Monday, November 15, 2010

What is really the point of the SIU?

The Toronto Star recently published an article entitled “Are these cops above the law?”

This article looked at the manner with which the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has dealt with investigating and prosecuting police officers that have caused serious harm or death to members of the public. In one instance, a 59-year old intellectually challenged man holding a pocketknife was shot and killed by a fully armed police officer wearing a bulletproof vest. In another, two teenagers suffered extensive injuries after being run over by a police cruiser, while they were sitting in the grass talking. Finally, a grandmother, out for a morning stroll, was killed when a police officer made an illegal right turn and ran her down.

Officers are subject to the SIU, which is meant to carry out investigations of serious cases involving harm done by officers. In its 20 year existence, the SIU has undertaken more than 3,400 investigations on officers and of those investigations, only 95 have led to criminal charges. From these charges there have been 16 convictions, only 3 resulting in jail time. The purpose of the SIU, as stated on their website, is, “to maintain confidence in Ontario's police services by assuring the public that police actions resulting in serious injury or death are subjected to rigorous, independent investigations”.

This objective does not appear to be succeeding. For example, in the cases mentioned above - the intellectually challenged man that was killed, the teenagers that were run over, and the grandmother that was run down – the officers were completely cleared and received no criminal sanctions whatsoever. For the death of the grandmother specifically, the only sanction the officer did receive was the loss of one week’s worth of salary.

So why aren’t these officers being held accountable criminally for their crimes? The SIU is run primarily by fellow police officers. 47 of the 54 investigators on the SIU are former police officers. There is inherent bias and lack of transparency in the process, which sees police officers as responsible for holding other officers accountable. Furthermore, 7 million tax dollars each year are put into running the SIU. This means that in 20 years, a total of 140 million dollars has gotten us 16 convictions. The question then is, what is really the point of the SIU? Is it honestly trying to hold officers accountable, or are the investigations simply done to give the impression that something is being done?

The Star article quoted Durham Inspector Bruce Townley who emphasized that while the public may see some police officers as "cowboys", they are only human – like anyone else. Like everyone else, these officers need to be held criminally responsible for the serious harms and deaths they cause.

Do you think police officers that cause harm when on-duty should be subject to the same punishments as an average citizen causing the same level of harm would be?

Should we be using the SIU to investigate these officers or should we attempt other means? Do you think the SIU’s stated goals are actually the goals it wants to fulfill?

Posted by Melissa Crowley (Windsor Law I)

2 comments:

  1. "Do you think police officers that cause harm when on-duty should be subject to the same punishments as an average citizen causing the same level of harm would be?"

    Police Officers should be subject to the same (or enhanced) sentencing that the average citizen would be sentenced to for a comparable offence.

    My reasons for this are largely due to the power imbalance between Officers and average citizens. Officers are humans and just like the rest of us, they make mistakes. However, they are not just humans. They are humans with a lot of power that appears to be unregulated. I fail to understand how they can get away with assault, sexual assault, manslaughter, and murder. How they obtain a one-week probation without pay for manslaughter, or six-month sentences for murder or attempted murder.

    I am hardly well versed in this area but I know enough to say that it is not in an officers jurisdiction to decide who should be sentenced to assault, sexual assault, or any other form of brutality that has left the hands of some Officers. Last time I checked, those weren’t sentences to begin with! Why these Officers aren’t being sentenced for these crimes perplexes me. I am left confused and very disturbed that Officers are getting away with crimes that no other citizen would get away with. Nor should they.

    In defence of the officers, I do understand that their line of work requires them to make decisions in a way we cannot comprehend. They are often faced with circumstances that would scare any one of us if we were playing a simple video game. That being said, Officers are trained and equipped personnel who are provided with the power to protect society to the best of their ability. Due to this extensive training, protective measures (backup, bullet proof vests, etc.), and responsibility to society, the above reasons are no excuses for the brutality that I have been hearing about in the last few months.

    In summary, I strongly feel that because Officers are in a position of power, their minimum sentence should be the same as what the average citizen faces.

    Please note that I state these arguments with the clear regard for the Officers who have done their best to serve society in a respectable manner. Of course they should not be found guilty of a death in the event that they performed their duties to the best of their abilities. Due to their line of work, they are more likely to be in a position to assault or murder someone. That is an undisputed fact. However, they are also the best-trained individuals to prevent the manifestation of those occurrences. So it is my view that the Officers who so clearly step out of the boundaries of their roles are those who should be tried like every other one of us, if not more strictly, simply because they abused the powers that were provided to them with the faith and confidence that they would exert those powers respectfully, appropriately, and purposefully.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Furthermore, 7 million tax dollars each year are put into running the SIU. This means that in 20 years, a total of 140 million dollars has gotten us 16 convictions. The question then is, what is really the point of the SIU? Is it honestly trying to hold officers accountable, or are the investigations simply done to give the impression that something is being done?"

    Is the purpose of the SIU to charge officers? I should hope not. As a former police officer, and current law student, I would be dismayed if that was the reason for setting up the SIU. Having former co-workers deal with the SIU, I can tell you it is not as buddy buddy as the Toronto "Red" Star would like its readers to believe.

    The purpose/mandate of the Toronto Star should and has always been to investigate incidents of serious bodily harm or death, and sexual assault allegations of police officers. It is to act as a neutral government actor, but what they should not be blamed for is not charging police officers.

    Just think of the ramifications that would result if the police were judged on arrest statistics... hmmm sounds eerily like the US.

    I read all of the articles, and the one case that struck me the most is the case where the young girl was run over by the police car. What the Star fails to mention is that girl was BREAKING THE LAW when she was run over. The City/Town of Ajax like most cities/towns in Ontario have bylaws that explicitly state that you cannot be in a park after 11:00pm. She definitely was. As such, how should a police officer know that there would be somebody laying in the grass at that time of night. I've driven a police car through a park at night, its a very common tactic to flush out those committing crimes by the cover of darkness.

    I think in the end, my point was made earlier. The SIU should NEVER be judged on what it produces in terms of charges or arrests.

    ReplyDelete