One thing we know as criminal lawyers defending DUI cases is that emotions can run high particularly where there is a death or an injury. Even some of the comments we receive on our Facebook page cause us concern about the attitude of some people toward drinking drivers. Blame MADD or the police. The vilification of people charged with DUI has reached a dangerous level.
It is this type of emotion and public disgrace for these types of offences that can trigger vigilante justice. It is rare, often because most Canadians seem to have faith in the justice system, and that it will decide the appropriate sanction for anyone deserving of a penalty. One of the wonderful things about living in a free and democratic society is that if we do not agree with a law there is a system in place that allows us to try to change it.
Vigilante justice undermines confidence in the justice system. It puts the courts and judges and prosecutors and defense lawyers in a tough position.
Highly disturbing vigilante justice
So it is uncommon to see stories of Canadians seeking out their own form of justice. Sure, there are gang hits and retaliation, but by and large the population puts its faith in our courts.
It was surprising to us to read the news late last week about vigilante justice in an impaired driving case out of Edmonton. A man named Richard Suter, who is currently facing drunk driving charges related to the death of a toddler, was abducted, beaten, and his thumb was cut off. He has little memory of what happened.
This is not how we conduct ourselves in Canadian society. This is not how our justice system is administered. This is appalling. This is disgusting.
Retaliation and vigilante justice in Canadian courts
Vigilante justice undermines confidence in the justice system. It puts the courts and judges and prosecutors and defense lawyers in a tough position.
On the one hand, we are instantly sympathetic to the man who currently benefits from the presumption of innocence. This is the golden thread of our legal system. He has not been found guilty. He is accused, but may well be acquitted at trial.
How do you deal with this as a judge? Do you give the man a lighter sentence if he is convicted, since he’s already suffered irreparable harm that should never have happened? This only encourages vigilante justice for (other) wrong reasons. Do you ignore the wrongs this man has suffered when sentencing him, thereby encouraging further vigilante justice because offenders know their conduct goes unnoticed? Would a jury be less likely to convict a person knowing that they were the victim of vigilantism?
And how does the legal system deal with those who commit vigilante justice? If the person or persons responsible for this heinous act are ever found, should their punishment be greater because they undermined confidence in the justice system? A very harsh sentence should act as general deterrence. Or should their punishment be lighter because of society’s views of these offences and the tense emotions that cloud judgment? An overly harsh sentence may fail to account for human frailty in the sense that we all struggle to think clearly in emotional situations.
Confidence in the justice system
We struggle with how to answer these questions in the hypothetical. We cannot begin to understand how the judge who ultimately must grapple these issues will answer them for real. Whatever decision the judge makes, it will send a powerful message to the whole of Canadian society.
Our confidence is always in the justice system. As lawyers we believe in this system, and we defend it. Our role is to ensure that justice is fairly administered in accordance with the principles set out in the Charter of Rights, legislation and the common law. We condemn this conduct, not just in drinking and driving cases, but in any case. There is simply no place for vigilantism in our justice system.
I was reading what you said about vigilantism. You seem to think that it is wrong. The Canadian justice system is in place to protect the rights of criminals, not victims. Every day I see criminals killing people and receiving what amounts to be a slap on the wrist. There is no death penalty in Canada. Someone who commits first-degree murder will get life in prison but will be eligible for parole in twenty years. How is that life? I see men who rape women and get two or three years while the victim has to suffer for the rest of their life. I see children abused by parents and others and nothing happens to the abusers. If you want to see people stop taking the law into their own hands, then the justice system in Canada has to be overhauled. As long as lawyers are allowed to get criminals off, there are going to be people out there who will by-pass the legal system. If you drink or take drugs and get behind the wheel of a vehicle and then kill or injure someone, it is not an accident. It is premeditated. An accident is when a tree falls on your vehicle. I am sorry but until the justice system is changed to support victims, there will always be people out there that will take the law into their own hands. Is it right? That is a matter of perception. These are my views and could be wrong, but as a victim of child abuse and abuse at the hands of government agencies, I guess how I see things is different than the way you see things.
I’ve also been abused. I’m a suicide survivor and am chronically disabled. Vigilantism or vigilante justice is arbitration. Period. As such, it is ”less moral” than the Constitution. A society founded upon vigilantism is more penalizing than a society governed a set of moral principles that guarantee the most fundamental rights to life and safety of all citizens.
Life is grace. Who are you to declare that a sinner deserves punishment by death if God doesn’t take his life. Forgive and move on.