In the Globe and Mail editorial, the story of “It’s time for police to drop the ‘Mr. Big’ strategy”, the events touch upon interrogations and confessions. Michael Laflamme is now a free man, but back in 2008, he was convicted for murder. The case was the murder of a pregnant woman located near Montreal. Unfortunately, for 30 years, this case was a cold case until recently. Investigators decided to use the ‘Mr. Big sting’ on the woman’s ex-husband, who was their prime suspect. In this undercover operation, the suspect believes he is being enlisted by a group of criminals run by the leader, Mr. Big. In order to be on Mr.Big’s good side and earn his trust, the suspect must confess to a crime that they have committed, and sometimes are given incentives…show more content… These undercover officers illicit a confession from Michael Laflamme and in court, two years later, he is found guilty of the murder of his ex-wife. The Quebec Court of Appeal have decided to free him recently due to the Mr. Big operation and have decided to decrease the use of this approach. They felt that Michael Laflamme’s confession should not be admissible by the court because the operation coerced his confession through threats and orchestrated violence. Now the Supreme Court have set limits on these Mr. Big operations and when a confession is attained in this sting, it is unacceptable in court unless prosecutors can provide “probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect”. The highest court in Quebec does not seem to be too fond of the Mr. Big sting and have recently taken another case to retrial. This alone should warn police not to continue with Mr. Big but it is unlikely they will stop due to its popularity; RCMP have used it more than 350 times when they are suspicious of a suspect and try to gain evidence. It is a controversial operation because if the suspect refuses to confess, they could be threatened with violence and other sorts of
