A person dies in police custody, and officers face no charges. Someone wrongfully convicted spends decades in prison because prosecutors withheld evidence. Indigenous survivors of residential schools seek redress from the government that operated those institutions. A child removed by protective services into foster care experiences worse abuse than what prompted the removal. Institutions designed to protect public safety, ensure justice, or care for vulnerable people sometimes cause profound harm themselves. When the entity responsible for harm is the same one tasked with investigating, prosecuting, and providing remedies, victims face unique barriers. Whether institutional harm represents failures within generally sound systems or evidence of systemic dysfunction requiring fundamental restructuring divides those who trust institutions from those who have experienced their failures firsthand.
The Case for Accountability and Systemic Change
Advocates argue that institutional harm is not random or rare but predictable and systemic. Police forces with cultures of impunity produce patterns of excessive force, particularly against marginalized communities. Prosecutors focused on conviction rates rather than justice regularly suppress exculpatory evidence. Child welfare systems that prioritize removal over family support tear apart communities, especially Indigenous families continuing to experience the intergenerational trauma of residential schools. These are not isolated bad actors but institutional failures enabled by lack of oversight, qualified immunity, internal investigations that protect wrongdoers, and legal structures that make suing government entities nearly impossible. From this view, victims of institutional harm deserve not just individual remedies but systemic accountability. This means independent investigation of police misconduct, conviction integrity units to review wrongful convictions, truth and reconciliation processes for historical harms, and removing legal barriers that shield institutions from consequences. Without fundamental change in how institutions operate and are held accountable, they will continue producing victims while investigating themselves and finding no wrongdoing.
The Case for Context and Institutional Protection
Others argue that institutions operate in impossible conditions with imperfect information and face criticism regardless of outcomes. Police make split-second decisions in dangerous situations. Prosecutors work with evidence that is incomplete or contradictory. Child welfare workers must choose between leaving children in potentially dangerous homes or removing them into an imperfect foster system. Institutional harm, while tragic when it occurs, often results from reasonable decisions made in difficult circumstances rather than systemic malice or negligence. From this perspective, excessive accountability threatens institutional function. Officers who fear prosecution for reasonable use of force hesitate in dangerous moments. Prosecutors who face sanctions for conviction errors become overly cautious, leaving guilty offenders free. Child welfare workers overwhelmed by lawsuit fears avoid intervention, and children die as a result. While individual accountability for clear wrongdoing is appropriate, treating institutional harm as presumptively systemic ignores the complexity these institutions navigate. The solution is better training and resources, not dismantling legal protections that allow institutions to function despite inherent risks.
The Investigation Paradox
When institutions investigate themselves, credibility suffers regardless of findings. Police internal affairs departments rarely recommend charges against officers. Government agencies reviewing their own failures often find procedural mistakes but not accountability. Yet external oversight bodies face different challenges: lack of expertise, insufficient access to evidence, or perception as politically motivated. Victims seeking justice through the very system that harmed them face impossible odds. Civil suits allow some recourse, but qualified immunity, government liability limits, and legal costs create steep barriers. Criminal prosecutions of institutional actors are rare and rarely successful. Truth and reconciliation processes provide acknowledgment but limited material remedy. The question becomes whether any mechanism can adequately address institutional harm while institutions retain power over investigation and remedy.
The Question
If institutions that cause harm also control mechanisms for investigating and remedying that harm, can justice ever be achieved, or does the structure itself prevent accountability? When institutional failures are widespread and persistent, does that prove systemic dysfunction, or does it reflect the impossibility of institutions operating without error in complex environments? And for victims harmed by the very systems meant to protect them, where can they turn when all paths to justice run through institutions they have reason not to trust?