcome?
"Further to this, people who are uglier than other people, also suffer longer sentences than people who are attractive."
Paris Hilton syndrome. Life's a bitch! :)
Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-09 5:45:04 PM
Rhetoric without reason. Your constant use of statistics to 'prove ' your supposition that aboriginals are an inferior race, does not lend credibility to your claim.
What's your reasoning? (What is your reason?}
Posted by: lwestin | 2007-05-09 7:14:57 PM
There is no claim of inferiority/superiority. The issue is defamation of European peoples. Both Lawrence and Lady have vigorously attempted to lay the maladaptive behavour of aboriginals at the feet of the Founding Nation peoples. Drunken rednecks and "squaws"; preference for Founding Nation peoples in sentencing, to name but two examples.
The allegations do not bare up under scrutiny. However, people continue to opprobiate Founding Nation peoples with impunity.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-09 10:45:00 PM
In my opinion, the root of the problem with the Aboriginal crisis in Canada is failed leadership on both sides. It's fair and necessary to acknowledge our past and the many injustices experienced by our native population. They can't be denied - nor should they and are well-documented in the books of history. I think we can call agree that its time to turn the page to a brighter future - but who can lead us there? Where is the Martin Luther King Jr. in the native community?
Unfortunately, in many cases the native political movement is run by self-serving extortionist mafiosos interested in maintaining the appalling conditions within the status quo and fighting for self-government as long as it is paid for by people other than "self".
With 500 year old unsettled land claims, the Canadian government is also to blame. In doing so, they've absorbed the responsibility for the prosperity of an entire race and enabled a collectivist culture of dependence. (Not to mention the creation of a tax system based on order of habitation which begs the question: if natives are not taxed because they were here first, shouldn't our newest immigrants be taxed at 100%? ;) )
There aren't any easy answers or magic pill solutions. I don't think labelling an entire race as inferior or less intelligent is particularly helpful, nor does it bear any relationship to reality. The fact is, we need real leadership on both sides. In the meantime, we need to treat each other with dignity and respect.
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood - when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Posted by: Scott | 2007-05-10 1:53:30 AM
"but by the content of their character."
Sure - until Affirmative Action took root - and the MAIN judgment WAS the colour of their skin!
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-10 5:50:29 AM
Point well taken, obc.
If his writings and public statements are any indication though, its hard to imagine that Dr. King would have supported affirmative action were he alive today.
Posted by: Scott | 2007-05-10 10:13:08 AM
In relation to longer prison sentences, I was referring to on first time offences--not the sum of all offences. Facts are, first time, man to man, Aboriginal men get longer sentences for the same offence committed by paleface.
They are in longer.
More palefaces get off without sentence in the first place whereas more Aboriginal people get sentences twice the length of time.
The system is biased in the first place.
You like to avoid doing the math. Well, for someone who claims that by virtue of the colour of his skin, that he is better, you prove yourself an unworthy opponent.
It is either because you choose to be ignorant, in which case you are deliberately biased, or you do not have the capability. In either case, you are by defacto displaying incompetence.
You could be offended at me, for saying your are incompetent, yet I say that, given your last display, you would be better being offended at yourself.
The numbers do not support your position. The numbers are totally explained in the model I presented. If you feel it is wrong, then it is up to you to prove, without rhetoric, but with substantiation, that it is indeed so.
I do not feel you are up to knowing the truth, because your rhetoric makes you feel better about yourself. That is what is in your heart. That is what you feel. And yet we know, as in sages know, that the heart of man is evil. If you have any good in you at all, it would be in digging down deep into the truth.
By the way, there is no difference on recidivism by race. There is a difference on sentencing. And that is why we see what we see in the numbers of Aboriginal people in prison.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-10 10:18:14 AM
"By the way, there is no difference on recidivism by race."
You're misinformed, however, that's not suprising.
"A review of violent recidivism rates for offenders serving non-violent sentences over the last five years reveals that Aboriginal offenders were:
* 7.5 times more likely to recidivate violently while on day parole than non-Aboriginal offenders (3% compared to 0.4%); and,
* Over 3 times more likely to recidivate violently while on full parole than non-Aboriginal offenders (4.3% compared to 1.3%).
In comparison, Aboriginal offenders serving sentences for violent offences were:
* no more likely to recidivate violently while on day parole than non-Aboriginal offenders (1.9% compared to 1.8%) and,
* 1.9 times more likely to recidivate violently while on full parole than non-Aboriginal offenders (7.4% compared to 3.9%)."
"# Aboriginal offenders were more likely to have been incarcerated for violent offences. A larger proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal offenders had been convicted of assault causing injury (28% versus 20%) and manslaughter (10% versus 6%). Aboriginal offenders were also more likely to be sexual offenders (26% versus 20%) and to have committed schedule 1 offences (72% versus 58%).
# Fewer Aboriginal (59.2%) than non-Aboriginal (65.6%) incarcerated offenders were serving their first federal term while, twice as many Aboriginal (7.6%) as non-Aboriginal (3.8%) offenders had three or more prior terms."
Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-10 9:59:49 PM
"A higher proportion of aboriginal offenders commit crimes of violence as opposed to their non-aboriginal counterparts. Compared to non-aboriginal offenders, the difference is 73% versus 65%. Crimes against the person involve 55% of aboriginal offenders, compared to less than 35% of non-aboriginal offenders (1988). A 1993 study found that aboriginal offenders were more likely to commit offenses against the person and were more likely to be convicted of violent sexual offenses than non-aboriginals (Hann and Harman, 1993). It also found that male aboriginal offenders were twice as likely to have their parole revoked than non-aboriginal offenders.
aboriginal offenders were also found to be at higher risk for violent recidivism and were more likely to be returned to prison than non-aboriginal offenders. A study done on the characteristics of aboriginal recidivists found that the recidivism rate was 66% and that aboriginal inmates with shorter sentences were more likely to recidivate (Bonta, Lipinski and Martin, 1992).
Length Of Sentence
There were 369 sex offenders serving indeterminate sentences and most of these (81%) were not on conditional release to the community. aboriginal offenders made up 143 of this group, or 39% - a disproportionate number. However, of the 369, only 58 had the pre 1977 Dangerous Sexual Offender designation, and only 2 of these were aboriginals.
Of those offenders serving determinate sentences, the non-aboriginal group had a higher average aggregate sentence: 6.1 years versus 5.1 for the aboriginal sex offenders."
Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-10 10:07:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.