RCMP accused of misconduct!!

Man held in Bulgaria accuses RCMP of misconduct

Kapoustin was sentenced in 1996 to 17 years for embezzlement. His family says the charges were trumped up and came because of a smear campaign that the RCMP had a hand in.
In a website launched to promote his case, Kapoustin's family says the trial process that led to the now 55-year-old's conviction was grossly unfair and contrary to international and EU norms. They also allege he was tortured and kept in solitary confinement ahead of his trial.
They say his sentence was harsh and disproportionate to the crime, and contrary to EU norms. And they say he was denied the right under the treaty between Canada and Bulgaria to be transferred to the Canadian prison system.
....part of the reason that Kapoustin was arrested and convicted was because of false information that the RCMP provided to Bulgarian authorities.

Kapoustin's lawyer is calling on the RCMP to correct the record and work with the federal government to bring him home immediately.

Not again, please!! .... It sounds too familiar to the Arar case!
Is our top police that sloppy? I hope the case gets reviewed and if justified corrected... and compensation paid!!!
Scott Free
RCMP and misconduct!?! Say it ain't so!

Our system is absolutely rife with misconduct and it begins at the level of investigation. Police tend to make a judgment call about who committed a crime then proceed to collect enough evidence to convict. This is a very different process than an independent investigation of evidence leading to an arrest, which is the way real police work is meant to be conducted and also the way police work is generally presented falsely to the public. The way it is actually conducted is that police make a determination of who committed said crime then proceed to prove they did. It is an extremely poor system of inquiry because in order to make a case many pieces of evidence which might exonerate an accused are overlooked or deliberately left out. Also the temptation to alter evidence is too great if the investigator is convinced the accused is guilty - what harm could there be in fabricating evidence or making a tiny alteration if it puts a bad guy behind bars? Actually - plenty is wrong with it since there should always be the distinct possibility that the accused is really innocent; a notion removed if determination comes before evidence. It boils down to priorities: if the goal is to convict real criminals then the current system is very flawed indeed but if the goal is to get to a donut shop as quickly as possible then the system works perfectly.
You've got to admit...the Mounties have the best police uniforms.
Hi, Scott;

You explained the system very well, and this young Canadian boy came to mind.... what was his name again?? Remember him? Southern Ontario some decades ago already. He is now free but I don't think they ever apologized or compensated him. I read the book about his story, and the police proceeded exactly as you described... they figured it was him and made things fit, never investigating other witnesses or evidence. Truscott? Was that his name?

It is disturbing to think how easily you can end up in jail for doing nothing.

There is another guy as well.. his mother devoted herself to gather evidence and witnesses to prove it hadn't been her son who murdered a waitress at the side of a road!!

I think it is the same faulty system in the States, where so many sit on death row innocent. The hard thing is, once found guilty by the system, it is up to you to prove you didn't do it, which is very hard without freedom of movement and no money either.
Scott Free
Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loon View Post

The hard thing is, once found guilty by the system, it is up to you to prove you didn't do it, which is very hard without freedom of movement and no money either.

The problem is worse too in that if accused of a crime you had better not proceed as though your guilty before proven innocent; despite that in all probability that is the reality your facing. Such conduct is thought to be indicative of guilt (for example: investigators are told that if someone asks for a lawyer they are probably guilty), so really, your damned if you do and your damned if you don't.
Hi, Scott;
you have a good point there, but too often it works the other way... the real criminals get off the hook far too easily, IF their lawyer knows how to work the system. I'm thinking of the Homolka/Bernado case.
If interested, read this article about a murder case which really points out the flaws in our legal system.

Our flawed system is exposed

"Our system needs a major overhaul," Poilievre added. "Our judicial system is stacked in favour of the criminal against the victim." Whether you are a fan of Poilievre's or you politically loathe him, you can't disagree with what he is saying. Victims and their families are being hung out to dry by our system, and Myers and Pickton are exhibits 1A and 1A-plus.


Similar Threads