Establishing Police Accountability: How Do We Stop Charter Violations from Happening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to public criticism and protests to defund police, this article seeks to analyze a few of the problems facing Canadian policing today and tackle the question: how do we stop police Charter violations from happening in the first place? This article begins by laying out a number of the general concerns facing policing. First, it shows that the current remedies available under section 24 of the Charter are imperfect tools for tackling larger systemic policing misconduct. This problem is compounded by the fact that police forces lack formal systems to track or follow up on judicial rulings that find their officers have violated Canadians’ Charter rights. This inevitably leads one to wonder whether those officers – who have been found to have violated the Charter – are actually facing the consequences or re-training for their misconduct. In the face of these concerns, this article seeks to make two recommendations that could help improve police accountability and re-establish public trust. First, it suggests that the laws surrounding what the police are legally authorized to do need to be clarified and solidified. This requires the courts to stop expanding the scope of police powers on a case-by-case basis and leave the task to Parliament to work with police and the public to legislate police powers. Second, this article suggests that policing needs to evolve from an occupation into a formal profession by establishing a “College of Policing” in each province and territory. The College would be responsible for protecting the public from police malpractice and misconduct. The College would accomplish this goal by providing education and licensing of officers, ensuring police practices respect Canadian Charter rights, and responding to public complaints and Charter violations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".