CRIME AND JUSTICE: A TRADITIONAL SICANGU (ROSEBUD) LAKOTA PERSPECTIVE

 

Over the past 10 years I (Richard Voss) have been visiting family and friends on various reservations of the Great Sioux Nation in South Dakota. More recently I have led "cultural immersion" courses where I have taken students to learn about traditional Lakota values and practices related to social work practice. Invariably, the experience evokes a crisis of consciousness where my students discover that there is an indigenous nation within our great American nation and begin to realize that there are other ways of thinking about the various problems that confront our communities and very different ways of helping to resolve these problems. One of my Lakota relatives told me that many problems result from a deep lack of awareness between mainstream American culture and traditional indigenous cultures; an awareness so deep that there is not even an awareness that there is an unawareness, hence the Lakota term, Aicibleze'sni ("to not have an awareness of oneself"). When we think about social justice in the criminal justice system there seldom includes a discussion about indigenous American (traditional Lakota) practice. I discussed this question with Sheryl L. Klein, Chairperson of the Human Services and Ione Quigley, Chair of Lakota Studies, Department at Sinte Gleska University, a tribal college of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, specifically in reference to Professor Klein's article "Crime and Justice Among the Traditional Lakota' (1987), based upon personal interviews with traditional elders, which she used in her Criminal Justice course. This essay is based upon discussions with Professor Klein (2002) and a paper she wrote in 1987 at Sinte Gleska University, Professor Quigley, Chair of the Lakota Studies Department, and discussions I had with Alex Little Soldier, former Chairman of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (1997).


Wo'pe: Natural Law of Creation

For the traditional, pre-reservation Lakota the prevailing philosophy underlying the administration of justice was the "Natural Law of Creation" which ultimately means the way nature acts, in this case, to reinstate harmony and balance among the group (S. Looking Horse, Personal Communication, 1997; French, 1972: 2). For the traditional Lakota justice was not a metaphysical abstraction; it was something with concrete effects. It was important to settle a dispute promptly and to the satisfaction of all parties. Justice protected right relationships between individuals and between individuals, their extended families, and the larger community. The goal was to avoid destructive and prolonged personal revenge and blood feuding called Ocinsilyakel unpi ("to live with bad feelings with each other") (Quigley, 2003). The leader whether it was the elder of the Tios¡¯paye (extended family) in a minor case or a Wicasa Wakan (a shaman medicine man) in a more serious case, focused on mediation and compensation to the victim. The perpetrator and victim were viewed in relationship to each other—unlike our present criminal justice system that focuses more on identification and punishment of the wrongdoer where the victim is usually left out of the picture (Karmen, 1984: 3).

A Case Example: Unjustified Homicide

Examining the traditional approaches to addressing unjustified homicide, illustrates a number of guiding principles among the traditional Lakota people. Murder or ti wicakte (encompasses two concepts, ¡°to kill them¡± and ¡°the family/home¡±) was viewed very negatively, yet traditional society provided a range of sanctions to address this horrible wrong. For the traditional Lakota murder was not an individual act, but was viewed as a crime against the entire family/home of the victim (Quigley, 2003). The murderer could face social ostracism, shunning, banishment, required to make restitution or provide goods and labor to the remaining family, expulsion from spiritual activities and the ceremonial life of the people, and even death (Hassrick, 1982: 50-51, Little Elk, 1986, Leader Charge, 1986, and Walking Bull, 1987, in Klein, 1987). The offence did not solely affect the perpetrator and victim, it affected the entire community, as Lame Deer described, ¡°If a man killed a tribal brother, be it through anger or accident, then the sacred circle was broken and a wound had been inflicted on the whole people (1972: 256). Banishment was a particularly hard punishment for the murderer. The perpetrator was usually allowed to reside in the community, but was barred from participating in any social interaction and subject to constant shunning (Leader Charge, 1986, in Klein, 1987 and Little Soldier, Personal Communication, 1997). Such a punishment could have dramatic effects, ¡°for one to cut himself off from the whole meant to lose identity or die.¡± (Standing Bear, 1978: 124). Another form of banishment was that the perpetrator could be completely banished as an outlaw which often meant a death sentence in a hostile and unforgiving environment. In either case, the victim's family had the prerogative to either approve or disapprove of allowing the perpetrator back into the social community (Leader Charge, 1986, in Klein, 1987; Little Soldier, Personal Communication, 1997).

Another form of response to the heinous crime of murder was the imposition of a spiritual form of punishment where the perpetrator could receive the ultimate spiritual punishment, the expulsion and exclusion from all sacred ceremonies. The perpetrator would never be allowed "to touch the Sacred Pipe again" (Walking Bull, 1987, in Klein,1987 and Little Soldier, 1997). In other cases, the perpetrator might be allowed to attempt purification through ceremonies. The process to accomplish this was called the Ritual Ceremony for the Cleansing of a Murderer (Douville, 1987, in Klein, 1987). This Ceremony was made up of four parts, these included: Purification with sage (a pungent herb), the Inipi (or Purification Ceremony) where the murderer would participate in the sweatlodge ceremony, an intense cleansing with deep spiritual meaning and significance, the Kici Yuskapi (the untying of guilt ceremony), in this ceremony the murderer could "untie" himself from the guilt, setting aside the burdens of revenge and grief, and bring peace and harmony to them and to the community (Lame Deer, 1972: 256 and Hassrick, 1982: 50-51) and the Aziliya (a special ceremony performed by the medicine man or woman burning sage and flat cedar to purify the offender and his residence (Napesni, 1986, Douville, 1987, in Klein, 1987).

Still another approach could involve an arrangement whereby the murderer¡¯s family asked an admired leader to mediate with the victim¡¯s family. The leader would approach the victim¡¯s family to see if they would receive gifts of valuable property, such as horses and feasts, in restitution for their loss. The services and labor of the murderer may also be offered, particularly in the case where the victim was the main supporter of a family (Leader Charge, 1986, in Klein, 1987; and Little Soldier, Personal Communication, 1997). In the case where the victim was a beloved son, a substitute son could be given from the murderer¡¯s family and adopted through the Hunka (adoption) Ceremony into the victim¡¯s family (Little Elk, 1986, in Klein, 1987 and Little Solder, Personal Communication, 1997). In all of these ¡°solutions¡± Takpe or blood revenge and hatred is derailed, Ocinsilyakel unpi assuaged, and harmony is restored to the community. Spirituality was intertwined through all tribal and individual activities and played a significant role in the administration of justice.

The traditional Lakota system of justice was highly developed, nuanced, and received widespread support from the people. The primary concern was to maintain tribal harmony and to compensate the victim. Since the tribal and extended family groups were so closely knit and based upon mutual cooperation for survival, little crime actually occurred. When unacceptable behavior occurred, it was dealt with swiftly and surely.

Perhaps our modern justice system modeled upon European justice and English law, could rediscover a truly American approach to justice from the concepts and practices of the traditional Lakota people.


by Richard W. Voss (West Chester University, West Chester, PA, USA), Sheryl L. Klein (Sinte Gleska University, Mission, SD, USA), and Ione Quigley (Sinte Gleska University, Mission, SD, USA).


Suggested Readings

French, L., (1972), Indians and Criminal Justice, Totowa, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun, & Co.

Hassrick, R. (1982), The Sioux: Life and Customs of a Warrior Society, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Lame Deer, J. and Erdoes, R. Lame Deer (1972), Seeker of Visions, Simon & Schuster: New York.

Karmen, A. (1984), Crime Victims. An Introduction to Victimology, Wadsworth: Belmont, CA¼Ú

Klein, Sheryl (1987), Crime and Justice Among the Traditional Lakota, Sinte Gleska College: Rosebud, SD.

Quigley, I. (2003), Personal Communication, Chair of the Lakota Studies Department, Sinte Gleska University: Mission, SD.

Standing Bear, L. (1978),. Land of the Spotted Eagle, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE.