III. Standing Rock Reservation and its “Violence Problem”

The Standing Rock Reservation covers 2.3 million acres in North and South Dakota, making it one of the largest reservations in the United States (Amnesty International 2007). One hundred miles by one hundred miles, the Standing Rock Reservation covers an area the size of Connecticut (Michael 2010). A cross-section of one of the reservation’s communities, McLaughlin, provides a sample of 758 people, two-thirds who are Native and one-third who are white. There are 6, 170 enrolled Lakota at Standing Rock, with a shockingly low median age of 19 years. The unemployment rate at Standing Rock is excruciatingly high; as of 2009, it rests at 79 percent (Segnes 2009). Indian Health Services (IHS) accommodations are under-resourced and lacking, forcing victims of sexual violence to travel up to an hour to get help (Amnesty International 2007).

South Dakota, in general, has extremely high rates of sexual violence. According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) figures from 2005, South Dakota had the fourth highest rate of forcible rape of any state (Amnesty International 2007). This statistic shows, again, how sexual violence cannot be limited to an issue within a specific community. This figure would support sexual violence being a state issue within South Dakota, but since South Dakota is the state with only the fourth highest rate of rape, it is once again clear that sexual violence is an issue affecting the United States as a whole.

Ladonna Brave Bull, director of tourism for the Standing Rock Reservation, states, “The prevalence of domestic violence in Indian Country is a legacy of the federal government’s assimilation policy that sent kids to boarding schools off the reservation, leading to a breakdown of culture, tradition, and families” (Segnes 2009). In terms of sexual violence, students at the boarding schools learned these patterns from the teachers and staff. Sexual abuse was highly rampant in boarding schools, and it was often used as a correctional tool for those who were being punished. While the percentage of sexual violence cases that are Native-on-Native are low, the boarding schools are where the cycle of violence was learned. If students experienced or witnessed sexual abuse at school, they may internalize the violence and abuse their partners. Unfortunately, when children repeatedly witness this violence in school or between their parents, they are more likely to continue the cycle against their own partners or children.

In 2008 alone, about 250 cases of domestic violence were filed at Standing Rock’s tribal court (Segnes 2009). However, domestic violence is not the only problem plaguing the women of Standing Rock; they are forced to face multiple forms of sexual violence on a daily basis. In an interview conducted on the Standing Rock Reservation, Amnesty International found that many of the women interviewed could not think of any Native woman within their community who had not been subjected to sexual violence (2007). This sentiment echoes that of national surveys in which many Native women state that violence has become so normalized within tribal communities that it is the exception rather than the rule to know of a Native woman who has not experienced some type of sexual violence in her lifetime.

Kathy Dobie conducted a rather intensive study of sexual violence on the Standing Rock Reservation, releasing an article entitled, “Tiny Little Laws: A Plague of Sexual Violence in Indian Country” in the February 2011 edition of Harper’s Magazine. At the very beginning of her article, she states that she has traveled to Standing Rock to write about crime, particularly rape and sexual assault, as well as how often these crimes go unreported when they take place on tribal land. However, an official from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) sent out a memo shortly after her arrival to all of Standing Rock’s law enforcement employees, forbidding them to speak with her (Dobie 2011).

Luckily for Dobie and her article’s readers, a former police officer directly opposed the BIA officer’s demands and urged her to keep digging since he believes, “People are just aching to tell somebody, anybody. Even the people they aren’t supposed to tell” (Dobie 2011:56). She found that for decades, the people of Standing Rock have been negatively impacted by sexual violence, inadequate protection from the police, and an ineffectual legal system that allows perpetrators to run free and remain unpunished (Dobie 2011). While the women of Standing Rock have known about these problems for years, no one really listened to them until Amnesty International published a report on the far-reaching impact of sexual violence against Native American women. This comprehensive report entitled, “Maze of Injustice: The Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA,” focuses on three areas which have been especially affected by high rates of sexual violence: the state of Oklahoma; the state of Alaska; and, the Standing Rock Reservation.
IV. Silenced Voices on the Standing Rock Reservation

Cases of sexual violence are going unreported, uninvestigated, and unprosecuted on the Standing Rock Reservation (Sullivan 2009). The lack of action surrounding these cases of violence is the result of a plethora of factors, beginning at the most basic level with the victim. Many women who have experienced violence on the reservation remain ambivalent about voicing their experience, weighing the pros and cons of the effects on their psyches, families, and communities.

Women were not always so ambivalent about speaking of sexual violence. While the contemporary tribal system sees men as the authoritative figures, women were often the authoritative figures during more traditional times. Women were sacred in traditional Lakota society, so there was great respect for physical integrity and a great disapproval of the abuse of women. The protection of women was dire to the community because it maintained continuity with traditional values and promoted the well-being of all community members. When an instance of violence did occur, elders and peacemakers often served as mediators, which is much different than the absolute system of the mostly-male tribal police. For those men who abused women, they were viewed as irrational and could no longer lead a war party, a hunt, or participate in either. An abusive man could not be trusted to behave properly. He was therefore seen as contrary to Lakota law and lost many of the privileges and roles in his society. It was extremely important, however, to work towards harmony in all relationships, as individual interests were considered a part of the larger community (Weber & Zuni).

The situation for victims of violence has changed into a more contemporary system that does not necessarily help women. Victims often choose not to report their violent encounter within this system. One reason women may choose not to report violence is a lack of confidence with authoritative forces that are designed for their benefit, although the system often ignores the needs of these women. Victims need the confidence to bring charges and know that they will not be brushed off, blamed for the attack, or retaliated against by either the perpetrator or the police (Ogburn 2001). If they believe that speaking up about their attack could potentially harm themselves or their families, they may choose not to seek justice out of this fear. Mary Kelly, who runs a domestic violence shelter just outside Standing Rock called Bridges Against Domestic Violence, states that “the women have been sort of conditioned not to call, and the men have felt that they could get away with it” (Segnes 2009). If potential perpetrators know women will not take action against them, they may be more likely to commit violence.

The ideology of normalcy that currently surrounds sexual violence also attributes to silence. Unfortunately, it seems as if some men seek out Native women as targets for extreme acts of violence. They may be motivated by racism, or they may possess the expectation that society’s rather indifference to the welfare and safety of Native women will allow them to escape unharmed after they commit an act of violence. This contributes to a climate where such acts are seen as acceptable and a part of everyday life, rather than criminal. Therefore, women may not seek justice because they know they will not get it (Amnesty International 2009).

Racial tensions, a product of the colonial mentality that was previously discussed, are prevalent through the statistics of sexual violence against Native women. As was previously mentioned, ninety percent of sexual assault cases are committed by non-Natives (Amnesty International 2004). Andrea Smith, a Cherokee scholar, states, “Non-Native perpetrators often seek out a reservation place because they know they can inflict violence without much happening to them” (Amnesty International 2007). Tribal police do not have jurisdiction over non-Natives on tribal land, so if they were to commit an act of sexual violence, they will be able to walk away without the fear of arrest.

Blame is another common fear associated with reporting acts of sexual violence. While it may be common belief that the perpetrator is at fault, many women in tribal communities may be blamed for experiencing sexual violence. They should have protected themselves, they should have known better, they should have gotten out when they could – the list of excuses for blaming women goes on and on. This blame can translate into stigmatization and banishment within the community. Once a woman is wounded, she is potentially one step away from being permanently “broken” as a battered woman. This “broken” woman is psychologically and emotionally shattered from the treatment she experienced. Her experience with violence is likely to follow her for the rest of her life, haunting her in some form. Some women at Standing Rock even have a mentality that the “sooner they finish destroying her, the better” (Dobie 2011).

One last fear that women at Standing Rock can have surrounding the report of their experience with sexual violence is an uncertainty with trust. It is clear that many women have an ambivalence towards the tribal police and judicial system, which will be further examined in the next section, but they may also feel a need to be careful around their neighbors and fellow community members. Some of the towns within Standing Rock are pretty small, and as in any small town, everybody knows everybody else, and often their business (Dobie 2011). Word can travel pretty quickly in towns such as these, so it forces the female residents to ask who they can confide in and trust. There is also an issue if the woman’s perpetrator is related to a tribal officer. The officer may do what he can to protect his relative, possibly leaving the victim worse off than if she never alerted the authority. If a woman cannot trust her neighbors, community members, or local police, then why should she admit to anyone that she has been victimized by a sexual predator?

There are numerous problems within the tribal police system and the judicial system, as well as jurisdictional issues, that all contribute to a lack of response and inability to prosecute perpetrators. One of the most foundational problems with the tribal police system at Standing Rock is the lack of law enforcement officers on the reservation. According to Sullivan (2007), there were five BIA officers at Standing Rock during the time of investigation. In 2009, the number of officers increased to eleven (Dobie 2011). Standing Rock is one hundred miles by one hundred miles, spanning two states and housing nine thousand people. How are eleven officers enough to cover this expanse area of land and people? With this amount of protection, getting an officer to respond to a call for help can mean waiting for days, or months, if they choose to even respond at all (Dobie 2011).

An increase in tribal officers would begin at the BIA’s police academy. Unfortunately, the police academy currently has a twenty to thirty percent graduation rate (Ogburn 2001). With a lack of officers completing the training program, there can be no added coverage on the Standing Rock Reservation.

The contemporary tribal police system itself is not conducive to helping victims of violence. The contemporary system, which often relies on incarceration of perpetrators, is much different than many traditional tribal police systems. Traditional systems often relied on rehabilitation of perpetrators, instead of just leaving them locked up in an institution with no opportunity for restoration into the community (Deer 2009). The simple placement of perpetrators of violence into institutions can be a problem for the victims of violence. When their attackers are released from jail, they are likely to repeat their offense. If the traditional system of rehabilitation were mandatory, then the victim might be more at ease with the hope that her attacker has changed his ways.

The dispatchers working at the tribal police station do not help the situation at Standing Rock. Kathy Dobie found that dispatchers would often argue with women who called for help. The dispatchers would taunt the women, telling them to hit their partners back, or ridicule them by stating that this type of thing happens every weekend. Some dispatchers would not even notify the officers on duty about the call (Dobie 2011). Why would a dispatcher, whose job it is to help community members by notifying those who are there for their protection, not take these calls and these crimes seriously?

When the police do respond to a call, they often do nothing about it. Common responses may include the following: “He’s drunk, just let him sleep it off”; “Even if I arrest him, he’ll just be in jail over night; and, “There’s really nothing I can do.” Georgia Littleshield, director of the only women’s shelter at Standing Rock, states, “This is a lawless land where people are making up their own laws because there’s no justice being done” (Sullivan 2007). If the police will not do anything to help victims of violence, people will take matters into their own hands. One example of this is a man at Standing Rock going after his friend’s niece’s rapist since the police did not serve the young girl justice (Dobie 2011). This can potentially harm those seeking justice on behalf of loved ones.

In terms of arresting perpetrators of violence, jurisdictional issues arise. Tribal police have no jurisdiction over white perpetrators, so they cannot arrest them for violent crime if they are on reservation land. Tribal police cannot arrest anyone for a felony; those accused of felony can only be detained. While tribal police cannot arrest white perpetrators on tribal lands, white cops can arrest Native perpetrators in cities. The issues surrounding arrest and jurisdiction are extremely tricky and unfair.

When arrests are made, the sentences are usually extremely short, leaving the perpetrator free to commit violence once again. In Indian Country, the maximum prison sentence that tribal court can impose for any court is one year. For domestic violence cases, the sentence is only ten to ninety days (Segnes 2009). A victim of violence cannot feel safe or at ease knowing her attacker will be out of jail in such a short amount of time.

Unfortunately, many sexual assault and violence cases are never investigated (Sullivan 2007). Seventy-five percent of cases stop at the tribal police, going no further than a simple report of the encounter. Kathy Dobie found that within a four-year time span, the tribal court at Standing Rock has never prosecuted a sexual assault case (2011). Not a single case within this time has ever gone further than a police report.

When cases do make it to court, it becomes clear that the tribal court system is inadequate. Federal funding is extremely inadequate and not accommodating everyone’s needs (Amnesty International 2007). Some afternoons there are more than fifty people making first appearances in Standing Rock tribal court. While Tribal Chairman Charles Murphy states that most needs for service within the tribal court were met, the response times were still way too long (Michael 2010). Even if services within the court were mostly met, there are still, on average, six hundred to seven hundred outstanding tribal court warrants for arrest of those charged with criminal offenses (Amnesty International 2007).

While there are plenty of problems within the tribal justice system, there are also great problems over who has jurisdiction in various criminal cases. For example, the United States government prohibits tribal courts from trying non-Native suspects. There is constant debate over who can respond to calls, who can arrest whom, who can prosecute whom, and where geographic boundaries lie. Three factors determine where jurisdictional authority lies: whether the victim is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or not; whether the accused is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or not; and, whether the alleged offense took place on tribal land or not (Amnesty International 2007).

While tribal police would not have authority off of their reservation lands, the federal police do have jurisdiction in Indian Country when non-Native perpetrators are involved, although they often lack the manpower and resources to help (Melmer 2007). If the perpetrator is non-Native, federal officials have complete jurisdiction, whether the attack occurs on or off the reservation. Federal authorities also have concurrent jurisdiction with tribal police when tribal members are involved. Tribal police have jurisdiction over crime cases committed by Native Americans in all of Indian Country. If a crime occurs on state land, then state authority has complete jurisdiction (Amnesty International 2007). The various facets of jurisdiction due to physical and racial borders may lead to confusion over boundaries of arrest and prosecution.

Investigation of sexual violence cases at Standing Rock by the federal government are extremely challenging for a number of reasons. There are often fractioned or antiquated laws and policies within tribal communities, or nonexistent laws and policies devised by the federal government that harm victims. There are other issues in terms of geographical distance to the location where the crime occurs, language and cultural barriers between the federal government and tribal members, and the length of time between assault and sentencing, which can all hinder a woman’s case against her perpetrator. Lastly, federal trials rarely have Native people on juries. How can a Native person be tried by a jury of his or her peers if that jury consists solely of non-Natives? (Deer 2004) It is clear to see how confusing and adverse the courts systems can be against the women of Standing Rock who have experienced violence, leading to their reluctance to say anything about the encounter in the first place.
VI. The Tribal Law and Order Act and Other Methods of Progress Towards Justice

There has been quite a bit of recent action within tribal communities and the federal government, especially at Standing Rock, to work towards lessening the adverse effects of sexual violence and its lack of proper justice. Starting at the highest level, the federal government has instituted the Tribal Law and Order Act in the hopes of helping both victims of violence and tribal community members at large. This piece of legislation was engendered to help all tribal communities in terms of violence, not just the Standing Rock Reservation. Signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 29, 2010, the Tribal Law and Order Act is meant to open a new chapter in tribal community relations.

One provision of the law would be an ability of tribal courts to sentence people up to three years in prison for violent crimes. The possibility of three year sentences would likely result in the United States attorney’s offices leaving more cases in tribal court, letting tribal nations have more control over crime on their reservations. This would allow tribal communities to exercise sovereignty more efficiently (Michael 2010).

Another provision of the law would enable federal criminal trials related to crime on the reservation to be held on the reservation in which the crime occurred. However, tribal and federal courts would still have concurrent jurisdiction over several felonies classified in the Major Crimes Act of 1885, which would include murder and rape, both high occurrences on reservations (Michael 2010). Under the Major Crimes Act, tribal authorities have retained concurrent jurisdiction with federal authorities over Native perpetrators at Standing Rock, although the tribal police have no jurisdiction over non-Native perpetrators on tribal land (Amnesty International 2007).

There have been problems in the past with the tribal justice system and the federal justice system working cooperatively. If federal prosecutors declined prosecution in murder and rape cases, tribal officials did not always receive investigative information from federal agencies, which made it difficult to prosecute perpetrators in tribal court. The Tribal Law and Order Act has focused on this issue by requiring the United States Department of Justice to file reports to tribal justice officials explaining why cases are not being prosecuted federally. This would help to coordinate the prosecution of crime on reservations (Michael 2010).

The Tribal Law and Order Act has brought about a variety of other important legislative and judicial changes. It provides resources to enhance cooperation among tribal, state, and federal agencies. It authorizes tribal police to make arrests for all crimes committed on the reservation, regardless of race. It provides tribal police more access to national crime history databases, therefore improving the collection of reservation crime data. In terms of community and youth relations, the Tribal Law and Order Act reinstates and improves programs to prevent and treat alcohol and substance abuse, along with programs that increase opportunities for at-risk Indian youth. Lastly, it increases resources for dealing with domestic and sexual violence and increases training opportunities for advocates (Michael 2010; Rosenthal 2010).

Thanks to the Tribal Law and Order Act, Native women will now get the care they need, both in terms of healing and to aid in the prosecution of their perpetrators. As the number of convictions grows, more women may be willing to report violence committed against them. The Tribal Law and Order Act is just one step towards instituting justice for Native women who have been victims of violence (Rosenthal 2010).

In the summer of 2008, the BIA launched Operation Dakota Peacekeeper, which put twenty extra tribal officers on Standing Rock Reservation. Due to this increase in coverage, arrests increased and the crime rate decreased. Standing Rock recently began Operation Alliance which creates an additional twelve permanent positions in tribal law enforcement. This brings the total number of officers to thirty-four (Michael 2010).

Besides these institutional polices, many activists and scholars have generated recommendations for how the complications of violence can be alleviated. Sarah Deer believes that Native people cannot depend on an outside government to solve the problem of violent crimes committed against Native women, especially since an outside government, if established and created by the colonizers, is the historical perpetrator of rape (Deer 2009). She feels that contemporary tribal rape law can possibly be extremely effective if it is rooted in tradition and grounded by an indigenous philosophy that understands rape on both an individual and a community level. She believes that part of decolonizing the mind and the body from violence is to send a message to the entire nation that as tribal nations there will be no more tolerance of the invasion of communities through the violation of women from outsiders or attackers within.

Continuing the discussion of how rape was historically perpetrated by the colonizers, Sarah Deer believes it may be possible to resist rape by resisting colonization. She views rape as an individualized manifestation of colonization, which has an effect on an entire community. Perhaps it would be beneficial to utilize the same tools allotted to resisting colonization, such as a return to traditional beliefs (Deer 2009).

In order to reclaim safety and empowerment for Native women, it is necessary to look to tribal histories, beliefs, resources, and experiences (Deer 2004). A commitment to various traditional values, such as family and clan honor, kinship circles, ancestral teachings, nonviolence and respect for humanity, tribal customary law, and oral traditions, would fulfill this requirement of tradition that Deer suggests (Weber & Zuni; Deer 2009; Deer 2004). Without these culturally-relevant means to lessen the effects of sexual violence, often referred to as “retraditionalization,” tribal communities run the risk of losing their identities as distinct cultures and sovereign nations (Weber & Zuni). This course of action would not only protect the women of Standing Rock, it would protect the culture and traditions of the Lakota and Dakota living on the reservation. Once these steps are taken, the beginnings of a violence-free society can exist.

Numerous other recommendations have been suggested by advocates and survivors. One of the first steps towards eradicating sexual violence within tribal communities would be to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem. If people think this is not a huge issue, there will be no action on the wider community’s end to work with activists and survivors. Universities and communities should support research and funding into the extent and causes of violence against Native women so there can be an education of the entire community to the drastic consequences of violence. Apart from addressing the extent and direct causes of violence, the social and economic factors that lead to Native women’s extreme vulnerability to violence should be focused on. Immediate action should be taken to protect those women who are at the highest risk for violent attacks. Training and resources should be made available not only to members of the community, but to the police as well. This will help to make the prevention of violence against Native women a genuine priority. Women need to be ensured access to sexual assault forensic exams, as well as a reassurance that these exams will not just end up in a storage room. Support services for survivors are necessary so they can be psychologically reintegrated into their communities. Lastly, there needs to be an end to the discrimination and marginalization of Native women, and all Native peoples, in mainstream society (Amnesty International 2007; 2004). A combination of these recommendations will ensure women from tribal communities across the United States that they can live free from the fear of sexual violence.