A Comparison of the Arrest, Detention and Seizure Framework in Canada and Turkey - Essay Example

Where the civic rights of their citizenry are concerned, Canada and Turkey stand in sharp contrast to one another. As Roach (2000) explains, the passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms fundamentally changed criminal proceedings in the country and irrevocably limited the powers of the police force with regards to arrest, detention and seizure. While not intending to imply that prior to the passage of the Charter in 1982 Canadian law enforcement and criminal justice were dismissive of the civic rights of their citizenry, Roach (2000) contends that the Charter fortified and solidified those rights. Arrest, detention and seizure are governed by stringent regulations and limitations which, according to Pilon (2000) are primarily intended to protect the citizenry against unreasonable searches, unjustifiable detentions and importantly, against the possibility of law enforcement’s abusing its powers. It is in relation to the stated that Turkey stands in direct contrast to Canada. This Eurasian nation has been cited for human rights abuses on countless occasions and both Amnesty International and the European Commission for Human Rights have repeatedly shed light on abuses vis-à-vis all of search, seizure and detention (ECHR, 2003; U.S. Department of State, 2007). A comparison of the arrest, detention and seizure framework in Canada and Turkey will serve to underscore the imperatives of limiting police authority through the clear explication of the citizenry’s civic rights for the prevention of abuses which translate into nothing less than inexcusable miscarriages of justice. The rules which govern arrest, detention and seizure in Turkey are grounded in the country’s constitution. The Turkish Constitution clearly outlines the civic rights of the citizenry and outlines the limitations on police authority. As Kinzer (2002) explains, arbitrary arrests are prohibited with no statements of exception. Law enforcement must have a clear reason for arresting citizens and must establish, before a judge that the citizen in question has violated the laws of the nation and accordingly, that there are legitimate grounds for the issuance of an arrest warrant. If a warrant is granted, law enforcement has the legitimate right to take the suspect into custody where he/she may be detained for a maximum period of 7.5 days. This period can only be renewed if law enforcement uncovers evidence pertaining to the detained suspect’s highly probable culpability in a crime. Not only that but law enforcement must establish that the release of the detained suspect back into society carries the risk of the suspect’s flight from justice or continued engagement and participation in criminal activities which function as a direct threat to the security of society and others (Kinzer, 2002). In other words, the Turkish constitution clearly protects the civic rights of its citizenry and attempts to limit the arrest and detention powers of law enforcement through the involvement of the courts. The Turkish constitution similarly places strict conditions on the search and seizure powers of law enforcement and national security services and personnel. As the case with arrest and detention, Kinzer (2002) notes that law enforcement must similarly make a case before a court of law and obtain the necessary warrants prior to undertaking any searches or seizures. There have to be very solid grounds and concrete reasons for the presentation of search and seizure requests and the subsequent issuance of warrants. Again, the implication here is that the Turkish constitution seeks the protection of the civil rights of its citizens and tries to ensure that these rights are not trampled over by law enforcement. Despite the provisions which the Turkish constitution makes for the assurance that law enforcement does not violate the civic rights of the citizenry in relation to arrest, detention, search and seizure, the fact is that these provisions have proven incapable of extending the necessary protections. Human rights organisations regularly report on arrests which have been made without the necessary warrants and detentions which are unauthorized by the courts and, indeed, were arbitrary. The same applies to search and seizure. In other words, while the Turkish constitution may clearly prohibit arbitrary arrest, detention, search and seizure, all of the stated are commonplace occurrences in Turkey. Indeed, it is not at all uncommon for detentions to be accompanied by the torture of the detainees for the purposes of obtaining forced confessions or for the detainees to simply `disappear’ (ECHR, 2003; U.S. Department of State, 2007). Consequently, the rights of citizens in relation to arrest, detention, search and seizure are only theoretically protected by the constitution. In direct comparison to Turkey, Canada has a relatively spotless record regarding law enforcement’s adherence to the laws governing arrest, detention, search and seizure. Since 17th April, 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has placed very strict controls on law enforcement’s powers and authorities vis-à-vis all of the stated and, indeed, ensures against the violation of the civic rights of its citizenry through a mechanism for law enforcement accountability. As per the Charter, Pilon (2000) notes that Canadian citizens’ “expectations of privacy” are upheld through, among other protections, provisions against unreasonable or arbitrary search and seizure. Should search and seizure take place without a warrant and if the warrant had been issued on the basis of misinformation or incomplete information, any evidence against the suspect through the said procedures are probably discounted during the trial process. Accordingly, while law enforcement may transgress against the stated provisions the system of checks and balances ensures the nonsensical nature of doing so as the evidence in question will be rendered worthless. The same applies to arrest and detention. In Canada, unlike Turkey, a suspect can be detained only for a period of one day and arrests and detentions cannot be made without relevant warrants and court permits. Further to that, suspects have the right to refuse to answer any questions and to demand the presence of their lawyer (Pilon, 2000). The implication here is that not only does the Charter regulate law enforcement’s authorities and limit their exercise of it but makes violations senseless as they can result in the dismissal of evidence, or entire criminal cases against suspects (Pilant, 2000). In conclusion to this essay, it is important to recognize that the civic rights of citizens are upheld by virtually all constitutions and national legislatures. The problem is in application of the constitutional provisions and national charters on civic rights. As indicated in this essay, Canada applies the provisions and charter in question while Turkey does not. Bibliography ECHR (2003) Chamber judgement in the case of Elci and others v Turkey. European Commission of Human Rights. Retrieved 19 April 2008 from http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2003/nov/JudgmentEl%C3%A7i&Others13112003.htm Kinzer, S. (2002) Crescent and Star: Turkey between Two Worlds. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. Pilant, M. (2000) Search, seizure, arrest and detention under the Charter. Government of Canada. Retrieved 19 April 2008 from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/917-e.htm Roach, K. (2000) Constitutional and Common Law Dialogues Between the Supreme Court and Canadian Legislatures. Canadian Bar Review, 80. 481. State Department (2008) Turkey: Country Report on Human Rights Practices. Washington: U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 19 April 2008 from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100589.htm Read More