Why we need this law to ensure all the guarantees necessary for our defence.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11 (1) states:
"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11 (d) states:
"Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal."
All police officers in Canada (which would include those of CBSA and other similar special departments) should be legally obligated to offer a suspect to collect fingerprint, DNA, blood, photographic, electronic, or other evidence and then collect such proof for processing at the suspect's request or explain in writing to be presented in a public trial why he chose not to do so prior to detention in the case of a non-violent offence and immediately after detention in the case of a violent offence.
I understand that since the state is obligated to prove his guilt, its failing to collect such proof would only make it more difficult for it to do so, thus increasing the likelihood of his being legally found not guilty. That's fine from a strictly legal standpoint, but what about the court of public opinion or of the accused's family and friends which can impose a punishment of its own?
For this reason, regardless of there being no need to prove an accused's innocence for legal reasons as long as guilt can't be reasonably proved, the police should be obligated to give an accused the chance to eliminate suspicion in the court of people's minds too. A person should even be allowed to sue the police for failing to offer to collect such proof and then collecting it or explaining in writing why it did not do so. The police should consider not only the legal ramifications of any charge made against a person but also the social ramifications beyond the law.
In principle, the police is already required to collect evidence that could eliminate a person as a suspect, but its failing to do so imposes no consequence on the police beyond its inability to prove a person's guilt at a public trial. What I am proposing is that failing to offer to collect evidence that the suspect might want collected without a good reason to not do so would allow a detainee to then sue the police for not having given him a chance to prove his innocence.
To take an example:
A woman goes to visit a friend out of concern that her friend might suffer gambling addiction and worries that something is not right. The police arrive and accuse all of the women in the house of working in Canada as sex workers without proper authorization and detain them for deportation.
We can imagine that had the police offered to collect proof at the women's request, the innocent party would ask the police to collect DNA from any used condom, pillowcase, or bed sheet that might be found in any room, fingerprints from unopened condom wrappers or boxes and money in the house, a written statement from any accused client in the house, and her cell phone and e-mail record.
Because the police neither collected nor offered to collect evidence which could have conclusively proved her innocence beyond reasonable doubt, she is found not guilty at a hearing due to lack of evidence but is unable to prove her innocence. The legal consequence of being found not guilty due to lack of evidence is the same as that of being found innocent, but the social consequence might not be. Due to her inability to prove her innocence due to lack of evidence, her fiancé, aware of the charge made against her, is left wondering about her.
I'm sure we can imagine many other examples in which a charge of which we can not prove our innocence could have social consequences beyond the law. Imagine being unable to prove your innocence of a charge of sexual abuse of a child, of rape, or other such charges. I know that for me, to be found not guilty due to lack of evidence would certainly not be enough; and given how proving innocence is already more difficult to do than proving guilt in the best of circumstances, imagine if the police does not even collect the evidence that could help us to do so.
What are your thoughts on this? Should the police be legally obligated to offer to collect any specific evidence at a suspect's request and then collect it as requested or explain in writing why they did not collect it, with the suspect being able to sue the police for having failed to do so should he be found not guilty due to lack of evidence but unable to prove his innocence as a result of the police's failure to have offered to collect evidence at his request?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11 (1) states:
"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11 (d) states:
"Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal."
All police officers in Canada (which would include those of CBSA and other similar special departments) should be legally obligated to offer a suspect to collect fingerprint, DNA, blood, photographic, electronic, or other evidence and then collect such proof for processing at the suspect's request or explain in writing to be presented in a public trial why he chose not to do so prior to detention in the case of a non-violent offence and immediately after detention in the case of a violent offence.
I understand that since the state is obligated to prove his guilt, its failing to collect such proof would only make it more difficult for it to do so, thus increasing the likelihood of his being legally found not guilty. That's fine from a strictly legal standpoint, but what about the court of public opinion or of the accused's family and friends which can impose a punishment of its own?
For this reason, regardless of there being no need to prove an accused's innocence for legal reasons as long as guilt can't be reasonably proved, the police should be obligated to give an accused the chance to eliminate suspicion in the court of people's minds too. A person should even be allowed to sue the police for failing to offer to collect such proof and then collecting it or explaining in writing why it did not do so. The police should consider not only the legal ramifications of any charge made against a person but also the social ramifications beyond the law.
In principle, the police is already required to collect evidence that could eliminate a person as a suspect, but its failing to do so imposes no consequence on the police beyond its inability to prove a person's guilt at a public trial. What I am proposing is that failing to offer to collect evidence that the suspect might want collected without a good reason to not do so would allow a detainee to then sue the police for not having given him a chance to prove his innocence.
To take an example:
A woman goes to visit a friend out of concern that her friend might suffer gambling addiction and worries that something is not right. The police arrive and accuse all of the women in the house of working in Canada as sex workers without proper authorization and detain them for deportation.
We can imagine that had the police offered to collect proof at the women's request, the innocent party would ask the police to collect DNA from any used condom, pillowcase, or bed sheet that might be found in any room, fingerprints from unopened condom wrappers or boxes and money in the house, a written statement from any accused client in the house, and her cell phone and e-mail record.
Because the police neither collected nor offered to collect evidence which could have conclusively proved her innocence beyond reasonable doubt, she is found not guilty at a hearing due to lack of evidence but is unable to prove her innocence. The legal consequence of being found not guilty due to lack of evidence is the same as that of being found innocent, but the social consequence might not be. Due to her inability to prove her innocence due to lack of evidence, her fiancé, aware of the charge made against her, is left wondering about her.
I'm sure we can imagine many other examples in which a charge of which we can not prove our innocence could have social consequences beyond the law. Imagine being unable to prove your innocence of a charge of sexual abuse of a child, of rape, or other such charges. I know that for me, to be found not guilty due to lack of evidence would certainly not be enough; and given how proving innocence is already more difficult to do than proving guilt in the best of circumstances, imagine if the police does not even collect the evidence that could help us to do so.
What are your thoughts on this? Should the police be legally obligated to offer to collect any specific evidence at a suspect's request and then collect it as requested or explain in writing why they did not collect it, with the suspect being able to sue the police for having failed to do so should he be found not guilty due to lack of evidence but unable to prove his innocence as a result of the police's failure to have offered to collect evidence at his request?
