Indeed, one of the things that we see repeatedly in trying to
unravel wrongful convictions is Crown attorneys who attempt to
establish their credibility in the eyes of jurors by claiming
that kind of neutral, detached role and then behaving in the
most nakedly adversarial manner.
So, no, a court decision
should be respected as the conclusion of a piece of litigation
but it should not be defended at all costs.
Those costs can be dreadfully high and it is an illusion to
imagine that insisting a verdict was right protects the
reputation or integrity of the justice system.
Perhaps in the time of Steven Truscott's trial — the 1950s —
the public could be persuaded of the infallibility of the
justice system.
Those days are gone and the mark of a mature, credible
justice system today, in my view, is its ability to confront the
reality of error honestly and set it right.
That is both what the public expects and what justice
demands.
And, yes, we are getting better at identifying mistakes. It's
always a struggle but we have learned a lot in perhaps the last
fifteen years.
What I think must be avoided is the conceit that what
happened to Steven Truscott could not happen now because we are
more sophisticated and have more safeguards in place.
That is a dangerous attitude and a recipe for wrongful
convictions in a system dependent on human judgment.
Jasmine Francis, Halifax: I've been following this
case for decades and I'm really pleased that Mr. Truscott has
been acquitted.
I have two questions: What, in your opinion, is the reason
that it struck such a powerful chord with the Canadian public?
And, what are the chances of the real killer being caught?
Philip Campbell: Jasmine, in the early years, the case
was so prominent because of the youthful victim and the youthful
accused, sentenced to hang. That was a pretty unusual set of
circumstances.
I think it has lingered in the public consciousness because
of one generation talking to the next. I exchanged e-mails this
morning with an uncle who read about the case in the 1960s, when
I was just a boy, and told me about it. I never dreamed I'd be
Steve's lawyer at the end of the story 40 years later. There are
a lot of Canadians like me, I believe.
And I also think there is something special about Steve
Truscott, fortified by his wife Marlene, that strikes a chord
with the public. His decency, and his innocence along with it,
can be sensed by people who see him.
I personally think that finding Lynne Harper's killer is
impossible today, if he is alive.
In the absence of DNA even with good suspects located (and
there are a number who were never investigated at the time)
there would be no practical means of proving a case.
That is one of the tragedies of this case and similar ones.
Steve McCullough, Orangeville, Ont.: The problem with
the Truscott case — as with many others — is that true justice
never seems to be carried out. Either public outrage or
political pressure never lets proper criminal investigations
take their proper course.
The Truscott case should prove once and for all that the time
needed to complete a proper criminal investigation should take
top priority and that any questionable situations or matters
should be fully investigated. Only then will true justice be
served.
Philip Campbell: I see a lot of excellent police work
which leads to unassailable prosecutions that nail the right
guy.
Most homicide detectives know that public or political
pressure comes with the job and while they don't welcome it,
they appreciate that they have to resist it.
So I am not keen to generalize about widespread failures
based on these factors. But they certainly do influence some
cases and when it happens the consequences can ripple though
many lives over many decades.
You are absolutely right that when it happens, it's a formula
for error.
And I can't think about the events of June 9-12, 1959, when a
well-liked 14-year-old boy got pegged as a sex killer, in the
absence of a shred of physical evidence, as one of the most
vivid examples of the phenomenon.
Good investigation takes time.
Tim Bee: I believe the justice system will improve
only when prosecutors and police are held accountable for the
violations of the law that they are involved in regarding
withholding evidence, etc. Maybe jail time for them is necessary
when they are caught doing these types of things.
Philip Campbell: Tim, the Association in Defence of
the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC) regards accountability as one of
the keys to preventing future wrongful convictions.
Sometimes the error — even if it has terrible results — is a
result of ordinary human fallibility and I can sympathize. I
didn't start doing this kind of work to become a prosecutor of
prosecutors.
But if the cause of an error rests in official incompetence,
it should be exposed and the person held accountable.
We do that with other public office-holders and we ought not
to avoid it with those entrusted with the most powerful tools of
state authority — arrest and prosecution.
Jail? Not often, but I have seen a case or two where the term
"obstruction of justice" pretty much describes what has occurred
and I think it would be healthy if officers and prosecutors
recognized that jail was among the sanctions available for
suppressing evidence or interfering with witnesses.
Grumpy Old Man, Winnipeg: It seems to me that police,
followed by the Crown, get tunnel-vision in some cases. They
narrow their focus on someone who "seems right" to the exclusion
of all others, then make the facts fit that assumption.
Then, it becomes a matter of the Crown — often with
astounding arrogance — doing everything in its power to prevent
inquiries. Lastly, even more incredible, the Crown refuse to
apologize for its mistakes.
Philip Campbell: Grumpy, tunnel vision is a huge part
of the whole picture of wrongful convictions. It not only
explains how they occur but it produces an immoveable certainty
which makes it harder to correct them.
Evidence is no better than the person evaluating it. Again
and again, we see the details of the prosecution changed and
adjusted as we present new evidence because the reasoning begins
from the starting point that the offender has been identified.
So new data has to be made compatible with that conclusion.
It can become absurd — remember the Crowns who thought that
Guy Paul Morin, if he was not the donor of the DNA on Christine
Jessop's remains, then he must have had an accomplice. Such
bizarrely distorted thinking.
I must say that an apology seems the least a civilized
society should be able to manage after locking up an innocent
citizen. What could be more basic? But they are hard to come by.
And they are best done in person.
