Latimar has done his due.
Thu, 2007-12-06 07:33
#1
Latimar has done his due.
Thu, 2007-12-06 07:33
#2
Whether you are for or against euthanasia, the man has served his time. Seven years of hard time for the heart breaking death of his daughter. The man did something many of us would not be capable of, and he was only able to do it because he watched her pain constantly. He will live with her death the rest of his life.
The only reason he is on his way back to jail is because he wouldn't bow down to the parole board and say was wrong to do what he did.
It is time for this Government to step into this, and release him. There is no lesson for him to learn in jail.
Thu, 2007-12-06 07:46
#3
I agree. Robert Latimer is being further punished because he will not lie to a vengeful, parole board that appears to be playing to the mob.
Thu, 2007-12-06 07:53
#4
quote:
Originally posted by co-worker:
[b]The only reason he is on his way back to jail is because he wouldn't bow down to the parole board and say was wrong to do what he did.
It is time for this Government to step into this, and release him. There is no lesson for him to learn in jail.[/b]
If he isn't sorry, perhaps he still has the lesson to learn that it isn't alright to murder the disabled?
Thu, 2007-12-06 08:01
#5
What mob? Lots of people think it's okay to murder disabled kids if they make the lives of their caregivers difficult enough.
I think the whole jail and parole system is screwed up, and think the whole thing about having to show remorse (even if you maintain your innocence) in order to get release is really problematic. It should be based on whether or not you will likely reoffend, not on whether or not you admit that you actually did it. (And sometimes those two overlap, so that's fine, but they don't always.)
Anyhow, I don't really think that people who murder as a crime of passion or out of desperation as Latimer did really need to be kept in jail for as long as they are. Jail should be there for people who can't help themselves, are incurable, and can't be let out into the general public - and they should be made as comfortable as possible while being kept there.
But the way the system stands now, Latimer did what he did and isn't the least bit sorry for it, nor would he do anything differently now. Where someone maintains their innocence, I think there should be some sort of mechanism for helping them through parole hearings - not sure how that would look. But Latimer is pretty much a classic case of someone that the whole "is he sorry" test is supposed to catch before releasing them into the world - someone who admits what they did, refuses to admit it was wrong, and isn't the least bit sorry about it, and wouldn't do anything differently.
Thu, 2007-12-06 08:14
#6
[url=http://www.phen.ab.ca/materials/het/het12-01c.asp]Here[/url] is an interesting paper on the case and the results of the corresponding publicity. Groups representing the rights of disabled persons have been speaking out from the beginning on this case, and this shows they are right to be very concerned:
quote:
If widespread public approval for altruistic filicide does produce negative consequences for children in Canada, we might expect to see four trends since 1994 when the first Latimer trial occurred: (1) the occurrence of one or more "copycat homicides," (2) an increase in filicides relative to the national homicide rate, (3) an increase in filicides by fathers relative to filicides by mothers, and (4) these effects occurring in Canada but not in the United States.
[b]All four have occurred since Latimer was killed in 1993 and massive publicity was given to the case in 1994.[/b]
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Draco ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 08:26
#7
Draco:
quote:
If he isn't sorry, perhaps he still has the lesson to learn that it isn't alright to murder the disabled?
That's painting with rather a broad brush since it covers all from a wheelchair-bound, published physicist to what one may see as a vegetable in human form.
Don't tell me that such decisions to terminate are not made and conducted in hospitals.
Life occasionally plays very cruel tricks. Not all have walked in the shoes of such as Latimer.
Thu, 2007-12-06 08:54
#8
quote:
Originally posted by bliter:
That's painting with rather a broad brush since it covers all from a wheelchair-bound, published physicist to what one may see as a vegetable in human form.
Tracy Latimer wasn't brain dead.
quote:
Don't tell me that such decisions to terminate are not made and conducted in hospitals.
This isn't a decisions to end life support or to not resuscitate in the event of death. I would hope that caregivers aren't regularly taking it upon themselves to actively "terminate" disabled children.
quote:
Life occasionally plays very cruel tricks. Not all have walked in the shoes of such as Latimer.
That's true, but I'm much more inclined to listen to what disabled persons themselves have to say on the subject of murdering the disabled.
Thu, 2007-12-06 09:03
#9
quote:
What mob? Lots of people think it's okay to murder disabled kids if they make the lives of their caregivers difficult enough.
Exactly. I don't know about the Latimer case. The man isn't a raging phycotic and will probably never offend again. You could argue that an example needed to be made, and that his prison sentance served as a warning to those who would harm the disabled, but seven years after the fact, what has changed? Many people with disabilities are still marginalized and forgotten about, even if they do have high quality care, and the media is sympathetic to old bob's cause. Society in general has yet to learn that people with physical and mental challenges deserve as much respect as normies do. Latimer's prison term hasn't made the murder of the disabled any less acceptable.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 09:08
#10
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]Latimer's prison term hasn't made the murder of the disabled any less acceptable.[/b]
The paper I linked above demonstrates a link between increased "altruistic" murders and the postive coverage of Robert Latimer. It's impossible to say for certain, but I would think state sanctioning of his actions would only increase the power of that message.
Thu, 2007-12-06 09:09
#11
There was a Globe op-ed yesterday that posited that Latimer is the only individual ever charged for murder in such a case. Others were charged with administering a noxious substance, failure to provide the means of support etc.
Latimer has been made an example of.
The only test that should be applied to the granting of parole is whether he is likely to reoffend.
He is not likely to reoffend.
Thu, 2007-12-06 09:17
#12
No, unless he has another profoundly disabled child. Or decides to make this issue his mission in life and helps other parents whose children are profoundly disabled to kill their children. Who knows? If I heard the report on the news this morning correctly, I think he said something about wanting to go to Parliament to lobby on the issue of mercy killing. Who knows what other kind of advocacy he might be contemplating? I think it's reasonable to consider that.
That said - I don't think jail really does anyone any good except for people who can't help themselves from killing. I don't think Latimer falls into that category.
Thu, 2007-12-06 09:21
#13
quote:
Latimer has been made an example of.
How? The media hasn't offered any alternative views of the latimer case. No disability rights activists have been heard from, and society in general still hasn't learned it's lesson.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 09:31
#14
He was made an "example of" by being charged with murder, convicted of second degree murder and having been sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility set at 10 years as per the Statutes of Canada.
Thu, 2007-12-06 09:52
#15
No. If Latimer had truly been made an example of, things would've changed, society would have become more accepting of the disabled, it hasn't. People are still up to their armpits in abelist, dickensen bullshit when it it comes to a lot of issues sourrounding disabilities.
Thu, 2007-12-06 09:57
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
[b]There was a Globe op-ed yesterday that posited that Latimer is the only individual ever charged for murder in such a case. Others were charged with administering a noxious substance, failure to provide the means of support etc.[/b]
Without the cites to back that up, I'm skeptical, frankly. Not a dig at you Caissa, I wouldn't be surprised if the Globe didn't cite them either.
I will agree, though, that similar "active" methods of killing may happen (overdoses, eg) and are not followed up. I think that the optics of this case: putting her in the truck, attaching the exahust pipe, using CO, did have an impact.
In terms of being an "example", it's also worth noting that Latimer already got a reduced sentence in that his actions clearly fit the legal test for the first-degree murder, not second.
That said, I'm torn about whether the lack of remorse should be the deciding factor. In one sense, it's a proxy for whether he accepts the need to follow the law as stated without regard to his own feelings and expecting to simply be exonerated. At the same time, he would have to be considered a pretty low risk for re-offending unless there's more information that hasn't been publicized.
Thu, 2007-12-06 09:58
#17
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
[b]He was made an "example of" by being charged with murder, convicted of second degree murder and having been sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility set at 10 years as per the Statutes of Canada.[/b]
That's what often happens when people commit murder.
Thu, 2007-12-06 10:04
#18
Let me make several responses here.
CMOT: You and I seem to have different definitions of thye phrase "made an example of." I don't think change necessarily follows from it, if I understand you correctly you do.
Pookie: The Globe didn't provide the citations if I remember correctly.
Scott: I'm really not sure how to respond to your contribution in the context of this discussion.
Thu, 2007-12-06 11:34
#19
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
[b]Scott: I'm really not sure how to respond to your contribution in the context of this discussion.[/b]
You seemed surprised that a murderer was being punished for committing murder. He was no more "made an example of" than any other murderer who is convicted of murder and then sent to prison for their crime.
Thu, 2007-12-06 15:41
#20
The debate over parole is a red herring. It's all about the conviction. I know of no one who agreed with the verdict but thinks the sentence was too harsh.
Thu, 2007-12-06 16:15
#21
Michelle:
After a whopping "if":
quote:
..I think he said something about wanting to go to Parliament to lobby on the issue of mercy killing. Who knows what other kind of advocacy he might be contemplating? I think it's reasonable to consider that..
As would be [i]your[/i] right to lobby today, and his tomorrow if out of jail.
I think that comparative sentences would show that he [i]has[/i] had a raw deal.
I detect much absolutism where there are shades of gray. I'm sure that much of the harshness comes from parents who have to deal with, perhaps, nothing more than a mildly autistic child.
There can be no comparison. So the VOCAL groups appear all on one side.
Thu, 2007-12-06 16:39
#22
quote:
I detect much absolutism where there are shades of gray. I'm sure that much of the harshness comes from parents who have to deal with, perhaps, nothing more than a mildly autistic child.
Dude, are you trying to troll?
If Tracy had told her dad she wanted to die, I wouldn't be so hard on Latimer. I am in favor of the right to die( even if I do feel that it is something which could be easily abused in our ablest society) but the fact is that tracey couldn't speak, and therfore could not make her wishes known to her father. He did not recieve her concent, therefore he is a murderer.
P.S. anyone who thinks a mildly autistic child is easy to deal with has a cinder block for a brain.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 16:51
#23
quote:
Originally posted by bliter:
[b]I'm sure that much of the harshness comes from parents who have to deal with, perhaps, nothing more than a mildly autistic child.There can be no comparison.[/b]
Here's a comparison: both a mildly autistic child and one as severely disabled as Tracy Latimer are human beings.
Thu, 2007-12-06 16:53
#24
CMOT Dibbler,
Cut with the troll bullshit! That's just another straw man.
You don't know [i]my[/i] family's medical experiences.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: bliter ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 17:03
#25
quote:
You don't know my family's medical experiences.
I live with cerebral palsy. I know how unpleasant it can be to be in close proximity to someone with a severe form of C.P. That does not mean that these people should be killed.
No one should have the right to end the lives of severely disabled children simply because of caregiver stress.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 17:18
#26
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]The debate over parole is a red herring. It's all about the conviction. I know of no one who agreed with the verdict but thinks the sentence was too harsh.[/b]
Don't you mean no one disagreed with the verdict but thought the sentence was to harsh?
I go along with that.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: clersal ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 17:44
#27
quote:
Originally posted by pookie:
[b]In terms of being an "example", it's also worth noting that Latimer already got a reduced sentence in that his actions clearly fit the legal test for the first-degree murder, not second.
[/b]
As a criminal defence attorney, I have to pipe in on this one. Regardless of what one's opinion on this matter, Robert Latimer received the mandatory sentence - life - which is the maximum penalty available in Canada. The only difference between a first degree and second degree conviction is the period in which a person can SEEK full parole.
Full parole does not mean that one is a free person. The sentence is still in effect in many ways, i.e. urine tests for drugs, conditions re. otherwise legal behaviour like drinking. Anytime someone breaches even the most arcane condition (i.e. curfew, drinking, evidence of pot in a piss test) it's right back to the pen for at very least 90 days. That goes right until Latimer dies.
For the rest of his life, Robert Latimer will be bound by someone else's conditions. Contrast that with someone who stabs and kills someone, gets a manslaughter conviction and serves 3 of 8 years.
Let's not kid ourselves, Latimer got the max. Right or wrong. There is no middle ground on the point.
Thu, 2007-12-06 18:08
#28
NP, or any other crim lawyers reading this: Could you clarify for me whether remorse is a necessary condition or an important factor in deciding whether to grant parole? I thought the main question was risk of reoffence.
ETA: oops, I'm also curious about whether and where there is a right to appeal and/or seek judicial review of the parole board's decision.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 18:21
#29
Michelle if you are around I messed up the editing could you remove the blanks. Sorry, all I wanted to do was put in a space and I hit the quote by mistake and things went from messed up to fucked up completely! [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] Remove this one too,
What a mess.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: clersal ]
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: clersal ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 18:22
#30
Thu, 2007-12-06 18:47
#31
quote:
Originally posted by clersal:
[b]Don't you mean no one disagreed with the verdict but thought the sentence was to harsh?[/b]
I thought I was clear the first time, but let me try to state it more plainly:
It is my belief that all those who are now saying "he should get parole" or "enough is enough" etc., believe that he should never have been convicted of murder in the first place.
So in fact, I believe the "debate" over parole (which is a pretty technical legal issue, not one of popular feeling and referendum) is simply a cover for re-debating whether he was guilty of the offence or not. Let's debate that issue, not whether he should get day parole now or a year from now or whatever.
My input on the real debate: He deliberately murdered his daughter, he was wrong to do so, and he still doesn't acknowledge that.
Thu, 2007-12-06 19:54
#32
Of course, the severity of a disability is entirely subjective. I mean, I'm certain that some people look at me and consign my life to the scrapheap, and my disability isn't nearly as severe as tracey's.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 03:35
#33
Hi Unionist,
I believe Latimer should have been convicted and I believe he should now receive day parole.
As per discussions above: I have two sons with Aspergers syndrome. If anyone wants to discuss "mild" forms of autism I would be happy to do it at any time.
Fri, 2007-12-07 04:28
#34
i worked for many years with what we use to refer to here in ontario as comsoc, and specifically dealing in the area of children with severe disabilities. it seems to me that people are overly sympathetic to Mr. Latimer. his daughter was a living, loving little girl...yes with severe problems but no one has the right to decide life and death.
i know it was tough for him and his family. and quite possibly in his area of the country service provision was less than optimal. but so what? if it came to the absolute worse case scenario there was always the option of putting the child into the care of the state rather than murdering her.
i just cannot get over the fact that mr. Latimer chose to play god. we have laws against that and he is serving his time.
yet i read michelle's post and feel her compassion too...despite how i feel it probably at this time serves no useful purpose keeping this man in prison...its all just so damn tragic
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: Jaku ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 05:28
#35
Sorry unionist, I won't even try and explain what I didn't understand.
There is no doubt he killed his daughter. I wouldn't call it murder.
I think he should be freed in fact I'm not sure if he ever should have gone to prison.
I really don't think that it will become open season on disabled children if he is released.
Fri, 2007-12-07 05:34
#36
quote:
Originally posted by NP:
[b]As a criminal defence attorney, I have to pipe in on this one. Regardless of what one's opinion on this matter, Robert Latimer received the mandatory sentence - life - which is the maximum penalty available in Canada. The only difference between a first degree and second degree conviction is the period in which a person can SEEK full parole.
[/b]
Sorry, I used the word "sentence" loosely. I'm aware of the difference between a conviction for second and first-degree murder, that all murder receives a mandatory life sentence, and the implications of a life sentence. Nonetheless, a first-degree murder conviction is more serious and a (generally) 15-year longer period of parole ineligibility is not insignificant in my view.
Bottom line: I don't think many accused would be indifferent to whether they were convicted of first, rather than second-degree, murder.
Fri, 2007-12-07 05:40
#37
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I thought I was clear the first time, but let me try to state it more plainly:
It is my belief that all those who are now saying "he should get parole" or "enough is enough" etc., believe that he should never have been convicted of murder in the first place.
[/b]
Actually a lot of people, especially criminal scholars, have discusssed the Latimer case precisley in terms of challenging the fitness of a mandatory life sentence for all instances of "murder". Others, it's true, say that Latimer is an example of a case where failing to consider the underlying motive for an intentional killing leads to an unjust murder conviction. But it is certainly possible to adopt a conventional definition of murder (intentional killing for which motive is irrelevant) and challenge the fitness of his sentence.
Fri, 2007-12-07 06:12
#38
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
[b]Hi Unionist,
I believe Latimer should have been convicted and I believe he should now receive day parole. [/b]
Thanks. My problem is that when it comes to sentencing and especially parole issues, there are a whole series of legal considerations that I am totally ignorant of that I have a hard time figuring out how people can even express informed opinions about it.
But let me ask you some follow-up questions if you don't mind thinking about them:
1. Do you agree with his specific conviction on second-degree murder - or should it have been some other charge?
2. Do you agree with the original sentence?
Fri, 2007-12-07 06:17
#39
quote:
Originally posted by clersal:
[b]There is no doubt he killed his daughter. I wouldn't call it murder. [/b]
What would you call it?
Fri, 2007-12-07 06:21
#40
He was found guilty by a jury of his peers who had far more information than I have access to. Based on information in the media there seems to no dispute of the facts that actions taken deliberately by Robert Latimer ended his daughte's life. I guess that's a long way of saying "yes" to your first question.
A conviction of second degree murder carries a mandatory life sentence therefore that is the sentence that should be meted out. It also allows for the application for day parole after 7 years. My understanding is that Latimer is highly unlikely to reoffend, has not caused problems in the prison system. He is only being denied day parole because he is not showing contrition for his actions. I don't think contrition should be a pre-requisite for parole.
Fri, 2007-12-07 06:34
#41
You kill in self defense and there is mercy killing.
Whether one believes that it was a mercy killing is something else and I guess has to do with our attitude on the quality of life.
This comes closest to what I mean..Unlawful killing of another with intent to kill, or with wicked recklessness to life.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: clersal ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 06:55
#42
quote:
Originally posted by clersal:
[b] Whether one believes that it was a mercy killing is something else and I guess has to do with our attitude on the quality of life.[/b]
My opinion on "mercy killing":
When a person has made an informed and free decision to end their own life, our society should not only allow them to do so, but should provide them the means to do so in a dignified manner where that is needed. We have decriminalized suicide, but that's not enough.
In the absence of consent, no one has the right to take the life of another human being - no matter what the motive. Of course I'm not talking about self-defence etc. I'm talking about so-called "mercy".
In the case of a minor, the issue becomes much more difficult, because the question arises as to what age they can give free and informed consent. I don't know the answer to this. But given the doubly vulnerable status of disabled children, until society consensually solves this problem, I believe we have no choice but to give one strong and unambiguous response:
Anyone who resorts to "self-help" in killing a disabled child, absent any mitigating circumstances such as mental health etc. on the perpetrator's part, will be punished to the full extent of the law.
Any lesser message, I believe, will inevitably give rise to deaths of other disabled children. Maybe not a flood. But one is too many.
Fri, 2007-12-07 07:08
#43
Okay. It is never simple and each case is unique.
I still believe that Mr Latimer should not have gone to prison.
Fri, 2007-12-07 10:56
#44
Mr. Latiomer murdered his daughter. A daughter whose other care givers described far differently than did her father. They saw a happy girl with serious medical issues that caused her pain. Latimer was under a lot of stress from both the demands of caring for her and the fact that his wife was about to add the additional responsibility of another child. Those are the facts that have me so convinced this is murder and not a mercy killing. He "put her down" like any other animal on his farm. He shouldn't get parole until he acknowledges he killed a human being who had everybit as much right to her life as he had to his.
He is not a danger to reoffend unless another member of his family becomes disabled. What if his wife is in a car accident and rendered disabled and in pain? He is still claiming the right to kill her too because he claims it is a "family" matter. That is not acceptable and he is thus a potential danger to other members of his family because he thinks he holds the life and death of other humans in his hands as a matter of right.
He is eleigible for parole after ten years but if he keeps saying he would do the same thing again(that is apparently what he told the parole board)he deserves to stay in jail until he dies because he is still a potential murderer.
Fri, 2007-12-07 11:19
#45
quote:
Any lesser message, I believe, will inevitably give rise to deaths of other disabled children. Maybe not a flood. But one is too many.
But that's the question isn't it, has keeping Robert Latimer behind bars protected disabled people from abuse? I say no. Things haven't changed, his prison term served no purpose.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 11:47
#46
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]But that's the question isn't it, has keeping Robert Latimer behind bars protected disabled people from abuse? I say no. Things haven't changed, his prison term served no purpose.
[/b]
I don't know whether things have changed. Nor do you know how things might have changed over the past decade if Latimer had been acquitted and given an award for compassion - over the protests of groups representing the disabled.
But in the end, that doesn't matter much. Verdicts and sentences are handed out in accordance with the evidence, the findings, and the rule of law. They don't need to serve a different "purpose" in each individual case.
Fri, 2007-12-07 12:19
#47
quote:
But in the end, that doesn't matter much. Verdicts and sentences are handed out in accordance with the evidence, the findings, and the rule of law. They don't need to serve a different "purpose" in each individual case.
But it should, criminal justice should be about more then locking away fellons, it should make people think and force society to improve itself.
Fri, 2007-12-07 12:24
#48
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]But it should, criminal justice should be about more then locking away fellons, it should make people think and force society to improve itself.[/b]
I said confinement and rehabilitation. Maybe you could add deterrence. What other purposes do you see for imprisonment?
Fri, 2007-12-07 12:46
#49
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]But it should, criminal justice should be about more then locking away fellons, it should make people think and force society to improve itself.[/b]
That is why his conviction and imprisonment is a good thing. Society needs to improve by having all people accorded the same respect regardless of things like disabilty and the same right to the most basic of human rights the right to live without someone else determining that in their opinion you are substandard and therefore can be put out of your misery.
Fri, 2007-12-07 13:14
#50
quote:
I said confinement and rehabilitation. Maybe you could add deterrence. What other purposes do you see for imprisonment?
Maybe he shoudn't have been imprisoned at all.
Latimer's actions are based on deeply ingraned beliefs our society holds about disability, and locking him up will not make those beliefs go away. Besides, putting Latimer in prison has inhanced his profile. He and his stance on the issue of "mercy killing" have recieved much more coverage now then they did before he went to jail.
Fri, 2007-12-07 13:40
#51
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]
Besides, putting Latimer in prison has inhanced his profile. He and his stance on the issue of "mercy killing" have recieved much more coverage now then they did before he went to jail.[/b]
So what? It's great that such issues should be discussed and debated. What impresses me is that even all these years later, no one dares speak out publicly for the "right" of parents to kill their disabled children. Had Latimer been given a mild sentence - or acquitted - would that have been the case?