the daily snivel

In 2000, Constable Martin Cardinal of the Ottawa Police Service made an arrest. A woman was intoxicated and disruptive, and neighbours had complained to the police. In making the arrest, he handcuffed her and bent her over the front of the cruiser. During this apprehension, he grabbed her by the hair and repeatedly slammed her head against the hood of the cruiser. Unbeknownst to them, a neighbour videotaped the incident from his balcony. The officer claimed that when arresting Julie Cayer, she resisted and was rearing back against his hold, and he was simply pushing her back down. Her testimony in concert with the video indicated that she was deliberately beaten. Moreover, it was only because of the video tape (which went straight to the media since the cameraman testified he feared the police would have suppressed it had he given it to them first) that the incident ever came to public attention. Ms. Cayer testified she would not have come forward with a complaint otherwise, doubting anyone would have believed her. I personally doubt very much that, in the absence of the tape, her testimony about being assaulted would have been given any weight.

The officer was convicted of assault in 2003, but a retrial was ordered when his lawyer successfully appealed on the basis that too much weight had been given to the video evidence. Today, at the beginning of his second trial for assault, the officer changed his plea and entered a plea of guilty to assault.

I am going to be entering the criminal defence bar, and believe strongly in the rights of an accused and the presumption of innocence. In this case, however, I feel an equally strong sympathy for the victim. Throughout the media frenzy surrounding this incident and the first trial, Ms. Cayer's criminal record and past incidents of intoxication and unruliness were trotted about to both justify the officer and discredit her testimony. Any good lawyer is going to jump on a shady witness, of course, since this can be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal, but I confess I'm given pause to reflect when a victim of police misconduct is blamed for the incident, directly or indirectly. The police have a difficult job and deserve our respect, but the justice system is only worthy of that respect when we can be confident that no one is above the law -- and certainly not police officers who swear to enforce the law and protect society. Anything less only brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

What remains of course, is the sentence, and whether the Constable will be allowed to remain with the Ottawa Police Service at the conclusion of this matter. And, furthermore, whether the police are actually effective at policing themselves when the public makes complaints, or whether an independent civilian commission is required to investigate (or, for that matter, if the only way justice will be done is so long as everyone videotapes everyone else).

Okay, and since I just can't resist ending with a pompous and "Springer's Final Thought"-esque last word like "who will police the police?" I am instead swiping this quote from the Simpsons episide, Homer the Vigilante:

Homer: So I said to him, "Look, buddy, your car was upside down when we got here. And as for your Grandma, she shouldn't have mouthed off like that!"

Lisa: Dad, don't you see you're abusing your power like all vigilantes? I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police?

Homer: I dunno. Coast Guard?

Exact same thing.