Growing up, we learn in school about Canada's first inhabitants. Teachers taught us that aboriginals were able to provide, heal and manage themselves thus being completely self-governed and self-reliant. While researching, I found that aboriginal peoples did not have many documented social problems during the pre-contact times. However, I did find some literature supporting the existence of crimes in the Iroquois communities and the process that was taken to manage the wrongdoings.
When you think of our justice system today, you may think of constitution, laws and by-laws, police officers, lawyers, prisons and more. Well that was not the case back then. I discovered that setting the standards for behaviours and expectations within the community worked a little differently. There was no constitution written somewhere to guide the people, there were no police officers to call or prisons to send people to keep people in line. People were “punished” using alienation and even banishment (Coyle, 1986). If someone in the community committed a wrong against its members they were social persecuted. Furthermore, if this member held or was considering holding a reputable position within the community such as a sachem, that position would be removed or they would not be eligible to gain the position (Coyle, 1986). Finally, if this person became a repeat offender, they risked being banished from the community (Coyle, 1986). One can conclude that just as people do now, the Iroquois longed to belong, to be accepted, thus the reasoning behind the consequence. The threat of being shunned by the tribe even banished was typically enough to keep its member acting according to community standards (Coyle, 1986). If someone did engage in inappropriate activities that lead to them being punished by their community, they typically would do everything possible to get back in the good graces of the people (Coyle, M, 1986).
Even though it was said that the Iroquois lived generally without crime, they did experience some forms of misconduct (Dickenson-Gilmore, 1992). I read that there were four main types of crimes back then; sorcery, adultery, theft and murder (Dickenson-Gilmore, 1992). The first types of crimes mentioned were the less serious types and the last one required the most reconciliation and resolution. After a murder was committed, the people directly involved would get together (victim, accused) separately to discuss recent events and resolutions. It was here that the accused was pressured into admittance. If the accused confessed, they then presented an offering to the victim’s family. If this offering was accepted then the murder was forever forgiven, if not, then the whole idea of family revenge against the accused and his family came into play (Dickenson-Gilmore, 1992). From my understanding about the culture and history, this was more unlikely then the previous scenario of the peace acceptance. Thinking of the grandfather teaching and other aboriginal concepts I have learned, the culture believes in restoration of the spirit and giving second chance. It is possible for someone to make a mistake and not deserve to be punished with retaliation forever but to be guided into restoring their life within the community.
Research supports the fact that indigenous peoples of Canada had their own ways and methods of setting community standards of living as well as how to handle any defiance (Coyle, 1986, Dickenson-Gilmore, 1992). Looking at our legal system today, how far have we made aboriginal deviate from their ancestral ways? Is this o.k.? There are system’s today put in place like the Aboriginal Youth Justice Committee that strives to support our indigenous youth and keep them out of the judicial system using traditional healing processes like talking circle and other youth restorative justice committees (Andersen, 1999). Through meaningful consequences and accountability, they aim to support them to make positive changes in their lives (Andersen, 1999) . Should we have more programs like this for different populations? Should our native Canadians have more freedom in self-government? If so, what would that look like? How would that work? Questions to ponder.
Angele References
Coyle, Michael (1986) 24 Osgoode Hall L. J. 605 Traditional Indian Justice in Ontario: A Role for the Present
Dickson-Gilmore, E J. Canadian Journal of Criminology34. 3-4 (Jul 1992): 479-502.
Andersen, C. (1999). Governing aboriginal justice in canada: Constructing responsible individuals and communities through 'tradition'. Crime, Law and Social Change, 31(4), 303-326. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216163257?accountid=46683
Additional Resources
http://www.yjcontario.ca/resources-aboriginal.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLNUUmKHOVo
These questions you brought up, I’ve also wondered about, imposing our rules and our culture onto another culture, how can we justify this? The created and maintained a community with their own values and beliefs. Using these values and beliefs actions were put in place within the community to make it a safe and secure environment. Who is to say that our way is the right way? Justice was maintained, now within our society, I wonder if our justice system has the same impact. They created the restorative justice system; however, not have lived through those times, and seeing our system now I wonder if we truly are making the right choice or must me take from the past and implement some of their teachings to create and hold true those past values and beliefs. Are people truly being held accountable for their actions? (A murder or a rapist able to return to the community, thing we must think about)
ReplyDeleteChristine - Timmins