Aboriginal Violence and State Response: Histories, Policies and Legacies in Queensland 1860–1940

Abstract

During the long era of 'protection' (enacted in 1897, flourishing in the inter-war years and with effects continuing to this day) policy towards Australian Indigenous people suspected of inter-personal violence was ambiguous in its objectives and its means. Formally Indigenous peoples in Australia were British subjects entitled to the full protection of the law. As a consequence violence between Indigenous people was made visible through the conduct of inquests, police inquiries and in many cases subsequent arrest and charge with a criminal offence. Disposal of those charged or even suspected of crimes reflects tension between the universalising presumptions of the criminal law and the particularising effects of welfare regimes that ruled the lives of Indigenous people. Drawing on archives of inquests, courts and prisons in the Queensland jurisdiction before 1940, this article examines the policies and decisionmaking that characterised a state which remained determinedly colonial in its practises and ambitions. In conclusion, we consider briefly the question of how distinctive or how representative was Queensland practice as a state response to Indigenous violence during these decades of colonial subordination.

Epidemiology of traumatic maxillofacial injuries in Queensland, Australia

“…About half the excess morbidity from interpersonal violence among Indigenous people is due to factors associated with remote living [63]. Additionally, Australian Indigenous people suspected of interpersonal violence were ambiguous about its objectives and its means [139].…”

The Revival of Comparative Criminology in a Globalised World: Local Variances and Indigenous Over‐representation

“…They were introduced under the banner of the 'protection' of Indigenous people and, while administrative in nature, Indigenous people there were subjected to similar disciplinary regimes and punishment as was the case in penal institutions. Further, this protective measure could be imposed following a term of imprisonment or even without a formal conviction; it sometimes included deportation (for example, to Palm Island) and could be of an indefinite period of time, leading to segregation and extended supervision ( citizenship in the sixties, the number and proportion of Indigenous people in the prison started to rise (Broadhurst 1987;Finnane and McGuire 2001;Finnane and Richards 2010;Hogg 2001;Purdy 1996). It is, however, very difficult to assess what the exact relationship is between colonist practices and over-representation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system.…”

Law as Politics: Chinese Litigants in Australian Colonial Courts

“…Australian scholarly treatments of this interaction have highlighted the vulnerability of Chinese immigrant and settlers as defendants in criminal cases, or victims of police harassment and media demonisation in gambling prosecutions (Jones 2004;Cronin 1982;Holst 2004;Macgregor 1995;May 1984;McCoy 1980;Ryan 1995a). There is hard evidence of the severity of colonial attitudes towards Chinese (and other Asian) offenders when serious crimes were committedin the greater likelihood of the death penalty being carried into effect when such punishment followed conviction for a capital crime (Finnane and Richards 2010).…”