INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section allows a peace officer to use deadly force against an escaping inmate if they believe the inmate poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm and less violent means of prevention are not possible.
25(5) A peace officer is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm against an inmate who is escaping from a penitentiary within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, if (a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that any of the inmates of the penitentiary poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the peace officer or any other person; and (b) the escape cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.
Section 25(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides guidelines for the use of force by peace officers in apprehending inmates who are attempting to escape from a penitentiary. This provision applies to situations where the use of force is necessary to prevent an inmate from causing harm to the peace officer or any other person and where less violent means of apprehension have failed. Under this section, a peace officer is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm against an escaping inmate, provided that the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the inmate poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the officer or another person. Additionally, the use of force must be necessary and cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner. It is important to note that this provision is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. The use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed by the escaping inmate and must not exceed what is necessary to prevent harm. In summary, Section 25(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a framework for the use of force by peace officers in situations where an inmate is attempting to escape from a penitentiary and poses a threat to the safety of others. However, this provision must be applied in a manner that is consistent with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
Section 25(5) of the Canadian Criminal Code is a controversial provision that permits peace officers to use force which could cause death or grievous bodily harm against inmates who are attempting to escape from a penitentiary. This provision applies only when an officer believes on reasonable grounds that any of the inmates of the penitentiary poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to either the peace officer or any other person, and the escape cannot be prevented in a less violent manner. The provision has faced criticism from various groups and individuals who consider it to be violative of human rights and an excessive use of force. Critics argue that the provision broadens the scope of excessive use of force by allowing violence to be an acceptable response to escape attempts. They argue that it violates human rights and interests by sanctioning a peace officer's duty to take away the rights of a prisoner without proper investigation and defining grievous harm. The provision also raises concerns about the safety of inmates who may be subjected to violence from peace officers during their escape. This raises the question of accountability of the peace officers, as the provision does not spell out any measures for holding officers accountable for the use of excessive force against inmates during escape attempts. On the other hand, supporters of the provision argue that it is necessary to ensure public safety and prevent escape attempts that could be harmful to others. They believe that allowing peace officers to use force may discourage future attempts to escape, reduce conflicts in the penitentiary, and prevent the occurrence of serious harm or death. They also argue that the provision safeguards the rights and interests of peace officers who are often exposed to danger and risks when dealing with dangerous inmates. However, it is important to note that the provision cannot be enforced without the inclusion of reasonable means of escape. These means could include the implementation of proper surveillance, enhancement of security measures, and reduction of the likelihood of escape attempts. This would help to minimize the use of force by peace officers and ensure that the provision is implemented in a way that does not violate the fundamental rights and freedoms of the inmates. This would also ensure that the provision is implemented in a way that is not subject to challenge. In conclusion, section 25(5) of the Canadian Criminal Code is a sensitive issue that has generated controversy. While the provisions are necessary for public safety, it is important to ensure that peace officers are held accountable for the use of excessive force, and that reasonable means of escape attempts and measures are enforced to minimize the use of force by peace officers. It is also important to advocate for measures that ensure the protection of the rights and interests of both peace officers and prison inmates. These measures will help to ensure that the provision is implemented in an ethical, transparent, and fair manner.
Section 25(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides peace officers with the authorization to use force when dealing with an inmate who poses a potential threat to the safety of others or is attempting to escape. However, this authorization should not be taken lightly as it can have significant legal, ethical, and reputational implications for the peace officers involved and their respective agencies. As such, strategic considerations should be taken into account when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada. One key consideration is the training and experience of the peace officers. Their training should cover both the legal and ethical aspects of using force, particularly when dealing with an inmate who is attempting to escape. They should be aware of their rights and responsibilities under the law and should also be able to recognize situations that may require the use of force. This will provide them with the necessary confidence to make informed decisions when using force, while minimizing the risk of legal or ethical violations. Another strategic consideration is the availability and effectiveness of non-lethal force options. Peace officers should be equipped with the necessary tools and equipment to handle different situations that may arise, including non-lethal force options such as stun guns, pepper spray, tasers, and batons. This will enable them to use force in a lesser manner before resorting to lethal force in accordance with section 25(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada. However, peace officers should also receive adequate training and supervision to ensure that the use of non-lethal force is done impartially and without prejudice. The procedures and protocols for using lethal force against an escaping inmate should also be followed in a strategic manner. An effective communication system should be established to enable peace officers to notify their respective agencies about the incident. Quick response times and clear communication channels will help to ensure that any incident is contained and resolved in the safest manner possible. This will minimize the possibility of any legal or ethical violations. Finally, it is crucial for peace officers to consider the broader implications of using force against an escaping inmate. The use of force can have implications not only for the peace officers involved but also for their agencies and the criminal justice system as a whole. Therefore, peace officers should be aware of the public perception of their actions and should take necessary steps to engage with the public and explain the justification for their actions. This will improve the transparency and accountability of law enforcement agencies and, thus, enhance public trust in the criminal justice system. In conclusion, the use of lethal force under Section 25(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada should be approached strategically. The training and experience of peace officers, available options for non-lethal force, procedures and protocols for using lethal force, and consideration of broader implications should all be taken into account. Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure the safe resolution of any situation while minimizing legal, ethical, and reputational risks for law enforcement agencies.