The Colten Boushie case: Canadians divided on jury’s verdict, but think Trudeau was wrong to weigh in – Angus Reid

Press Release

Six-in-ten say reforms are needed to ensure juries better reflect the communities they come from

February 26, 2018 – The acquittal of Gerald Stanley – the white Saskatchewan farmer accused of shooting and killing 22-year-old Cree man Colten Boushie in August 2016 – has prompted nationwide debate about how the Canadian justice system handles cases involving Indigenous people.

Near the centre of this powder keg is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has faced significant criticism for appearing to question the jury’s decision in the case and asserting that Canada must “do better” in the future.

Now, a new public opinion poll from the Angus Reid Institute finds Canadians divided on the jury’s “not guilty” verdict in the case, but considerably more likely to see Trudeau’s comments as inappropriate than appropriate, given the context.

Fewer than one-in-three Canadians (32%) say the Prime Minister was right to weigh in on the jury’s decision, while nearly half (46%) say doing so was inappropriate. The rest (22%) are uncertain.

More Key Findings:

• On the verdict itself, Canadians are roughly as likely to say the jury’s decision was “good and fair” (30% say this) as they are to say it was “flawed and wrong” (32%). The largest number – 38 per cent – are unsure

• Asked to choose between two statements on the jury-selection process – during which defence lawyers prevented any Indigenous-looking potential jurors from being selected – six-in-ten (59%) opt for “we should reform these rules to ensure juries reflect the whole community better”
• Regional differences are significant. Saskatchewan residents, especially, are overwhelmingly in agreement that the jury’s decision was fair, Trudeau’s comments inappropriate, and jury reform unnecessary

INDEX:

• Many doubt the propriety of Trudeau’s response
• Canadians divided over jury’s decision
• Most would welcome jury reform

Many doubt the propriety of Trudeau’s response

Gerald Stanley was charged with second-degree murder for his role in Boushie’s death. He testified that he didn’t intend to shoot anyone, but had grabbed his gun to fire warning shots that he hoped would scare off the five Indigenous people who had driven their vehicle onto his property. He claimed that his gun went off in his hand accidentally, and the shot hit Boushie in the head.

Legal experts have suggested that the jury’s decision may have come down to a lack of certainty about Stanley’s intent and about what exactly happened during the altercation on his farm – uncertainty fed in part by witnesses for the prosecution who changed their stories.

In the hours and days after the jury delivered its verdict, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould have repeatedly expressed sympathy toward the Boushie family and suggested that Canada’s justice system “can and must do better.”

Less than a week after the verdict, after meetings with the family, the ministers said they intend to introduce reforms aimed at tackling “systemic issues” in the justice system’s treatment of Indigenous people.

Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould have faced criticism for weighing in on – and arguably sowing doubt about the legitimacy of – the jury’s lawfully delivered decision.

Asked whether the Prime Minister’s decision to offer a personal response to the Boushie verdict was appropriate or not, nearly half of all Canadians (46%) say it was not.

Past Conservatives overwhelmingly say Trudeau’s response was inappropriate, while those who voted for his Liberal Party are hardly united in his defense. One-in-three past Liberal voters (33%) say Trudeau’s decision to respond was inappropriate, and fewer than half (43%) say it was appropriate:

Read  More: http://angusreid.org/boushie-verdict/

IBF4