Our criminal justice system works very hard to prevent criminals from harming other individuals; however, unfortunately mistakes happen. One wrongful conviction is one too many. There are multiple factors that can be assumed to be the cause of wrongful convictions. However, due to the lack of directly related research, the determents are not well established. The following research addresses wrongful convictions as a result of public defender representation. Through the process of theory construction, the research uses critical race theory and social disorganization theory to show the relationship between court appointed representation and wrongful convictions. A new theory is also established that is referred to as the partial load reduction theory. This theory establishes the relationship that exists between wrongful convictions and public defender representation and provides solutions as well as new avenues for future research.

L'étude de notre common Law révèle que les tribunaux canadiens et anglais ont constamment été appelés à décider de l'admissibilité d'éléments de preuve impliquant la participation de l'accusé à la détermination de sa culpabilité. Qu'il s'agisse des confessions obtenues auprès d'un suspect lors de l'interrogatoire policier, ou du témoignage rendu par un accusé dans le cours du processus judiciaire (par exemple lors du procès d'un complice ou d'un premier procès dont le verdict a été annulé par la cour d'appel), on constate que l'État a régulièrement tenté de prouver la culpabilité d'un accusé par le biais de ses propres aveux. On tente généralement de justifier le recours à cette méthode d'obtention de la preuve en invoquant que les aveux faits par un accusé sont de loin la meilleure preuve de sa culpabilité et donc, qu'ils aident le juge des faits à découvrir la vérité. Il appert toutefois qu'au fil des années, l'État a souvent abusé de ce pouvoir et que des condamnations ainsi obtenues l'ont parfois été au mépris des droits des accusés, notamment le droit à un procès juste et équitable et le droit encore plus fondamental de ne pas être contraint à fournir contre sa volonté une preuve de nature à établir sa culpabilité dans son propre procès. De plus, les nombreuses erreurs judiciaires mises à jour au cours de dernières années au Canada démontrent clairement que des verdicts de culpabilité ont aussi été erronément prononcés contre des accusés sur la foi de confessions qui se sont révélées plus tard être fausses. Pour cette raison, il apparaît important de déterminer si ce moyen de preuve est toujours légitime aujourd'hui, en regard de deux des grandes théories du droit pénal: la «théorie de la gestion des risques» et la «théorie de la justice» ou de l'équité du procès. De façon plus générale, cette étude cherche à répondre à la question suivante: en droit criminel canadien, la fin (recherche de la Vérité) justifie-t-elle tous les moyens employés pour la découvrir? / The study of our "common Law" reveals that the Canadian and English courts were constantly called upon in order to decide on the admissibility of elements of proof involving the participation of the defendant in the assertion of his guilt. Whether it is confessions obtained from a suspect during a police interrogation, or the testimony given by a defendant during the course ofthe legal process (for example, at the time of a trial of an accomplice or a first trial for which the verdict was cancelled by a court of appeal), we notice that the State regularly tried to prove the guilt of a defendant by way of his own statements. We generally try to justify the recourse to this method of obtaining proof by invoking that the statements made by a defendant are by far the best proof of his guilt and thus help the judge to uncover the truth. It appears, however, that over the years the State often abused this power and that ensuing convictions were sometimes obtained with a disregard of the rights of the defendants; in particular, the right to a fair trial and the right even more fundamental not to be constrained to provide against his will, a proof likely to establish his guilt in his own trial. In addition, many legal updates in the recent years in Canada c1early show that verdicts of guilt were also incorrectly pronounced against defendants on the faith of confessions which were later proved to he false. As such, it appears important to determine ifthis type ofproofretains its legitimacy today in regards to two of the great theories of criminallaw: the "Theory of Risk Management" and the "Theory of Justice" or the equity of the trial. More generally, this study seeks to answer the following question: "In Canadian criminallaw, does the end (search for the truth) justify the means used to uncover it?" / "Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (LL.M.)"

The desire to enhance and make ourselves better is not a new one and it has continued to intrigue throughout the ages. Individuals have continued to seek ways to improve and enhance their well-being for example through nutrition, physical exercise, education and so on. Crucial to this improvement of their well-being is improving their ability to remember. Hence, people interested in improving their well-being, are often interested in memory as well. The rationale being that memory is crucial to our well-being. The desire to improve one’s memory then is almost certainly as old as the desire to improve one’s well-being. Traditionally, people have used different means in an attempt to enhance their memories: for example in learning through storytelling, studying, and apprenticeship. In remembering through practices like mnemonics, repetition, singing, and drumming. In retaining, storing and consolidating memories through nutrition and stimulants like coffee to help keep awake; and by external aids like notepads and computers. In forgetting through rituals and rites. Recent scientific advances in biotechnology, nanotechnology, molecular biology, neuroscience, and information technologies, present a wide variety of technologies to enhance many different aspects of human functioning. Thus, some commentators have identified human enhancement as central and one of the most fascinating subject in bioethics in the last two decades. Within, this period, most of the commentators have addressed the Ethical, Social, Legal and Policy (ESLP) issues in human enhancements as a whole as opposed to specific enhancements. However, this is problematic and recently various commentators have found this to be deficient and called for a contextualized case-by-case analysis to human enhancements for example genetic enhancement, moral enhancement, and in my case memory enhancement (ME). The rationale being that the reasons for accepting/rejecting a particular enhancement vary depending on the enhancement itself. Given this enormous variation, moral and legal generalizations about all enhancement processes and technologies are unwise and they should instead be evaluated individually. Taking this as a point of departure, this research will focus specifically on making a case for ME and in doing so assessing the ESLP implications arising from ME. My analysis will draw on the already existing literature for and against enhancement, especially in part two of this thesis; but it will be novel in providing a much more in-depth analysis of ME. From this perspective, I will contribute to the ME debate through two reviews that address the question how we enhance the memory, and through four original papers discussed in part three of this thesis, where I examine and evaluate critically specific ESLP issues that arise with the use of ME. In the conclusion, I will amalgamate all my contribution to the ME debate and suggest the future direction for the ME debate.