Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
Carleton (20,000)
LAWS (2,000)
LAWS 2301 (100)
Lecture

Crim Class 9.doc


Department
Law
Course Code
LAWS 2301
Professor
Ronald Saunders

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
Criminal Justice System November 11, 2011
Class 9
Police:
Accountability
Prosecutors:
Powers and duties; realties of work
Accountability mechanisms; Romeo
Pick up midterm Loeb 299
Jane Doe Case (text pg 198)
Police negligence- suing police
Jane Doe- sued police; she was a victim of sexual assault. There was a serial rapist
and police didn’t warn public; she fit profile
Doe had been attacked by rapist and sued police: argued knew identifiable class of
victims and should have warned them
Damages on 2 grounds: negligence for not warning/protecting, and s.7/s.15 rights
violated
Police argued didn’t want to warn as offender would relocate and continue to
offend
Court: police didn’t warn as thought women would panic and harm investigation
(other investigators in similar case had warned)
Duty was there to warn, and so negligent. Also duty to prevent crime on part of
police
CCRF rights also violated: deprived of right to security against attack and to
equality re stereotypical views of women/rape myths
Police know best how to run a crime investigation, courts do not. Police should be
able to run investigation their way
Took her 12 years to win the right to sue- every action was fought by police
Community Policing Types
Meant to make people more accountable
Different way of policing
Many different types:
Community-based policing
Least changes on part of police
Public as volunteers
Little change re mandate/work
Problem-oriented policing
Public involved in problem solving
Shift to proactive responses
More organization that community-based
More trying to find problem
Community policing
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Partnership with community
Wider social responses etc
Wider response and input from community
Role of Citizen
Citizen as complainant
Citizen as advisor/participant
Citizen as partner
Review Boards – History
Backdrop of professional model of policing, and therefore:
Autonomous agencies = professions’ model of self-policing (control own
affairs)
Responsibility to the law
Accountability = focus on individual, not on agency
Review boards- short history in North America, since 1960s
Not a great deal of public interest
Usually put in wider context of crime control and needs of police
Taser incident in Vancouver
Highlighted issue of review
Many cases involving police incidents and wrongful convictions that caused review
into conduct of police
Police say- job is hard; split second decisions etc. Public still need accountability
from police
Civilian oversight- there to ensure consistent accountability to public
Calls for review usually arose in context of confrontations with minority groups
Main debates around bringing individual officer(s) to account/justice
Became debates around wresting some control of legalistic accountability
mechanisms from police chief and vesting to some degree n community
Framed in negative terms: focus on misconduct of individual and raised criminal
justice model: justification of process of civilian complaints
Diverted attention from wider notions of accountability
1991-1997 Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner: power to:
Monitor the handling of complaints by the police
Perform initial investigation in unusual circumstances
Models of oversight- police make decisions; oversee- make sure all rights were
protected etc
When required a hearing, refer cases to a civilian adjudicative tribunals with direct
disciplinary power
Perform a preventive function, making recommendations to the chief of police, the
board of commissioners of police, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor-General,
with respect to policing issues
Possibility of interference was very strong
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version