• Alaska Justice Forum ; Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring 1987)

      Angell, John E.; Endell, Roger V.; Bureau of Justice Statistics; Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1987-03)
      The Alaska Justice Forum has resumed publication after a seven-year hiatus. The original Forum was published from 1977 to 1980. The Spring 1987 issue of the Alaska Justice Forum features articles on the implementation of Offender-Based State Correctional Information System (OBSCIS) by the Alaska Department of Corrections; a Bureau of Justice Statistics study estimating the likelihood of imprisonment for persons arrested for robbery, burglary, or theft in the U.S., Canada, England, and West Germany; and preliminary results of a study assessing the impact on Alaska of participation in the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole; and results of a public opinion poll showing that a majority of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough residents oppose selection of Fire Island as a site for a long-term correctional facility. Briefer items address the appointment by Governor Steve Cowper of a committee to coordinate Alaska's implementation of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and two new Alaska Judicial Council research reports. March 1987 population figures for Alaska Department of Corrections facilities are presented.
    • From Land Rights to Sovereignty: Curious Parallels between Alaskan and Canadian Indigenous Peoples

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1989-11)
      Alaska Natives and Canadian aboriginal peoples have been late bloomers in securing land claims based on aboriginal title and its extinguishment. While the reasons for this delay relate to the discrete development of Indian policy in each country, both groups now find themselves seeking explicit governmental authority to regulate this domain. Despite the juridical premise that only those groups capable of controlling land have aboriginal claims to cede and/or extinguish, modern groups must secure federal confirmation of their sovereign powers. Barriers in each country are similar; so are the strategies employed.
    • Law Enforcement Selection Practices in the U.S.A. and Canada

      Johnson, Knowlton W. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1983-04)
      Selection practices in law enforcement have been said to be one of the most complex facets of personnel management. In an effort to document the state of this complexity internationally, the study presented provides state of the art information about police personnel practices in the USA and Canada.
    • Legal Culture Blindness and Canadian Indian Law

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1989-04)
      This paper explores the special problems that specialists in federal Indian law in the United States face when they attempt to understand the legal position of indigenous peoples in Canada, make comparisons and offer assistance and advice. Although the roots of Canadian Indian law in British Crown policy are similar to those of the United States, the evolution of United States and Canadian Indian law occurred in patterns which were as distinctly different as has been the evolution of each country. Although some comparisons can be made between the two patterns of legal development, especially in the realm of policy changes directed at indigenous populations, the core of each legal relationship is very different, especially as it relates to federalism, the constitutional process and role of the courts, and public land issues. Therefore, while models of Indian legal achievements in one country are often used to induce governmental change in the other, especially in Alaska among the United States and in Canada, generally, advocates and United States specialists must exercise extreme caution to avoid legal culture blindness based on a lack of appreciation of the very different historical development of each nation.
    • Survey of Living Conditions In The Arctic: What Did We Learn?

      Duhaime, Gerard; Jack, Kruse; Poppel, Birger; Abryutina, Larissa; Hanna, Virgene; Martin, Stephanie; Poppel, Marie Katherine; Ward, Ed; Kruse, Marg; Cochran, Patricia; et al. (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2007)
      In countries around the Arctic, tens of thousands of Iñupiat, Inuit, and other indigenous peoples live in small, isolated communities where jobs are scarce, incomes are low, and life is not easy. Yet many—including large majorities in Canada, Northern Alaska, and Greenland—are satisfied with life in their communities. That was the puzzle researchers from Statistics Greenland faced in 1994, when they studied living conditions and found that common measures of well-being—like levels of employment—didn’t explain why so many of Greenland’s Inuit chose to stay in their communities. About 7,250 Inuit, Iñupiat, and other indigenous peoples were interviewed in Greenland, Northern Alaska, the Chukotka region of Russia, and the Inuit settlement areas of Canada. The Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) conducted the survey in Alaska. This publication describes the survey and introduces the wealth of new information now available on the lives of the Arctic’s first people, measured in ways they themselves chose. Also printed in Valerie Moller, Denis Huschka and Alex Michalos (eds). Barometers of Quality of Life Around the Globe: How Are We Doing? New York: Springer Verlag, 107-134.
    • Why Canadian Indian Law Is Important to Alaskans, Why Indian Law in Alaska Is Important to Canada

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1990-04)
      Federal policy governing indigenous peoples in Canada has been marked by repeated glances south and west (at Alaska) as it has been formed through parliamentary edict, case law and Constitutional entrenchment. Although rooted in a common Crown policy, the discrete history of Canadian policy has diverged from American practice even as the country's historical and its political development have diverged. Unlike United States policy, the underpinnings of Canadian Indian law as it related to aboriginal title land rights and the limits and potential of tribal sovereignty are only now coming into focus. This belated articulation of Indian rights parallels similar developments in Alaska where land rights and tribal rights are only now being defined. In both Alaska and Canada, hunting and fishing rights and tribal governance are political and legal matters whose impact on resource development and control by provinces and states make neat application of older Indian law concepts less predictable. Cases in either place offer guidance to federal courts in either country within a modern debate over public land rights. The author suggests that attorneys in each place monitor case law and legislation only now emerging.