Policing, Indigenous peoples and social order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous political activism and civil rights struggles in the early 1970s were at least partially concerned with drawing attention to problems with state policing and the criminal justice system. These concerns were to take on an even more urgent focus in the 1980s, particularly in the context of a more punitive political approach to law and order (Clark and Cove, 1999; Cunneen, 2001). Growing out of Indigenous political pressure, in the late 1980s and early 1990s both Canadian and Australian governments established judicial inquiries that either focused directly on, or substantially considered, the criminal justice system (and particularly police) treatment of Indigenous peoples. Included in this list is: the Australian Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCADIC); the Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP); the Nova Scotia Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr, Prosecution; and the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba (Hickman et al, 1989; Hamilton and Sinclair, 1991; Johnston, 1991; RCAP, 1996a, 1996b). In Aotearoa New Zealand, an important step in understanding the problematic relationship between Māori and the criminal justice system from a Māori perspective was a report to the Department of Justice by Moana Jackson (1988). In the US, while there were no similar judicial inquiries, the struggle around criminal justice and policing issues was galvanised through what many, including Amnesty International (n.d.), saw as the unjust conviction and imprisonment of Leonard Peltier for the murder of two FBI agents in 1975 (Matthiessen, 1992). Peltier, a member of the American Indian Movement, has been in federal prison for 39 years and remains there as at the beginning of 2016, despite a broad and ongoing campaign for his release. The policing of Indigenous people remains as divisive today as it has been in previous decades. It is perhaps not surprising that state policing of Indigenous people is controversial, given that it is an activity deeply implicated within the wider historical trends of colonisation and nation building (Cunneen, 2001). As outlined in Chapter Three, the historical roots of policing in settler societies were embedded in colonial relations – from enforcing the laws of the coloniser, to acting as a ‘civilising’ force of assimilation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".