Indigenous Peoples (Native American, American Indian, and Alaska Native) have experienced high rates of violence and victimization since colonization – which continues to present day. However, little is known regarding the victimization experiences of Indigenous college students. Furthermore, universities are struggling to recruit and retain Indigenous college students, evident by their low enrollment and matriculation rates. One possible reason for this could be universities' inability to support Indigenous students, especially those who have experienced victimization. Yet, there is little empirical knowledge regarding how universities can best support these Indigenous students. To address these gaps, the current dissertation takes a holistic approach to understanding Indigenous individuals’ needs within the university context. Drawing upon Indigenous student survey and interview data, in addition to faculty and staff interview data, this dissertation explores the victimization experiences of Indigenous college students, their service utilization, informal help-seeking behaviors, barriers to seeking help, and ways to improve university services. Overall, findings reveal that Indigenous college students in this sample experience high rates of victimization. Additionally, having culturally relevant services, culturally competent service providers, and being able to practice their culture is necessary to best support Indigenous college students. Recommendations for universities are presented to improve the campus environment for Indigenous college students.

The United States Supreme Court decision in Clark v. Arizona has become a fundamental part of the landscape concerning the insanity defense and, as a result, has greatly impacted the general use of mental health evidence. In particular, Clark and its progeny have effectively narrowed the scope and significance of mental health evidence used at criminal trials for the state of Arizona and many other states which follow a similar model. This has the net effect of limiting or even eliminating potential defenses and evidence to be considered as a mitigating factor for mentally ill defendants during the guilt phase of trial. Yet, to date, there has not been a study which has examined the impact of Clark on how courts handle mental health evidence or the insanity defense. This dissertation seeks to fill the gap in the literature by systematically reviewing all state and federal criminal cases which have cited the Clark decision through January 1, 2023. During the study period 175 cases were examined using a mixed methods research design. The results indicate that Clark has created an unworkable standard for courts. Specifically, courts have problems properly applying Clark to evidence regarding behavioral tendencies. The data suggests that when behavioral-tendency evidence is even only somewhat linked to a serious mental illness, courts are categorizing this evidence as diminished capacity evidence and excluding it from being admitted in jurisdictions that do not recognize that defense. In addition, courts have issues properly applying their state’s test for the insanity defense. The results suggest that some courts are erroneously conflating purposeful action with appreciation of the wrongfulness of the act.