Creating a justice system that holds ethics and morality to a high standard within it, while maintaining the capacity to enforce and legislate laws, is no easy task; and Canada’s criminal justice system is no exception. Below, I explore certain ways in which the criminal justice system of Canada falls short of its responsibilities, and examine some of the historical events & context in which our justice system rests upon today.
Public & private actors’ interests play a crucial role in the criminal justice system. Whether the significance of their interests is arguably for the better or worse of the general public, recognizing the inherent partisanship in and of itself is one of the first of many important steps in developing & maintaining a Canadian criminal justice system that brings about equal footing for all under its jurisdiction. Police are the most easily associated state role when it comes to officials enforcing legislative laws, by virtue of the fact that they are the most visible in the eyes of the public. Below, I will be discussing the bias concerning public actors’ interests that has the potential to sprout from qualifications to be a police official, the ambiguity of direct versus indirect control, and the subjective scope of discretion of the police & crown attorneys. Regarding private actors’ interests, I will be considering the roles of the media & politics, and various groups’ influences on crime, as well as the respective interests of each group. In addition to each topic, I will be addressing their associative issues.
Upon examining the minimum qualifications of police officers in Canada, the amount of subjectivity embedded within is transparent. There are four main qualifications for any individuals in Canada who have the intention of becoming a police officer. They must be a Canadian citizen, have obtained a high school diploma, be of at least 18 years old, and be a “person of good character.” It must be noted that there may also be additional qualifications depending on the region, municipality, etc. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3] However, it is my strong opinion that these minimum standards are insufficient to hold a position as an official acting on behalf of the state. Phrased in the true sense of the power an officer holds and having the most discretion in terms of how the law is administered [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3], this illustrates the objective shortcomings that the minimum qualifications represent. Furthermore, at least the first three qualifications are quantifiable standards; the subjectivity of what qualifies as a “good character” should not be left up to hiring committees (or other ways of hiring officers) to decide. This leaves room for the overarching issue of subjectivity within policing; interests of several state officials dictate their actions, causing an unequal amount of liberty of the citizens in their jurisdiction. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that there is a correlation between the educational attainment of an officer and their likelihood to use violence (in North America), [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3] when the law according to the Constitution should theoretically be equal for everyone regardless.
Secondly, the vagueness that is apparent concerning direct versus indirect control manifests itself through the Constitution, and moreover, how it is realistically enacted. Taking a look at the example discussed in lecture of “squeegees,” there is no harm in a citizen of the state using the demand for window washing to their advantage and creating a business out of it. It then follows that this conduct is lawful and should not be discouraged by the state, but this is seldom the case. Another more relatable example would be some getting pulled over for speeding five km over the limit and others being let off for speeding even 40 or 50 km over in some cases. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3] These cases portray the illusory set of objective standards within Canadian law in practicality as opposed to the theoretical laws themselves. Furthermore, it shows the integral role that interests of the public actors of the state play in the justice system, as well as how that in turn affects us as citizens of the state.
Thirdly, the scope of the state’s discretion has arguably major flaws in what it takes into account in its system. These major flaws include the likelihood of success for crown attorneys in court, [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] which is a largely personal judgement; something that I would argue has no place in the state’s discretion. Creating a system with as little friction (in the sense of least subjectivity) is in the state’s best interest, pertaining to their scope of discretion. On the topic of crown attorneys, other examples I would like to bring to light are the avoidance of time of a potential trial and the workload that inevitably stems as a result of the state pursuing such actions. Based off of what was discussed in lecture, if crown attorneys are able to avoid a trial, there is a good possibility of them doing so, [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] in the best interest of the attorneys’ time and the state’s money. A much more prevalent issue that is evidently seen in the Canadian criminal justice system is the workload associated with the state pursuing convictions. Crown attorneys take into account how many cases they are presently facing as well as how much work it would be to be dealing with another case. This plays directly into why convictions often take months or even years in some cases; the fact remains that crown attorneys are both understaffed & overworked. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] This is an extension of the harsh reality that it is our fault as a collective society of failing to hold police qualifications to a higher standard. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3] Building on Dr. Flynn’s analysis, it can also be extrapolated that the same goes for crown attorneys. It is not exclusively their fault for being understaffed & overworked; by the same token, we must engage with these facts as being the fault of us as a collective society in the first step of many to making amends to the criminal justice system. The same goes for the subjective scope of discretion concerning the police as well. Being the key players in the flow of evidence to the Crown, they collect & present evidence and determine how dangerous an offender is. Both of these duties justly fall under their discretion; with years of experience, police officials are arguably one of the most qualified and knowledgeable people to do so. However, police are also more likely to charge up, with the reasoning being that they aware of the fact that the Crown are more likely to plead down. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] This is not a reasonable thing for the police to be pursuing in my opinion; it does not pertain to their main duties as being the enforcers of legislative law. This resultingly imposes on the accused’s right to innocence until being proven guilty (if that is the case). How this is significant of the interests of public actors, in this case being the police, speaks volumes. The alleged actions of the accused stay constant, so for the actions of the state to switch in terms of dealing with the accused, depending on whether the police charge up or the Crown pleads down, is done for the purpose of financial gain. This is an evident example of state actors’ interests and how it subjectively plays into the criminal justice system.
Fourthly, I will be discussing private actors’ interests and the role that they play. Since the introduction of securitized policing after the disastrous events taking place in the United States in 2001, [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] this also brought about the incorporation of private concerns and interests into the policing model. Private actors and their interests are different than the state’s public actors with the main difference being that private corporations are not bound by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] Therefore, as citizens of the state we do not have any discretion over such corporations or organizations. Focusing on the media’s role, some use it to attempt to influence crown prosecutors for a shorter sentence. The inverse is also true, as some will call for prosecution to the full extent of the law depending on the accused and the offence, among other things. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] In the ideal circumstance, the media that influence these cases would not be leaning towards one political side; however, media and news sites are realistically often associated with one or two primary political parties. This brings to light the fact that the media, more often than not, has some sort of a superficial understanding when it comes to the offences laid upon an accused. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] This is not to say that their calling for shorter or longer sentences is unjustified; but rather, their reasoning behind why they choose to support (or not support) an accused is dependent on the people, who do not have any obligation to be informed on the full extent of the law. Even though this is the case, whether citizens through the collective media know the law and how it applies or not, their voices and interests have the potential to make an impact when it comes to an accused before the court of law. Having the capability to turn a case in favour or against an accused is an immense onus, and I would argue that if the media is not fully informed on the laws pertaining to the situation, their impact through their interests should not be taken into account in the arguably significant way that it does currently.
Lastly, observing the historic influences on crime, the three most prominent features of this category are religion, medicine, and the aftermath of 9/11 regarding criminalization. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] Activities that were deemed immoral according to religion, such as homosexuality, prostitution, etc., were held accountable to the full extent of the law. Even though some of these laws have been struck down, changed, or amended within legislation in the past decades, the onus should not have fallen within religious bounds to dictate things of lawful or unlawful nature in the first place. The interests of religious groups on the criminal justice system is evidently shown through these laws, and I would put forth that such behaviour falls under one’s own autonomy, and that the state has no right to prosecute with matters of one’s personal life (assuming consent is given from both parties in this context). Medicine and the interests of the scientific community have also had a large influence on the criminal justice system, criminalizing people who were deemed to be dangerous from a medical perspective. In particular, the mentally ill were institutionalized on the grounds that they were a threat to themselves and/or the community. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] People who also consumed drugs were similarly put in the same light of being threatening people, prone to violence & theft. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] The attitudes around both of these issues has changed and is reflected in legislation in the past decades as well as fairly recently, with more studies showing that the initial conclusions that were being reached are not the case. However, the scientific community’s interests have already made a significant impact on the lives of the people who are mentally ill or require drug use through medication. Another significant example is the criminalization of an entire part of the population, the Muslim community, post-9/11. Going off of what was discussed in lecture as well, considering a community or activity dangerous has the potential of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] In other words, this major influence on crime post-9/11 has the potential to bring about the very thing it was seeking to minimalize. The tenets of the Canadian criminal justice system should not rely on pre-conceived notions of what a sense of security is, as is demonstrable by these shortcomings regarding laws in the past.
Public & private actors’ interests play a crucial role in the criminal justice system. Whether the significance of their interests is arguably for the better or worse of the general public, recognizing the inherent partisanship in and of itself is one of the first of many important steps in developing & maintaining a Canadian criminal justice system that brings about equal footing for all under its jurisdiction. Police are the most easily associated state role when it comes to officials enforcing legislative laws, by virtue of the fact that they are the most visible in the eyes of the public. Below, I will be discussing the bias concerning public actors’ interests that has the potential to sprout from qualifications to be a police official, the ambiguity of direct versus indirect control, and the subjective scope of discretion of the police & crown attorneys. Regarding private actors’ interests, I will be considering the roles of the media & politics, and various groups’ influences on crime, as well as the respective interests of each group. In addition to each topic, I will be addressing their associative issues.
Upon examining the minimum qualifications of police officers in Canada, the amount of subjectivity embedded within is transparent. There are four main qualifications for any individuals in Canada who have the intention of becoming a police officer. They must be a Canadian citizen, have obtained a high school diploma, be of at least 18 years old, and be a “person of good character.” It must be noted that there may also be additional qualifications depending on the region, municipality, etc. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3] However, it is my strong opinion that these minimum standards are insufficient to hold a position as an official acting on behalf of the state. Phrased in the true sense of the power an officer holds and having the most discretion in terms of how the law is administered [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3], this illustrates the objective shortcomings that the minimum qualifications represent. Furthermore, at least the first three qualifications are quantifiable standards; the subjectivity of what qualifies as a “good character” should not be left up to hiring committees (or other ways of hiring officers) to decide. This leaves room for the overarching issue of subjectivity within policing; interests of several state officials dictate their actions, causing an unequal amount of liberty of the citizens in their jurisdiction. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that there is a correlation between the educational attainment of an officer and their likelihood to use violence (in North America), [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3] when the law according to the Constitution should theoretically be equal for everyone regardless.
Secondly, the vagueness that is apparent concerning direct versus indirect control manifests itself through the Constitution, and moreover, how it is realistically enacted. Taking a look at the example discussed in lecture of “squeegees,” there is no harm in a citizen of the state using the demand for window washing to their advantage and creating a business out of it. It then follows that this conduct is lawful and should not be discouraged by the state, but this is seldom the case. Another more relatable example would be some getting pulled over for speeding five km over the limit and others being let off for speeding even 40 or 50 km over in some cases. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3] These cases portray the illusory set of objective standards within Canadian law in practicality as opposed to the theoretical laws themselves. Furthermore, it shows the integral role that interests of the public actors of the state play in the justice system, as well as how that in turn affects us as citizens of the state.
Thirdly, the scope of the state’s discretion has arguably major flaws in what it takes into account in its system. These major flaws include the likelihood of success for crown attorneys in court, [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] which is a largely personal judgement; something that I would argue has no place in the state’s discretion. Creating a system with as little friction (in the sense of least subjectivity) is in the state’s best interest, pertaining to their scope of discretion. On the topic of crown attorneys, other examples I would like to bring to light are the avoidance of time of a potential trial and the workload that inevitably stems as a result of the state pursuing such actions. Based off of what was discussed in lecture, if crown attorneys are able to avoid a trial, there is a good possibility of them doing so, [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] in the best interest of the attorneys’ time and the state’s money. A much more prevalent issue that is evidently seen in the Canadian criminal justice system is the workload associated with the state pursuing convictions. Crown attorneys take into account how many cases they are presently facing as well as how much work it would be to be dealing with another case. This plays directly into why convictions often take months or even years in some cases; the fact remains that crown attorneys are both understaffed & overworked. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] This is an extension of the harsh reality that it is our fault as a collective society of failing to hold police qualifications to a higher standard. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 3] Building on Dr. Flynn’s analysis, it can also be extrapolated that the same goes for crown attorneys. It is not exclusively their fault for being understaffed & overworked; by the same token, we must engage with these facts as being the fault of us as a collective society in the first step of many to making amends to the criminal justice system. The same goes for the subjective scope of discretion concerning the police as well. Being the key players in the flow of evidence to the Crown, they collect & present evidence and determine how dangerous an offender is. Both of these duties justly fall under their discretion; with years of experience, police officials are arguably one of the most qualified and knowledgeable people to do so. However, police are also more likely to charge up, with the reasoning being that they aware of the fact that the Crown are more likely to plead down. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] This is not a reasonable thing for the police to be pursuing in my opinion; it does not pertain to their main duties as being the enforcers of legislative law. This resultingly imposes on the accused’s right to innocence until being proven guilty (if that is the case). How this is significant of the interests of public actors, in this case being the police, speaks volumes. The alleged actions of the accused stay constant, so for the actions of the state to switch in terms of dealing with the accused, depending on whether the police charge up or the Crown pleads down, is done for the purpose of financial gain. This is an evident example of state actors’ interests and how it subjectively plays into the criminal justice system.
Fourthly, I will be discussing private actors’ interests and the role that they play. Since the introduction of securitized policing after the disastrous events taking place in the United States in 2001, [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] this also brought about the incorporation of private concerns and interests into the policing model. Private actors and their interests are different than the state’s public actors with the main difference being that private corporations are not bound by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] Therefore, as citizens of the state we do not have any discretion over such corporations or organizations. Focusing on the media’s role, some use it to attempt to influence crown prosecutors for a shorter sentence. The inverse is also true, as some will call for prosecution to the full extent of the law depending on the accused and the offence, among other things. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] In the ideal circumstance, the media that influence these cases would not be leaning towards one political side; however, media and news sites are realistically often associated with one or two primary political parties. This brings to light the fact that the media, more often than not, has some sort of a superficial understanding when it comes to the offences laid upon an accused. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] This is not to say that their calling for shorter or longer sentences is unjustified; but rather, their reasoning behind why they choose to support (or not support) an accused is dependent on the people, who do not have any obligation to be informed on the full extent of the law. Even though this is the case, whether citizens through the collective media know the law and how it applies or not, their voices and interests have the potential to make an impact when it comes to an accused before the court of law. Having the capability to turn a case in favour or against an accused is an immense onus, and I would argue that if the media is not fully informed on the laws pertaining to the situation, their impact through their interests should not be taken into account in the arguably significant way that it does currently.
Lastly, observing the historic influences on crime, the three most prominent features of this category are religion, medicine, and the aftermath of 9/11 regarding criminalization. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] Activities that were deemed immoral according to religion, such as homosexuality, prostitution, etc., were held accountable to the full extent of the law. Even though some of these laws have been struck down, changed, or amended within legislation in the past decades, the onus should not have fallen within religious bounds to dictate things of lawful or unlawful nature in the first place. The interests of religious groups on the criminal justice system is evidently shown through these laws, and I would put forth that such behaviour falls under one’s own autonomy, and that the state has no right to prosecute with matters of one’s personal life (assuming consent is given from both parties in this context). Medicine and the interests of the scientific community have also had a large influence on the criminal justice system, criminalizing people who were deemed to be dangerous from a medical perspective. In particular, the mentally ill were institutionalized on the grounds that they were a threat to themselves and/or the community. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] People who also consumed drugs were similarly put in the same light of being threatening people, prone to violence & theft. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] The attitudes around both of these issues has changed and is reflected in legislation in the past decades as well as fairly recently, with more studies showing that the initial conclusions that were being reached are not the case. However, the scientific community’s interests have already made a significant impact on the lives of the people who are mentally ill or require drug use through medication. Another significant example is the criminalization of an entire part of the population, the Muslim community, post-9/11. Going off of what was discussed in lecture as well, considering a community or activity dangerous has the potential of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. [Dr. Flynn, lecture 4] In other words, this major influence on crime post-9/11 has the potential to bring about the very thing it was seeking to minimalize. The tenets of the Canadian criminal justice system should not rely on pre-conceived notions of what a sense of security is, as is demonstrable by these shortcomings regarding laws in the past.
Jeruson J., ARCHIVED. 