INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Admissions made as a condition for alternative measures cannot be used as evidence in any legal proceedings.
SECTION WORDING
717(3) No admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by a person alleged to have committed an offence as a condition of the person being dealt with by alternative measures is admissible in evidence against that person in any civil or criminal proceedings.
EXPLANATION
Section 717(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that outlines the circumstances under which an admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for an offence made by a defendant as a condition of alternative measures cannot be used against them in any civil or criminal proceedings. The purpose of this provision is to encourage defendants to take responsibility for their actions and participate in alternative measures programs, without fear of the consequences of their admissions being used against them later on. Alternative measures programs are designed to provide a means for resolving minor offences outside of the formal court process. These programs can include community service, restitution, or participation in treatment programs. The use of alternative measures can be a more cost-effective and efficient way of dealing with certain types of minor offences, and can help to promote public safety by addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour. However, in order for these programs to be effective, defendants must be willing to take responsibility for their actions and participate in the programs voluntarily. Section 717(3) helps to facilitate this process by ensuring that defendants who do participate in alternative measures programs are protected from having their admissions used against them in any future proceedings. This protection helps to build trust between defendants and the criminal justice system and encourages more participation in alternative measures programs, leading to more positive outcomes for both defendants and society as a whole.
COMMENTARY
Section 717(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important legal provision that safeguards individuals who have been alleged to have committed an offence and are being dealt with by alternative measures. This provision makes it clear that no admission, confession, or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by such individuals can be used as evidence against them in either civil or criminal proceedings. The Alternative Measures Program (AMP) is a diversionary program designed to divert individuals who have committed minor offences away from the formal justice system. Instead of criminal prosecution, these individuals are offered an opportunity to participate in an alternative program that addresses the underlying issues that led to the criminal activity. The program intends to offer a more constructive and pragmatic approach that aims to reduce recidivism and prevent future crimes. One of the key benefits of the Alternative Measures Program is that it gives individuals the opportunity to avoid a criminal record, which can have several long-lasting, detrimental effects in the future. Criminal records can affect an individual's employability, housing options, and financial stability. Therefore, it is important that the program is designed to encourage people to participate and take advantage of the opportunity to have a second chance. Section 717(3) ensures that individuals participating in AMPs are not penalized for admitting responsibility for their actions. This provision is based on the principle of fairness, which dictates that individuals should not be punished twice for the same offence. If a person has already accepted responsibility for their actions in an alternative measures program, then it is deemed unjust to use that admission against them in future legal proceedings. The provision also aligns with the goal of the AMP, which is to encourage individuals to take responsibility for their actions and participate in programs that help them address underlying issues. Research has shown that offering alternative measures can lead to positive outcomes, including lower rates of reoffending. For this to be effective, individuals must feel comfortable admitting responsibility for their actions without fearing that the admission will be used against them in future legal proceedings. An important point to note is that this provision is applicable only to admissions, confessions, or statements made as a condition of an individual's participation in alternative measures and not to any voluntary statements made outside the program. This distinction is necessary to ensure that the rights of individuals are safeguarded while not impeding law enforcement efforts in investigating crime. In conclusion, section 717(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that protects the rights of individuals who take part in alternative measures programs. By ensuring that their admissions, confessions, or statements do not act as evidence against them in future legal proceedings, it encourages individuals to take responsibility for their actions and participate in programs that benefit both themselves and society. This provision ultimately reduces the burden on the formal criminal justice system, freeing up resources to tackle more complex and serious cases.
STRATEGY
One of the biggest strategic considerations when dealing with section 717(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is the potential impact that it can have on an individual's case. This section essentially prohibits any admission, confession, or statement accepting responsibility for an alleged offense from being used as evidence against that person in any civil or criminal proceedings. This means that if an individual accepts responsibility for their actions in order to be dealt with by alternative measures, it cannot be used against them in court. This has a significant impact on the approach that legal professionals must take in defending their clients. In cases where there is strong evidence against an individual, it may be in their best interest to accept responsibility for their actions and opt for alternative measures in order to avoid having their admission used against them in court. This can be a difficult decision to make, as it requires balancing the potential consequences of admitting guilt with the potential consequences of facing a criminal trial. Another important consideration when dealing with section 717(3) is the potential impact that it can have on the negotiation process. This section can provide leverage during plea bargaining negotiations, as it limits the evidence that the prosecution can use against the defendant. This can allow for more favorable plea deals to be reached, as the prosecution may be willing to offer more lenient sentences in exchange for a guilty plea that cannot be used as evidence in subsequent proceedings. One strategy that legal professionals may employ when dealing with section 717(3) is to carefully consider the potential consequences of admitting guilt. This requires a thorough understanding of the evidence against the defendant, as well as an evaluation of the potential outcomes of going to trial versus accepting responsibility and pursuing alternative measures. Legal professionals may also consider using section 717(3) as leverage during plea bargaining negotiations, taking advantage of the limited evidence that the prosecution can use against the defendant. Another potential strategy is to challenge the admissibility of any evidence that may be used against the defendant. While section 717(3) prohibits the use of admissions and confessions made in the context of alternative measures, there may be other evidence that the prosecution attempts to use against the defendant. By challenging the admissibility of this evidence, legal professionals can limit the scope of the prosecution's case and potentially secure a more favorable outcome for their clients. Ultimately, the strategic considerations when dealing with section 717(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada will depend on the specific circumstances of each individual case. Legal professionals must carefully evaluate the evidence and potential outcomes in order to determine the best course of action for their clients. By taking advantage of the protections provided by this section and understanding its impact on the negotiation process, legal professionals can work to secure the best possible outcomes for their clients.