Circle Sentencing

Background and Concept

Circle sentencing is an updated version of the traditional sanctioning and healing practices of aboriginal peoples in Canada and American Indians in the United States (Stuart, 1995; Melton, 1995). Sentencing circles—sometimes called peacemaking circles—were resurrected in 1991 by judges and community justice committees in the Yukon Territory and other northern Canadian communities. Circle sentencing has been developed most extensively in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Yukon and has been used occasionally in several other communities. Its use spread to the United States in 1996, when a pilot project was initiated in Minnesota. Circle sentencing has been used for adult and juvenile offenders, for a variety of offenses, and in both rural and urban settings.

Circle sentencing is a holistic reintegrative strategy designed not only to address the criminal and delinquent behavior of offenders but also to consider the needs of victims, families, and communities. Within the “circle,” crime victims, offenders, family and friends of both, justice and social service personnel, and interested community residents speak from the heart in a shared search for an understanding of the event. Together they identify the steps necessary to assist in healing all affected parties and prevent future crimes. The significance of the circle is more than symbolic: all circle members—police officers, lawyers, judges, victims, offenders, and community residents—participate in deliberations to arrive at a consensus for a sentencing plan that addresses the concerns of all interested parties.

Procedures and Goals

Circle sentencing typically involves a multistep procedure that includes (1) application by the offender to participate in the circle process, (2) a healing circle for the victim, (3) a healing circle for the offender, (4) a sentencing circle to develop consensus on the elements of a sentencing plan, and (5) followup circles to monitor the progress of the offender. In addition to commitments by the offender, the sentencing plan may incorporate commitments by the justice system, community, and family members. Specifics of the circle process vary from community to community and are designed locally to fit community needs and culture.

Goals of circle sentencing include the following:

  • Promoting healing for all affected parties.

  • Providing an opportunity for the offender to make amends.

  • Empowering victims, community members, families, and offenders by giving them a voice and a shared responsibility in finding constructive resolutions.

  • Addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior.

  • Building a sense of community and its capacity for resolving conflict.

  • Promoting and sharing community values.

Considerations in Implementation

The success of the circle sentencing process depends to a large extent on a healthy partnership between the formal juvenile justice system and the community. Participants from both need training and skill building in the circle process and in peacemaking and consensus building. It is critically important that the community’s planning process allow sufficient time for strong relationships to develop between justice professionals and community members. Implementation procedures should be highly flexible, because the circle process will evolve over time based on the community’s knowledge and experience. As it gains experience, the community can customize the circle process to fit local resources and culture.

In many communities that have implemented the circle sentencing concept, direction and leadership have come from a community justice committee that decides which cases to accept, develops support groups for the victim and offender, and helps to conduct the circles. In most communities, circles are facilitated by a trained community member, who is often called a keeper.

An Example of a Circle Sentencing Session

The victim was a middle-aged man whose parked car had been badly damaged when the offender, a 16-year-old, crashed into it while joyriding in another vehicle. The offender had also damaged a police vehicle.

In the circle, the victim talked about the emotional shock of seeing what had happened to his car and his costs to repair it (he was uninsured). Then, an elder leader of the First Nations community where the circle sentencing session was being held (and an uncle of the offender) expressed his disappointment and anger with the boy. The elder observed that this incident, along with several prior offenses by the boy, had brought shame to his family. The elder also noted that in the old days, the boy would have been required to pay the victim’s family substantial compensation as a result of such behavior. After the elder finished, a feather (the “talking piece”) was passed to the next person in the circle, a young man who spoke about the contributions the offender had made to the community, the kindness he had shown toward elders, and his willingness to help others with home repairs.

Having heard all this, the judge asked the Crown Council (Canadian prosecutor) and the public defender, who were also sitting in the circle, to make statements and then asked if anyone else in the circle wanted to speak. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer, whose vehicle had also been damaged, then took the feather and spoke on the offender’s behalf. The officer proposed to the judge that in lieu of statutorily required jail time for the offense, the offender be allowed to meet with him on a regular basis for counseling and community service. After asking the victim and the prosecutor if either had any objections, the judge accepted this proposal. The judge also ordered restitution to the victim and asked the young adult who had spoken on the offender’s behalf to serve as a mentor for the offender.

After a prayer in which the entire group held hands, the circle disbanded and everyone retreated to the kitchen area of the community center for refreshments.

Although circles have been used as a response to serious and violent crimes, circle sentencing is not an appropriate response to all offenses. Key factors in determining whether a case is appropriate for the circle process include the offender’s character and personality, sincerity, and connection to the community; the victim’s input; and the dedication of the offender’s and victim’s support groups. Moreover, circles are often labor intensive and require a substantial investment of citizen time and effort; circles should not, therefore, be used extensively as a response to first offenders and minor crime.

The capacity of the circle to advance solutions capable of improving the lives of participants and the overall well-being of the community depends on the effectiveness of the participating volunteers. To ensure a cadre of capable volunteers, the program should support a paid community-based volunteer coordinator to supply logistical support, establish linkages with other agencies and community representatives, and provide appropriate training for all staff.

Lessons Learned

Very little research has been conducted to date on the effectiveness of circle sentencing. One study conducted by Judge Barry Stuart in Canada in 1996 indicated that recidivism was less likely among offenders who had participated in circles than among offenders who were processed traditionally (Stuart, 1996). Those who have been involved with circles report that circles empower participants to resolve conflict in a manner that promotes sharing of responsibility for outcomes, generates constructive relationships, enhances respect and under-standing among all involved, and fosters enduring, innovative solutions.

For More Information

For more information on circle sentencing, see Building Community Justice Partnerships: Community Peacemaking Circles, by Barry Stuart. The publication is available from Aboriginal Justice Section, Department of Justice of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1AOH8, Attention: Learning Network, 613–954–0119 (phone), 613–957–4697 (fax).

Previous Contents Next

Line
A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Models Juvenile Justice Bulletin • February 2001