Culpability / Moral Accountability

	Culpability / Moral Accountability


	This has its focus in the choices of the individual. Yes, ignorance is a mitigating factor, but ignorance does not equal innocence. Likewise, sincerely good intentions (such as the so-called 'war on terrorism') do not justify injustice such as 'CIA rendition'. At very best an upright intention is nothing more than a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing the guilty. It never equals innocence!

	In our world two factors have been the most used to escape moral responsibility for an action or lack of action which has caused damage to others. These are – 1. the so-called chain of command; and, 2. the adequacy or otherwise of legislation or judicial precedent:

•	Firstly – too often an individual has failed to recognise personal responsibility because the relevant decision is actually made by more senior positions/officers in the chain of command/authority. This has been true of some of the worst atrocities in human history.

•	Secondly – law duly promulgated does neither create nor change morality. This is true even of God's Ten Commandments. They are not an absolute in themselves. How much more then is it true of any lesser law. At most law increases awareness of duty to 'love your neighbour as yourself' in practical terms. Law is a framework to assist a moral society to function and develop, as much as a builder uses scaffolding to assist in the construction of a building. But, legality in itself does not confer moral authority. It is simply a tool to assist in the protection and betterment of human welfare.

	Neither of the above factors can cause moral incapacity in those who are in any way part of a denial of justice, or a perpetration of crime in human society at any level whatsoever. Individual responsibility does not stop at the limit of formal legality, or of structural accountability. Obedience to laws or regulations is never blind.

	Hence, legal incapacity may hinder the practice of moral responsibility to secure the welfare of persons directly or indirectly, but it does not absolve it!

	God judges our society in terms of His moral values, which we were designed to reflect, as part of the reason for our existence. Anything that undermines this objective has the sentence of death upon it, and its destruction is as inevitable as the arrival of the future.

EVERY PERSON WILL GIVE ACCOUNT FOR ALL THINGS — BEFORE THE GREAT JUDGE OF ALL THINGS

"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice [religious practice]." (Proverbs 21:3 ESV)

Sadly, our modern/socialist Human Rights ideology in Canada appears to have changed the symbolic Balance in the hand of Justice
from meaning a balance between crime and its punishment – to a balance between "the rights of victims and offenders"
a subtle shift which appears in judicial practice to obscure the justice of full redress owed to every victim of a crime.
(the quote within inverted commas is from the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, 2003).

Tragic Example of Staff incompetence and Law-enforcement violence: Oct.14, 2007

Crown Prosecutors decided December 12, 2008, not to prosecute anyone for his death, saying:
"At this juncture, the evidence of independent witnesses, police officers and digital video footage were materially consistent in relation to the events which followed."

Sworn testimony before the Braidwood Enquiry has shown this Crown Prosecution statement to be false.

It is probable therefore that Crown Prosecution did not look directly at the evidence but simply accepted the RCMP investigators report on the RCMP action, who say their officers acted according to their training.

Apart from the irresponsibility of that lack of independence by Crown Prosecution (Case 7,340), can training really increase or reduce moral accountability?
Surely, conformity to training standards is purely a matter of internal discipline, and not related to public jurisprudence!

So 'training' exonerates? – Is this not the old 'chain-of-command' exoneration of accountability in a new form?
Training may be a matter for internal discipline or not, but it has certainly nothing to do with justice for victims.

"By conducting its own investigation into the death of Robert Dziekanski, the RCMP has revealed that it is without conscience and remorse.
Delay and deny tactics before the Braidwood Inquiry deepen public mistrust."
(Comment by Wallace G. Craig, retired Provincial Supreme Court Judge, published May 13, 2009, North Shore News)

Canada has now suspended judicial cooperation with Poland concerning the Dziekanski enquiry, in a defensive move regarding possible RCMP culpability. So much for judicial impartiality and commitment to truth!

Paul E. Kennedy: "As Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, I am initiating a complaint into the conduct of those unidentified RCMP members present at, or engaged in, the arrest of Mr. Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport on October 14, 2007, and the adequacy of the subsequent criminal investigation." (File No. 2007-2305). And we will yet see what 'teeth' that may have!

However, do not expect too much. The RCMP, the federal police force of Canada, lacks a truly effective and independent oversight body, for the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) has no legislative authority or power over the RCMP. While the CPC can and does make findings and recommendation to the RCMP, the RCMP Commissioner is not obliged to accept these recommendations. So, while the CPC’s Vision Statement is 'Excellence in policing through accountability', the RCMP itself has refused to cooperate with a number of CPC investigations and has often refused to implement its recommendations. Investigations regarding the RCMP have raised serious questions about accountability cover-ups, ethical and management practices, and illegal conduct within this Canadian federal government agency.

Gary Bass, RCMP deputy commissioner of the Pacific region, formally apologized during a news conference at the Vancouver International Airport on April 1, 2010 (more than two-years too late). The victim's mother, Zofia Cisowski, accepted his apology, confirmed she had accepted a financial settlement as compensation for her son's death and that she will drop the lawsuit she filed last year against the federal and provincial governments, the airport, and the four RCMP officers who fired their stun guns at her son.

(Click for Braidwood Commission web site)

Braidwood concludes that Dziekanski was being compliant with the officers, and that neither Const. Kwesi Millington, who fired the Taser, nor the senior corporal in charge, honestly perceived an attack was coming. Braidwood concludes that the officers later deliberately misrepresented what happened at the airport to justify their actions, and he calls on the B.C. government to establish a civilian-led body to investigate police incidents in the future. Braidwood concludes that “Despite their training, the officers approached the incident as though responding to a barroom brawl and failed to shift gears when they realized that they were dealing with an obviously distraught traveller."

Dziekanski, 40, died on Oct. 14, 2007, at Vancouver International Airport (YVR) after being Tasered five times by four RCMP officers responding to a 911 call. The inquiry’s final report in June 2010 concludes that the RCMP was not justified in using a Taser on Dziekanski and the use of the device contributed substantially to his death. The report makes eight recommendations, including changes to the roles and training of contracted security personnel at YVR and changes to the way in which the Canada Border Services Agency deals with arriving international passengers.

See the call by the Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) for new legislation governing oversight of the RCMP.

SEE: CONFIDENTIALITY

"When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers." (Proverbs 21:15 ESV)