The United States versus Kagawa Case<\/p>\n
Student\u2019s Name<\/p>\n
Institution<\/p>\n
The United States versus Kagawa Case<\/p>\n
Among the cases that significantly impacted Indian Jurisdiction in the nation was the United States versus Kagawa case. It is a fundamental Supreme Court\u2019s rule that will remain vital and historically significant in elaborating the supremacy of the nation\u2019s law on the Native Americans reservation. The Supreme Court ruling was not only substantial in postulating humanity but also proved that the Congress had authority over the Indian Americans matters as well as testing the application of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. Kagawa\u2019s case involves his conviction of murdering Lyouse, who was also an Indian American on the Hoopa Valley Reservation, California. The situation was similar to the Ex Parte Crow Dog\u2019s case, where the Crow Dog was accused of killing a Native American at the Indian lands there before in the year 1881. Both Kagawa and Crow Dog\u2019s case involves Indian to Indian jurisdiction regarding the United States Supreme Court, and they also coincidentally occur at the Indian reservation. In the discussion below, the case of United States v. Kagawa is elaborated to a profound extent with regards to its relationship with the Ex Parte Crow Dog case as well as the Major Crimes Act.<\/p>\n
Kagawa, an Indian American was accused of killing Lyouse who was also a Native American who resides in California. The manslaughter happened when Kagawa and his son Mahawaha stepped into the deceased house and an argument raised. Kagawa stubbed Lyouse as Mahawaha held tight Lyouse\u2019s wife. Kagwa and his son were then taken to the court of law where they were convicted of committing murder of their fellow Native American as Lyouse\u2019s wife stand as the witness (Stark, 2016). Initially, before the supreme court intervention, Kagawa\u2019s case was taken to the district court where the federal state significantly faced some challenges in stating the defendant\u2019s prosecution. The federal court faced difficulty in conducting the jurisdiction as the accused claimed that the Congress did not have a mandate over the Indian to Indian cases in their reservation. Also, it was stated that the relevant section of the Indians Appropriation Act was unconstitutional and invalid leaving the judiciary body with no right to proceed with the jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
However, after the appeal to the Supreme Court, the case was approached with a different perspective as the supremacy considered it as a significant opportunity to put the Major Crime Act into action. It was stated that immediately after the validation of the Major Crime Act in the nation\u2019s constitution, the federal courts were granted the mandate to deal with Indian to Indian cases if the crime has been committed in the Indian\u2019s lands (Singh 2014). Full commission over the Indian tribes was given to the district court, and they could significantly be responsible for ensuring law adherence even in the Indian reservation. At the Supreme court, Kagawa\u2019s representative was Joseph D. Redding while the government defendant was George A. Jenks, an assistant United States Secretary of the Interior. Jenks only put in place the request of the Supreme Court to look at the initial ruling in Crow Dog, where the court stated the rule that the Congress has the power to regulate all the all the business with Indian tribes with regards to the Indian Commerce Clause of the constitution. He politically debated that the Congress has the authority to deal with Indians and their affairs.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Joseph Redding who represent Kagawa during the Supreme Court proceedings stood firm with three-fold arguments. He claimed that the Congress had never prosecuted an Indian to Indian crime in the past a hundred years of the Indian policy. Redding also argued that the mentioned indictment by Jenks contained no constituent of commerce, hence it was ahead of the act of the Congress to rule over Indian to Indian cases. Lastly, Redding contended that such in-depth change in Indian policy should not be ratified in law whose heading and body were exclusively erratic with the set on of the Major Crimes Act. Furthermore, he argued that such legislation affecting the tribe\u2019s policy and sovereignty should be debated in the public and civilians views be put in consideration. However, Redding did not mention anything related to the tribe having laws designed to deal with criminality among Indian to Indians in their lands. The Supreme court Jurors fell on the prosecution side, and Kagawa was prosecuted that marking the commencement of the Major Crime Act that had been significantly incorporated in the nation\u2019s constitution.<\/p>\n
The Ex Parte Crow Dog case of 1881 included Brule Lakota Sioux, well known as Crow Dog who was indicted for assassinating an administration tailored chief. Later, after Crow Dog was imprisoned and sentenced with murder, he disputed the United States did not take in for questioning any jurisdiction on the Indian lands in matters involving Indians to Indians. The Supreme Court agreed with the Crow dog\u2019s declaration that they had no authority on the Indians issues as the misconduct committed was between two Native Americans, and it happened on the Indians reservation (Friedman, & Percival, 2017).There before no rule that was put in action regarding assuring Congress the power to deal with Indian cases in their lands. The Ex Parte Crow Dog case initiated the court\u2019s decision that there should have conventions to be followed for the Congress to have jurisdictive power over the Indians and other tribes. Among the process to be stick to was to put in place an open law providing jurisdiction to state courts over Indian on Indian lawbreaking in their lands. It is clear that both Kagawa and Crow Dog had the aim to put up with the United States Jurisdiction as seen above as Crow Dog succeeded which was in contrast with Kagawa who faced the law action.<\/p>\n
With regards to the Major Crime Act, both the Cow Dog and Kagawa cases are significantly affected. To a profound extent, the Major Crime Act can be mentioned as the answer to the no jurisdiction in Ex parte Crow Dog Supreme Court pronouncement. It was an outcome of the Congress views on the obligation of enlightening Indians the prominence of the decree of law. Also, the Congress stated the Indians sovereignty that any native who conducted criminal offense had to be treated unlawful and pronounce judgment on under the nation\u2019s laws. After that, the Major Crimes Act was passed and put in the national constitution. It was significantly executed during United State versus Kagawa case as the authority adhered to the key. The Major Crime Act heightened the power of the federal government to take legal action against Indians who go against the delinquency stated anywhere in the land, the Indian reservations being included. The major crimes that were in the act included murder, rape, manslaughter, firebombing, burglary, robbery as well as attack with intent to exterminate.<\/p>\n
The Major Crime Act put into force the conviction of the law offenders, and it significantly strengthened the American Indian sovereignty in the country. The act of defiant escaping the law supremacy just because they are Indians and have committed the misconducts against other Indians in the Indians reservation was not ethically right. For instance, considering the Crow Dogs deed of murdering a stated chief and escaping legal judgment was not fair and contrary to humanity as well as principles of jurisdiction. With such a community, people will not leave at peace as their civil rights will not be valued and they will be prone to every kind of criminality as the offenders have the assurance of to be not judged under the law of the nation. The Supreme Courts situation of having no power to sentence is an explicit elaboration of how the criminals would be escaping judgment. However, the Major Crime Act played an essential role in curbing inferior supremacy among the Indians and other native tribes in the nation (Feller 2016).<\/p>\n
From the above discussion, the United States versus Kagawa case is a significant elaboration of the Major Crime Act being put in action. It significantly set up the way forward towards the Indians jurisdiction, and it effectively reduced the intensity of such criminality on the Indian reservations. Placing in consideration of the Crow Dog\u2019s case, people had no sound civil rights during that error as anyone could commit murder and evade jurisdiction as the Supreme Court had no mandate on the Indian on Indian cases that had occurred in their reservations. The Major Crime Act set the pace towards the national jurisdiction as well as supremacy, and it significantly showed other nations the way forward in matters regarding citizens\u2019 sovereignty.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Feller, A. P. (2016). Serve Honorably, Foreign-Born Service Member, or Risk Deportation: Determining Whether a Conviction under the UCMJ Constitutes a Deportable Crime Involving Moral Turpitude under the Immigration and Nationality Act. AFL Rev., 76, 1.<\/p>\n
Friedman, L. M., & Percival, R. V. (2017). The roots of justice: Crime and punishment in Alameda County, California, 1870-1910. UNC Press Books.<\/p>\n
Singh, S. (2014). Closing the Gap of Justice: Providing Protection for Native American Women Through the Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction Provision of VAWA. Colum. J. Gender & L., 28, 197.<\/p>\n
Stark, H. K. (2016). Criminal Empire: The Making of the Savage in a Lawless Land. Theory & Event, 19(4).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The United States versus Kagawa Case Student\u2019s Name Institution The United States versus Kagawa Case Among the cases that significantly<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48656","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n