Incarceration of Aboriginal Australians has had and continues to have, a major impact on both their physical and social health. One study discusses the major health implications that can result from being incarcerated. This study found that “60% of metropolitan Aboriginal prisoners are positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies” (Krieg, 2). This means that there is an increased demand for the treatment of hepatitis C for these Aboriginal inmates, but since most prison stays for Aboriginal Australians are typically less than six months, “most prisoners are effectively excluded from access to treatment because of their short prison stays” (Krieg, 2); most treatment programs take roughly 6-12 months to complete. These issues have made it much more complicated for Aboriginal Australians to get the help they need, resulting in severe health issues.

There are many well-known articles that discuss the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Report, but one, in particular, discusses the deep colonizing practices that were used on Aboriginal Australian inmates. The term “deep colonizing” was used in this article “to describe how a land claim tribunal, which was meant to reverse one of the consequences of colonial conquest, ended up reinforcing and ‘perpetuat[ing] the colonizing practice of conquest and appropriation” (Marchetti, 461). The term “decolonizing” referred to legal institutions that were used to try and reverse the effects that colonization caused. When the authors use the term “deep colonizing”, it is just a play on words. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody appeared to be a decolonizing practice in the way that authorities made it seem like they wanted to truly reverse the consequences of colonialism when in reality it was actually institutionalizing colonialism even more. In this article, Philip Thomas “claims that royal commissions are used ‘not only to defuse and delay embarrassing situations but…also…as a device for social control” (Marchetti, 460). Put simply, these royal commissions are used as a way to deal with the issues of colonialism while also controlling Aboriginal Australians. While it may come across as having real intent on finding solutions for these Aboriginal Australians, they will never actually make a change. This article also explains that these decolonizing practices “although often well-meaning and well-intentioned, ultimately suppress Indigenous (and marginalized) voices and reconfigure the meaning of what is heard and not heard” (Marchetti, 461). Institutions only hear the voices that fit the expectations and views of the dominant culture/society. One example of deep colonizing practices in this article was with Indigenous women are how their views were not taken into consideration during a land claim case. Two things resulted from this situation: “indigenous women’s presence was erased from the claim, and at the same time, Indigenous women’s presence was overdetermined by stereotypical views of gender relations” (Marchetti, 462). Aboriginal Australian voices being suppressed shows another form of social control and paternalism, strengthening the notion that the colonizers will always be held above the colonized.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Australian Deaths in Custody report of 1991 “was heralded as the inquiry that would transform race politics for Indigenous people” (Marchetti, 453). The RCIADIC was created to report on the 99 Aboriginal Australian deaths that occurred while incarcerated between 1980 and 1989. They attempted to “balance the effects of the non-Indigenous cultural hegemony” (Marchetti, 456), in which one way of trying this was through the creation of Aboriginal Issues Units (AIUs). Marchetti argues that “the inquiry continued the colonization of Indigenous people by its inability to understand and incorporate Indigenous views and values” (Marchetti, 454). Within this article is the topic of decolonizing institutions, which are a type of legal institutions whose goal is to undo the effects of colonization. Marchetti further explains that these are “truth and reconciliation commissions that are ‘generally established in transitions to “democracy” and, with a remit to remit to temporarily focus on the past and investigate patterns of abuse” (Marchetti, 461). The goal is reconciliation so that victims' stories are heard and so the offender has to provide reconciliation. However, it is argued that these institutions “ultimately suppress Indigenous (and marginalized) voices and reconfigure the meaning of what is heard and not heard” (Marchetti, 461). They hear what they want to hear and what fits into the dominant society, continuing the colonization process and keeping Indigenous voices from being heard (specifically women). This article goes further into these decolonizing methods and explains the ideas of white, male dominance and how it affected Indigenous Australian women.

Another article looked specifically into the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Report and gave more information on the records themselves. The RCIADIC was used to “investigate the causes of deaths of Aboriginal people who were held in state and territory jails” (Nagle and Summerrell, 7). Each Aboriginal Australian death had its own individual report, which they were then presented. The Royal Commission also created what was known as the Interim Report, and then created the final report, which “made 339 recommendations, mainly concerned with procedures for persons in custody, liaison with Aboriginal groups, police education and improved accessibility to information” (Nagle and Summerrell, 8). Beyond individual deaths, this Commission also tried to find bigger factors (both social and economic) that could further explain the Aboriginal deaths that were occurring within custody. They found that “Aboriginal people had differences from other groups in Australia” (National Archives of Australia). These differences included larger rates of alcoholism, jailing, lower education, etc.

What is Being Done?

An article written by Jens Korff discusses a few ways that Aboriginal Australian incarceration rates can be reduced. Inmates that are aged 19 or 20 have shown a 60 percent chance of recidivism. In order to reduce these incarceration rates, this article recommends investing in “psycho-social healing, counseling, empowerment, education, and rehabilitation” (Korff, 2022). Although, some of these may not work for some as well as they work for others; they are not a “one size fits all”. Further research has shown that younger Aboriginal Australians with very limited education have a higher risk of ending up in prison than those with more educational opportunities. This article discusses increasing the age of criminal responsibility for Aboriginal Australians as an alternative method to reducing incarceration rates. Korff explains “in every state and territory in Australia, the age of criminal liability is ten. This means that any child aged ten or older can be arrested, summonsed, or found guilty of a criminal offense” (Korff, 2022). Once determined guilty, the child is then given a sentence by the Children’s Court. The issue here is that the younger a child is put into the prison system, the more likely they are to end up back in the system later in life. This is why many people have made the argument that the age of criminal liability should be increased to 14 years old.