The legal system is considered a place where justice is served and criminals are sent to prison. However, this is not always the case, as seen with Robert Baltovich, who suffered a serious miscarriage of justice. Baltovich was accused and unfairly convicted for a murder that he did not commit. The investigation into the murder of Elizabeth Bain was unfairly skewed to gain a conviction against Baltovich. The bias against Baltovich, in the murder investigation, and his subsequent trial was a disservice to him and to Canadian society. Moreover, the investigation into Elizabeth Bain’s murder was absent of the integrity needed to serve justice. On June 19, 1990, Elizabeth Bain went missing and was presumed to be murdered, in Scarborough, Ontario. …show more content…
One of these factors was public pressure. High media coverage led to Baltovich becoming the most popular, most likely suspect, and the pressure to convict mounted. The high media coverage led him to becoming an unpopular defendant as the media attention was a large reason why Baltovich was portrayed as a jealous lover. “Noble Cause” corruption played a role in this case as well. The judge had made a charge to the jury that was in favour of the Crown and did not remain objective in trial proceedings. (Harland-Logan). Police were also out to get him and did not disclose evidence in order to earn a conviction. This included case and investigation notes, and forensics evidence. Eye-witness misidentification was one of the biggest reasons for Baltovich’s conviction. Prez had a “fuzzy recollection” of seeing Baltovich and had also been swayed by an article she had read about the case, also by family members of the victim. (Harland- Logan) Dibben also admitted that he was not really paying attention, he did not have a good view of the driver, and his description did not match Robert Baltovich. (Harland-Logan) Another factor in this wrongful conviction was unreliable evidence. Hypnosis was used on many of the witnesses. Dibben and Prez both had better recollections of what they saw, but their initial testimonies were incorrect and thus improving their memories of something that never happened only made this evidence more unreliable. Hypnosis was later ruled to be inadmissible in court and not a valid form of evidence. Over time the witnesses’ recollections faded anyways. A contributing factor to this case was also, inadequate disclosure by the prosecution. The Prosecution failed to disclose important documents such as police interviews with forensics experts on the blood found in Elizabeth’s car. (Oved). Although it was hers, police did not disclose the fact that the blood in the car was too fresh to
Michael Moscherosch was born on November 23rd, 1962, in Stuttgart Germany. He and his younger brother were born into a working class family, with his mother working as a full-time accountant and his father working as a car mechanic. The Moscherosch family stayed in Stuttgart for since its inception, the families ancestral roots stem as far back as the 1600s and stayed within Stuttgart and the villages surrounding the area. Michael as a child was described to be scholastic and performed well in his school. In Germany, instead of there being an elementary, middle, and high school, there is a primary school and then secondary schools prioritizing certain fields; some of these fields include engineering, trade schools, and “gymnasiums” which closely represent the structure of our American high schools. Upon completing his secondary school education, Michael began studying Chemistry at the University of Stuttgart, working at night during the week to fund his education.
However, police should have acknowledged that individuals can make mistakenly identify the wrong person, especially an individual who had just tragically witnessed his wife’s death, and that the positive identification can not be the only evidence used to confirm the identity of a suspect. In addition, a search was never conducted on Butler’s home to see if any evidence was there. Unless my memory fails me, police officers also did not perform a gun residue test on Butler to see if he had recently fired a gun. Regardless, police did not find any physical evidence, such as blood, on Butler’s clothes or body. In fact, there was no forensic investigation of evidence conducted at all. Mary Ann Stephen’s purse was later discovered in a trash can, but it wasn’t until after the acquittal of Brenton Butler that a fingerprint belonging to the real killer was found on her purse. Overall, the ethical issues involved in the Brenton Butler case are astounding. The best solution to resolve those issues is to thoroughly perform job duties with integrity. Investigators had to know that more evidence than just a positive identification made by one, rightly upset individual was not substantial enough to confirm the identity of the
One of the few purposes of the Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to ensure that the right for a fair trial for every person criminally tried on Canadian soil and the right for them to be tried within a reasonable time. This ensures that when the trial is commenced in court while the evidence is fresh and available during the trial. However, trials in the Canadian justice system can be delayed due to many factors in which the criticism could be on either the Crown or the accused. This essay will examine the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Morin. In this case, the accused was charged for impaired driving and the trial date set 399 days after the judge scheduled the trial. In total this was 444-days after the accused was charged with the impaired driving offence. The final verdict of this case set a precedent in the justice system due to the decision by the Ontario Court of appeal that decided that the trial delay was reasonable due to lack of prejudice to the accused during the delay.
Linking this back to my previous statement, the accused needed to be trialed. The first problem that arises is the fact that the judges can rule how they please towards the accused. We all have times when we feel better than others and this can affect our reasoning as well as our attitude towards certain aspects of life. This statement also applies to the judges when they are in court. Naturally they are supposed to determine whether the accused is guilty of the crime that has happened and come up with a reasonable and suitable punishment but some judges let their personal affairs get in the way. While this might sound strictly unjust to the accused, the judge displays signs of inequality when he or she lets signs of weakness from the victim affect their final verdict. The judge is there to assign a verdict as well as give out the proper punishment that is associated with the crime that was committed. If the judge changes their decision based on their point of view as well as how they feel towards the accused this means that the judge is bias. This creates an inequality between the accused members because if different people have been accused of the same crime and get the same judge they might get different verdicts depending on what the judge thinks and feels about them. Beccaria states that ‘‘we see the same court
The court must find more evidence and not to depend on eyewitness testimony and to look for the best people as possible. Besides, there more evidence that DNA testing. Eyewitness must be proven in order to arrest the right suspect and question the suspect to get more evidence in steady of keeping in prison for false witness. The police for tracking everywhere the suspect went and people the suspect contact with that time. It will solve the problem by asking the eyewitness question and the suspect questions to see if both things they said
On June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper was raped and murder, her remains found two days later, near Clinton, Ontario. 8 In September 1959, Steven Truscott was convicted for all crimes committed against Harper. Truscott was only 14 at the time and was initially supposed to be a death row inmate, with the sentence later reduced to life in prison. This is important, because 48 years later in 2007, he was exonerated of all charges. This case shed light on the problems of the criminal justice system, as the conviction of Steven Truscott was a miscarriage of justice brought upon by police tunnel vision and suppression of evidence.
Hulbert, M. A. (2011). Pursuing justice: An introduction to justice studies. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
What do we know about the criminal justice system? The criminal justice system is a series of organizations that are involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and jailing those involved in crimes; along with the system, regular citizens are summoned for jury duty in order to contemplate whether the defendant is guilty or not. It appears to be a rather secure, fair, and trustworthy system; one that should work relatively well, right? Unfortunately, the criminal justice system is an ultra-costly and ultra-punitive; the system is neither protecting victims nor rehabilitating lawbreakers. For example, trial by jury; there is usually a small amount of people in the jury who actually considered that another being’s life is on the line. In trial by jury, the court is literally trusting the life of another being in the hands of twelve strangers who need to argue with each other like kids until they conclude a verdict. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a group of men are summoned for jury duty and almost all of the men would rather conclude a verdict immediately and leave; except for one, Juror #8. He managed to detain the group by requesting for a discussion of the murder trial before voting “guilty” or “not guilty.” Not once did Juror #8 allow the others to influence him unless they had a valid explanation.
That night, many witnesses reported having seen a man changing the tire of his van and waving any possible help away angrily while others reported seeing a woman wandering around the side of the dangerous highway. More witnesses reported that Kenneth and his wife were having many violent disputes at their home that usually resulted in Kenneth pursuing an angry Yvonne around the block. The most compelling evidence against Mathison, however, is purely scientific. Detective Paul Ferreira first noticed that the extensive blood stains inside the Mathison van. After hearing Mathison’s original account, he summoned the assistance of famed forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee to analyze what he thought was inconsistent evidence. Blood stains on the paneling and the spare tire in the cargo area reveal low-velocity blood stains meaning that the blood probably dripped from Yvonne’s head onto the floor. The stains found on the roof and steering wheel were contact transfer patterns probably caused by Mathison’s bloody hands. Blood stains on the driver’s side of the van were contact-dripping patterns which indicate that Mathison touched the inside of the van multiple times before and after moving his wife’s body. The final groups of blood stains on the instrument panel of the van were medium-velocity stains which show investigators that Mathison probably struck his wife at least once in the front seat causing the blood to fly from her open head wound. The enormous amounts of blood inside the van lead prosecutor Kurt Spohn to investigate the Mathison case as a murder instead of a misdemeanor traffic violation.
In conclusion, Ralph Tortorici’s trial was unfair. Through his history of anger and solitary that later lead to a severe illness, the lack of proper trial due to the reason that the prosecution should not have gone forward after there was clear evidence of Ralph’s unstable mental health and the lack of support for his paranoia schizophrenia are all factors that demonstrate why Ralph was given an unjust trial.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
Wrongful convictions in Canada is a very sensitive and disturbing topic that has created concerns as to why individuals are being wrongfully convicted. As people in Canada read about cases involving wrongful conviction, such as Guy Paul Morin, Rubin Carter and David Millguard, it often undermines their faith in the criminal justice system. Tunnel vision, the use of questionable DNA evidence, and eyewitness misidentification are the three main causes of wrongful convictions in Canada. Recognizing and addressing these concerns has led to a reduction in cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.
Evidently, Truscott received financial compensation for the ordeal and the suffering it brought to his life by being awarded $6.5 million from the Government. This led to the conclusion that in this case (like many others) the police were solely and unjustly targeting one person. I learned a great deal from this case about Canada’s previous laws. Prior to the case, I had known about the death penalty and that it was legal in Canada, but I did not know when it could be implemented.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...