THE TROUBLE WITH 'MR. BIG'

The Kind Of Police Tactics Used On Kyle Unger Can Easily Produce False
Confessions -- And Immerse Subjects Into A New Life Of Crime

The recent acquittal of Kyle Unger has attracted some much needed
attention to the RCMP tactic that was used to elicit the apparently
false confession that contributed to his original conviction.

"Mr. Big" sting operations entail the creation of a fictitious
criminal organization that the suspect is inveigled into joining. The
police devote considerable time, money, and energy into seducing the
target to join their criminal gang. They develop a personal
relationship with the target and slowly involve him in staged illegal
activities on behalf of the organization. Various ruses and threats
are used to show the target that there are benefits to joining the
gang and negative consequences should he fall out of favour. The
scheme usually terminates in an encounter with "the boss" (Mr. Big),
an undercover operative posing as a senior member of the organization.
He employs a range of inducements in an attempt to elicit a confession
to the specific offence being investigated (usually murder). The
degree of control exercised by the police over the target is
considerable. The tactics are invasive and persistent, usually lasting
for several months. In one instance, the sting involved 50 operatives.

Sometimes the Mr. Big technique produces probative evidence of a
suspect's guilt. For example, when a confession leads to the discovery
of new evidence, its probative value is significantly enhanced. In one
case, after apparently being rattled during the early stages of a Mr.
Big investigation, the suspect spontaneously went to a police station,
voluntarily confessed and subsequently pled guilty to a 20-year-old
homicide.

However, in light of the invasiveness of the technique, its coercive
nature and the strong inducements held out to elicit confessions,
there is a real concern that the technique may cause innocent people
to falsely confess, giving rise to a risk of wrongful convictions. The
fictional circumstances surrounding the confession have the effect of
minimizing or eliminating the perceived risk of negative consequences
to the target from claiming responsibility for the offence.

The risk of wrongful convictions may be particularly pronounced in
cases where there is little or no evidence to support the confession
and where the facts of the confession do not fit the known
circumstances surrounding the offence. Lying about a murder to a gang
of criminals could be a gamble that the suspect is prepared to take,
compared to upsetting them, inviting their wrath, and squandering a
connection to the criminal organization.

The establishment of "authority" and power is a fundamental feature of
the Mr. Big scheme. The operatives typically project personae who
formulate elaborate criminal plots. They let the target know that the
gang has a long reach, that they can find people and frame them, that
they have insiders in the police department, and that, if necessary,
they will beat and torture people.

Moreover, the operatives establish a personal connection with the
target. They purposefully infiltrate the suspect's life. If the target
has no friends, they provide some. If he has low self-esteem, they
bolster his feelings of self worth. If he has no money, they supply
it. If he has no long-term prospects, they hold out the expectation of
steady work. If he is an alcoholic, they give him liquor. If he is
naive and uncomfortable around women, an appreciative female friend is
made available.

In effect, a new enhanced and promising social world is created for
the suspect, with tentacles that affect much of his behaviour even
when he is not in direct contact with his newfound companions.

An important feature of this contrived social dynamic is that the
suspect is manipulated by his new friends to perceive them as skilled,
knowledgeable, powerful, well-connected and successful. They are also
the key to his continued social and financial vitality. As such, they
are influential social agents. Their overtures are flattering and
seductive. His new friends let him know that he is valued and trusted,
and that they themselves are principled and loyal, albeit crooks.

During the undercover operation used on Kyle Unger, he was told by one
of his new "friends" that if he had killed somebody that was fine.
Indeed it was excellent. "... I know that I'm dealing with somebody...
that I can trust. That's the kind of person I'm looking for."

In addition to these many positive inducements, there is the added and
critical dimension of fear. Much effort is devoted by the undercover
operatives to the creation of an atmosphere of apprehension. Should
the target fall into disfavour with his controllers, brutal force will
be swiftly dispensed. Staged retaliations against fictitious
transgressors make it clear to the target that his physical well
being, if not his life, are at risk if his loyalty to the group is
seen to waver. For example in one case the undercover operators staged
an assault upon a woman. The target watched her (covered in what he
believed to be blood) being thrown into the trunk of a car. During the
simulated beating, the operative threatened to kill the woman, her
spouse, and their two-year-old child.

Other tactics are introduced depending on the specific situation. In
another case, the undercover officers determined that the suspect's
fiancee was so controlling that she was interfering with their
operation, so they introduced a second female undercover agent who
feigned interest in the target.

In a Mr. Big operation, the target is essentially socialized into a
life of crime. The state rigs situations where criminal acts are
encouraged and reinforced. Outcomes are lucrative, with little or no
risk to the target. The target learns to be a criminal. Many suspects
had not, heretofore, engaged in any criminality, but the routine
reinforcement and systematic cultivation of illegal activities may
well affect the target's self image and psychological makeup.

Throughout the Mr. Big operation, the target is innocent in the eyes
of the law. The sting may go on for many months. Regardless of whether
charges are ultimately laid, let alone whether there are convictions,
the degree of intrusion is unprecedented.

Is it acceptable for the state to surreptitiously set in motion a
covert intervention that may permanently redirect the suspect's life
trajectory, all in the service of extracting a "confession" to a crime
that the suspect may (or may not) have committed? Kyle Unger confessed
to a murder he had not committed. How many others have done so, and
have been convicted because of it?