By Statistics Canada

Having a high level of confidence in the Federal Parliament, the justice system and courts, the police, and the Canadian media can be seen as a vital measure for assessing the health of democracy in Canada. Confidence in these institutions reflects the sense that they are safe, effective, transparent and accountable.

From October 2022 to January 2023, about two-thirds (67%) of Canadians reported having a high level of confidence in the police. This was a greater proportion than other institutions, such as the justice system and courts (51%), the Federal Parliament (36%) and the Canadian media (33%).

In the context of increased diversity and immigration being the main driver of population growth in Canada, it is relevant to investigate if different groups of the population share these views similarly.

Using preliminary data from the Survey Series on People and their Communities, this report examines whether racialized and non-racialized, non-Indigenous people in Canada have differing levels of confidence in public institutions, which is a key indicator of Canada's Quality of Life Framework.

Southeast Asian, Black and Japanese people are less likely to report confidence in police

Previous surveys have shown that Black Canadians report lower levels of confidence in police than non-Indigenous and non-racialized people. Along the same lines, this survey reported that Southeast Asian (63%), Black (52%) and Japanese (47%) people in Canada were less likely to have confidence in the police, compared with those who did not belong to a racialized group and were not Indigenous (69%). Some subgroups had notably lower confidence in the police, like Southeast Asian (45%) and Black (32%) people who were born in Canada.

Most racialized groups report higher levels of confidence in the justice system and courts than non-racialized, non-Indigenous people

By contrast, some racialized groups were more likely to be confident in the justice system and courts. Compared with their non-racialized, non-Indigenous counterparts (49%), racialized groups—such as South Asian, Chinese, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian and Korean people in Canada—were more likely to have confidence in the justice system and courts (ranging from 58% to 69%; Table 1). However, Japanese people in Canada (36%) were less likely to be confident in this institution. Recent South Asian, Chinese, Filipino, Arab and Southeast Asian immigrants reported particularly high confidence (Tables 2 and 3).

Similar patterns were found for levels of confidence in the Federal Parliament and the Canadian media. Japanese people in Canada were less likely to be confident in the Federal Parliament (24%) and the Canadian media (21%) than their non-racialized, non-Indigenous counterparts (31% for both institutions). However, South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian and Korean people in Canada were more likely to have confidence in the Federal Parliament (ranging from 44% to 58%; Table 1) and the Canadian media (ranging from 35% to 45%; Table 1).

Among most racialized groups, recent immigrants had a substantially higher level of confidence in the media and the Federal Parliament. For example, among South Asian people, 25% of those born in Canada had confidence in the Canadian media, compared with 57% of recent immigrants (Table 2, 3).

This report identified that the intersection between racialized groups and immigrant status was associated with confidence in all four institutions. Future research using the Survey Series on People and their Communities will be useful for tracking relevant indicators in the Quality of Life Framework among racialized groups as well as immigrants in Canada.

Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2022. 5p.

By University of Chicago Law School - Global Human Rights Clinic,

This Report is being published in the midst of a long series of horrifying incidents of police abuse of power in the United States. The deaths of George Floyd, Lacquan McDonald, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, Breonna Taylor and many others, have echoed throughout the communities of this nation and prompted protests across the country. The video and testimonies from these incidents provide grim illustrations of the power law enforcement officers have over the people they are sworn to serve and protect, and the deadly consequences when they abuse that power. Society vests law enforcement with the responsibility to protect public safety and enforce the law when necessary. For these reasons, and these reasons only, law enforcement officers are granted the immense power to use force, including lethal force. This authority—state sanctioned violence—necessarily comes with limits and obligations to ensure those who enforce the law do not abuse it. These limits and obligations require that police use their power in a manner that protects and serves the entire community that has vested them with this privilege. The exercise of this authority also requires accountability when abuses occur. Without accountability, state sanctioned violence is nothing but the exercise of arbitrary brute force, a common tool of tyrannical and despotic governments. Yet, as endless reports and studies have indicated, the police in the United States do not always use their power in a manner that reflects the restraint, care and humility promised to its people. The many and terrible deaths of unarmed African Americans, the targeting of poor communities and communities of color, and the absence of a mandate to protect individuals from domestic violence, all sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States in the name of police discretion, have scarred many and raised questions of whether the police sufficiently serve their mandate.2

Chicago: University of Chicago Law School, 2020. 105p.

By the  U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 

 The United States has conducted an extensive investigation of the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD), pursuant to our authority under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14141). We have determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct—the operation of a custodial informant program—that systematically violated criminal defendants’ right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. While our review focused on custodial informant activity from 2007 through 2016, the informant controversy continues to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the Orange County criminal legal system. Neither agency has implemented sufficient remedial measures to identify criminal cases impacted by unlawful informant activities or prevent future constitutional violations. This report provides a public accounting of the scope and impact of the informant program on the Orange County criminal legal system. … We focused our investigation on: (1) whether OCDA and OCSD used custodial informants to elicit incriminating statements from individuals in the Orange County Jail, after those individuals had been charged with a crime, in violation of the Sixth Amendment; and (2) whether OCDA failed to disclose exculpatory evidence about those custodial informants to criminal defendants in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We reviewed thousands of pages of documents, made  numerous site visits to OCDA and OCSD, and conducted dozens of interviews in the course of our investigation. In particular, we conducted 17 transcribed interviews with OCDA prosecutors about specific cases they personally handled involving custodial informants. The evidence reveals that custodial informants in the Orange County Jail system acted as agents of law enforcement to elicit incriminating statements from defendants represented by counsel, and that for years OCSD maintained and concealed systems to track, manage, and reward those custodial informants. The evidence also reveals that OCDA prosecutors failed to seek out and disclose to defense counsel exculpatory information regarding custodial informants. We therefore have reasonable cause to believe that this pattern or practice of conduct by both agencies resulted in systematic violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.     

Washington, DC: The Author, 2022. 63p.

By Amy Farrell, Jack McDevitt and Stephanie Fahy

Though recognition of the importance and severity of human trafficking has grown in recent years, the identification and investigation of human trafficking cases remains a complex undertaking for local law enforcement. Effectively responding to human trafficking requires officers to notice and identify victims who often have been hidden from or had poor relationships with law enforcement in the past (e.g., women in prostitution, migrants, immigrant community member, and poor women). Sometimes officers may be reluctant to intervene in sex and labor trafficking situations due to a belief that victims were complicit with their own victimization. Local law enforcement response is further complicated by immigration issues since many local agencies have made a decision to not inquire about citizen status during routine policing activities as a means of building trust and confidence in the local community. Additionally, the crime of human trafficking may take backseat to other institutional priorities such as violence and drugs. Finally, officers must look at old problems or traditional crime categories such as prostitution through a different lens and therefore reclassify "offenders" such as prostitutes as victims.

• More.....

  Since the enforcement of the law in the United States is predominately carried out by the thousands of local, county and state agencies representing diverse environments and local crime problems and coming from a variety of different organizational structures, fully understanding how law enforcement perceives and responds to the problem of human trafficking in the United States necessitates inquiry into the specific experiences of these agencies. The majority of research on law enforcement responses to human trafficking to date has focused on the experiences of a narrow number of large municipal police departments who were perceived to be most likely to come into contact with incidents of human trafficking. In response, this project addresses four main areas: 1) the perceptions of trafficking held by law enf rcement and the preparation agencies have taken to address the problem, 2) the frequency in which law enforcement identifies and investigates cases of human trafficking and 3) the characteristics of those cases investigated by law enforcement and 4) the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking cases. Description text goes here

Boston: Northeastern University, Institute on Race and Justice, 2008. 256p.

By Joseph R. Nunez.

The author analyzes the drug intervention conundrum of Colombia. He then summarizes the reasons for the violent and anarchic situation that frustrates those wishing to make peace and expand democracy. After introducing what he calls the Hobbesian trinity, the author discusses alternatives to intervention and notes the complexity of the human rights challenge. He suggests a new strategy for improving human security, government accountability, democratic reform, and peace prospects. The author argues that the current approach is heading the wrong way, moving away from peace and fomenting greater instability. He concludes that there is a window of opportunity for the United States to support Colombia in a new way in its war against this anarchic trinity. But this will involve overcoming political factions responsible for the current policy that he argues is ineffective.

Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College Press, 2001. 53p.