Why I Want To Be A Cdp In Criminal Justice

My interests in government and law first arose in grade 10 of high school when I took both civics and law classes. Here is where I first learned about the importance of the constitution, charter and the government’s role in the criminal justice system. This is also where I first learned about government policy and the importance of accountability and oversight in the criminal justice system. I immediately became captivated by these classes and knew that I wanted to do something in this field. My experiences in the Criminal Justice and Public Policy (CJPP) undergraduate degree have led me to become passionate about several criminal justice issues such as corrections, penology, victimology and public policy. One specific area of interest that I have found incredibly captivating is the accountability and oversight of the courts, judiciary, police and the media when reporting on criminal justice issues.  Over the four years in my program, I have had the opportunity to learn about an immense number of criminal justice issues and methodologies that have created a desire to continue learning and practicing in the criminal justice field. As the CJPP program can be very demanding, it has allowed me to develop my problem-solving, communication, organizational, and time management skills.

This program has shown me that I am taking the right career path for me as I constantly have a desire to continue learning and developing my knowledge and ideologies in the field of criminology and criminal justice policy.

Like most, I had always thought that law was the only career choice and it was the perfect career for me. Although it is still an option, I have found myself interested in continuing research about criminal justice issues. I am also considering a career as a policy analyst due to my interests in the program. Overall, I feel that I have grown and expanded my beliefs and I look forward to continuing to do

so.
I am currently writing my fourth-year undergraduate thesis, supervised by professor Kate Puddister, exploring the oversight and accountability in problem-solving courts, specifically, drug treatment courts. My goal is to determine the overall role of a judge in drug treatment courts in relation to other actors and determine the level of oversight of problem-solving courts through the government, judiciary, and the media. My thesis has reaffirmed my desire to pursue a master’s degree in criminology and criminal justice policy at the University of Guelph as I have found it very rewarding and fascinating. My thesis has taught me the necessary research skills to prepare a literature review for a thesis as well as the skills necessary to conduct original research. I have filed Access to Information requests for both the federal and provincial governments as well as emailed several different courts requesting information. I have also learned to conduct a jurisdictional scan. Overall, writing my thesis has taught me how to compile research in order to compare it to my own hypothesis and write a long research.
In addition to my educational interests and past educational history, I partake in several extra circular activities that have allowed me to develop essential skills such as time management, written and oral skills, responsibility, organization, and leadership. To begin, I have been a part of the University of Guelph pre-law society for four years taking on different roles each year. I began as a general member for two years followed by the Director of Communications and currently hold the role of President. In addition to the pre-law society, I participate in undergraduate mooting competitions where I have developed strong oral advocacy skills as well as teamwork skills as you compete with a partner and must work together to be successful. I am also currently the Vice President of Academic Affairs for the political science society where I attend undergraduate committee meetings to discuss concerns for undergraduate political science students. Moreover, I am a volunteer at the student help and advocacy centre where I help students with any issues they may have. Furthermore, I am part of the English Language Program in which I receive an international student and I am there to ensure they have a friend and a comfortable transition to Canada. Moreover, I have been a mentor for first and second year students and have sat on the Criminal Justice and Public Policy society as a general member. I have also done some volunteering in Guelph including being an orientation volunteer during the first week of school and volunteering at Trick or Eat on Halloween. I also enjoy being active and have competed in intramural badminton. Finally, outside of school, I am a member of the Canadian Scottish Terrier Club where I have assisted to rewrite the constitution for the club as well as helped to rescue over 100 Scottish Terriers across Canada. I am also very involved in the dog show community where I help children develop the skills necessary to work with dogs and compete in the dog show ring.
The topic that I am proposing to study in my masters is the new role of the prosecution and police when determining the admissibility of confessions in Mr. Big operations after the R. v. Hart decision. It has been approximately four years since the Supreme court rendered their decision and created the new requirements for the admissibility of evidence. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the impact of this decision and how it has affected the use of Mr. Big operations both in the court as well as in police practices.
The Mr. Big technique is one of the most controversial tactics for interrogation in the Canadian criminal justice system (Dufraimont, 2015). The technique has produced evidence for over a hundred serious criminal cases where there was not enough evidence previously to convict. However, the Mr. Big strategy also raises some ethical and legal concerns in the court system (Dufraimont, 2015). The Mr. Big technique is used as an interrogation tactic where the RCMP create a criminal organization and encourage the suspect to join. The suspect is befriended by an undercover police officer and who then establishes a friendship with the officer (Smith et al., 2010). They are introduced to the criminal gang where the suspects are then provided with a series of tasks and rewards eventually making their way to the top of the organization. They are then told to gain status in the organization, the suspect must confess to a crime previously committed to the big boss of the organization (Smith et al., 2010).
The R. v. Hart decision was considered an unique decision in the legal system as it is not every day that a new rule of evidence is added to common law. It was based off the concerns of the reliability and potential coercion of these operations (Murphy and Anderson, 2015; Dufraimont, 2015). The court has previously supported Mr. Big operations and the evidence generated from these operations, however, the court has now raised concerns regarding false confessions, prejudicial evidence and police abuse (Dufraimont, 2015; Murphy and Anderson, 2015). As a result of R. v. Hart, the supreme court created a two-prong test that provides the prosecution with a more prominent role in the admissibility decision. The first prong of the test is a confession that is presumed inadmissible until the crown can establish that the “probative value of the confession outweighs its prejudicial effect” (R v. Hart, 2014. 84). The second prong is based on oversight of the police and the importance of the police being held accountable to the public, as any misconduct would warrant dismissal of the confession (R v. Hart, 2014. 117). In addition to the two-pronged test, the judge should consider 4 elements when evaluating the reliability of the confession including: the detail provided in the accused confessions, if new evidence was discovered due to the confession, whether the confession has new information regarding the offences and whether the small details of the crime were accurate (Dufraimont, 2015). It was determined that it is important to find evidence of reliability in the confession itself or surrounding the evidence if there are concerns raised by the circumstances of the confessions made (R. v Hart, 2014, 105).
According to the literature on Mr. Big operations, they are known to be time consuming but effective strategies to get a suspect to confess to a crime. It has been predicted the new approach will influence both investigators as well as the crown attorneys. To begin, the state will be more careful with the way operations are conducted due to the fact they must establish admissibility (Dufraimont, 2015). This will potentially prevent police from using force or coercive measures to get confessions. It has been suggested that police will be more careful when eliciting confessions with violence or large amounts of money as these tactics may be perceived as less reliable (Dufraimont, 2015). I have spoken to both professor Dennis Baker and Professor Kate Puddister about my topic as well as the master’s program at the University of Guelph.
For the purposes of my research, I plan to conduct a literature review gathering all the information that has previously been published regarding Mr. Big operations including, legislation, newspaper articles, court cases and political statements. I will also conduct an analysis of any research that has been released about the R v. Hart decision to determine if there has been a consensus or controversial opinions on the court case. To conduct primary qualitative research, I will interview both crown attorneys and police officers who have been involved in Mr. Big court cases both before and after the R v. Hart decision to compare the role of these actors and determine how their role has changed since the decision has been rendered. I recognize that it may be difficult to restrict myself to only attorneys and police officers who have participated in the cases. For this reason, I will also interview crown attorneys and police officers in the local area who are familiar with this case to collect more data. I will also look at Mr. Big court cases that have occurred after the R v. Hart decision to examine how the new test is implemented in cases and the extent to which Mr. Big confessions have been admissible in court. Some of the cases that rely on the two-prong test include: R. v. Balbar, R. v. Keene, R. v. Hales, R. v. Ledsema and R. v. Magoon. One of the main cases that I will be relying on is the R v. Mack decision which was released less than two months after the Hart decision and added crucial information regarding Mr. Big operations. It establishes that judges should caution the jury about the prejudice and unreliability that may result from Mr. Big confessions even if they are deemed admissible in court (Woods, 2015). The R v. Mack decision considers how the new framework established in R. v. Hart applies to other Mr. Big court cases. In this case, the defendant claimed that he confessed to murder due to a desire for money (R. v. Mack, 2014. 24). The matter considered at the Supreme Court was the admissibility of Mack’s confession to Mr. Big and if the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury (R v. Mack, 2014. 30). Overall, I hope to determine the success of the new test and potentially make recommendations for the future.