Robert Latimer

[Said1]

Wow. Here's a name I haven't heard in a long time. For those who might forget, he killed his disabled daughter, in order to ease her suffering. Anyho, he was recently denied parole. He's currently serving a life sentence.

Observers divided over Latimer parole decision

Updated Thu. Dec. 6 2007 9:22 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Robert Latimer's continued refusal to show contrition or feel guilt for killing his 12-year-old daughter in 1993 is upsetting to one advocate for the rights of people with disabilities.
Latimer, currently serving a life sentence for killing his severely disabled daughter, was denied day parole on Wednesday.
The chair of the National Parole Board panel at B.C.'s minimum-security William Head prison, located near Victoria, told Latimer "we were left with a feeling that you have not developed the kind of sufficient insight and understanding of your actions."
Grant Mitchell, the lawyer who represented a coalition of disabled groups for seven years on the case, told CTV's Canada AM he is disappointed Latimer hasn't changed his position.
"I think it's really sad that he's still maintaining that he committed no crime ... that killing a member of his family was a private matter that the public had no business getting involved in," Mitchell said on Thursday.
"And I think it's particularly concerning that when he was asked by the Parole Board whether he would do the same thing if another member of his family were in distress, he said he wasn't sure what he would do."
Latimer chose not to appear before the Parole Board with a lawyer.
The Saskatchewan farmer's daughter, Tracy, was born with cerebral palsy and in 1993 was facing another operation to fix a permanently dislocated hip.
While his wife and kids were at church, Latimer put Tracy in the cab of his pickup and pumped exhaust fumes into the vehicle.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071205/Latimer_071206/20071206?hub=TopStories

 

[darkbeaver]

I heard this on radio this morning, they'll punish him for ever I think, about an issue that must be addressed. I can remember when he put his daughter to sleep forever, I believe he committed an act of supreme compassion. I ony hope someone will do it for me if it comes to that.:-(

 

[iARTthere4iam]

I hope he continues to keep his resolve. To suffer the penalty that society has deemed just is the best thing that he can do now. To change his position now would be an insult to the decision that he made for his daughter. He needs only to know that what he did was right. I do not care what the parole board thinks.

 

[#juan]

I wouldn't have jailed Latimer at all. He admitted he did it. He told why he did it. His daughter was in terrible pain. His daughter couldn't be cured. He was emotionally distraught and at the end of his rope.. All she could look forward to in the short time left to her, if she could look forward at all, which I doubt, was pain. Latimer comitted an act of supreme kindness. We wouldn't do less for our dog.

 

[earth_as_one]

Latimer is no threat to public safety. Murder motivated by compassion should have its own classification and penalties.

 

[Colpy]

Latimer is no threat to public safety. Murder motivated by compassion should have its own classification and penalties.

I agree, with reservations EAO. Certainly Latimer should be released at once, he poses no threat to anyone; the mere fact that he refuses to pretend he believes he did something wrong is no reason to keep him in prison, in fact it smacks of thought control.

At the same time, he killed. Not acceptable except in self-defense. His motives need to be taken into consideration, as does his method (as merciful as anyone could imagine).

I think a sentence of 5 to 10 years, with the usual release after 1/3 is served, would have been more than sufficient.

I have a serious problem with mandatory sentencing, and the Latimore case is the perfect example of why mandatory sentencing is a problem.

 

[Walter]

If he was a black gang-banger he would never have done time.

 

[Outta here]

What a terribly unfortunate situation. I don't personally see how anyone could find fault with his decision, but I do see the conundrum this poses for the courts. If only common sense could be legislated. But since it can't, ruling any differently on this case might have set a horrific precedent for folks who use this means as an out to an unjustifiable 'euthanasia'.
Nonetheless, it still galls that a man who had the courage to step up and commit the worst act any parent would dread facing should bear the punishment imposed on him - and his family.

 

[Said1]

I agree that he isn't a threat to society. He has to live with what he did. That and time served should be sufficient.

 

[lone wolf]

The only reason they won't let him out is their brainwash isn't taking. Can they not understand what Latimer did was free a daughter he dearly loved from the prison that was her life. I'm sure if she could testify from the beyond, she would speak for her father.

Woof!

 

[Kreskin]

The parole board should consider a "don't ask don't tell" policy in this kind of situation. What he did was out of compassion, not hate. Asking him if he would do it again is irrelevant since there isn't another person in his family in that situation. Let him move on with his life.

 

[darkbeaver]

The only reason they won't let him out is their brainwash isn't taking. Can they not understand what Latimer did was free a daughter he dearly loved from the prison that was her life. I'm sure if she could testify from the beyond, she would speak for her father.

Woof!

I was thinking the same thing earlier toninght Wolf. I sure hope she's not aware somehow.

 

[Unforgiven]

This bothered me right from the get go. There should be some legislation to address the issue of dying with dignity and bringing an end if "clearly asked for" to uncontrollable and incurable suffering. While respect for life must be paramount, there has to be a resolve to find a solution even if it is limited only to those who choose to end their own life and are able to do so. Those who assist should never be accused of anything other than a deep compassion for those loved one's who are suffering.

I don't think anyone knows better than a parent of their dearest child's excruciating pain because they live with it too. Anyone who's kid has suffered sever pain knows they would do anything they could to alleviate that suffering and I suggest only a few have the intestinal fortitude to do what Latimer himself did.

I don't think anyone in their right mind could draw the conclusion that should Latimer be freed that it sends a message that killing the disabled is now ok. To suggest this to be the case is just plain stupid in my opinion.

We are foolish to work so hard to see what's right that we miss what's good.

 

[Kreskin]

Will the parole board release him if he becomes extremely guit ridden and suicidal? Is that what they need to make things safer for his family?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Will the parole board release him if he becomes extremely guit ridden and suicidal? Is that what they need to make things safer for his family?

Probably. They were looking for contrition and confession, didn't get it, so it's back to the slammer for not thinking correctly. I don't think that should be the Parole Board's business. Its only business is, does he pose a threat to society and is he likely to re-offend. Those are clearly both no in Latimer's case and no amount of counseling is going to change his thinking, because he doesn't think he did anything wrong. Neither do I. I think what he did was the supreme act of compassionate self-sacrifice. The doctors were going to break his daughter's legs, remove some of the bone, and leave her legs attached to her hips only by muscles and ligaments, to relieve the tightness, and presumably the associated pain, in her leg muscles. The doctors were just experimenting on her. That's what put him over the edge, another damn useless and painful surgical procedure.

Let the man go.

 

[tracy]

I thought parole boards were supposed to look for remorse. The rationale is that people should regret breaking the law, since that regret is supposed to be something that might help stop them from doing it again.

I realize this case is unusual. I don't know how I feel about it though. I don't know enough about this child and her life and it's hard for me to pass judgement on them. They say she had the mentality of a three month old. My nephew just hit the three month mark last week. It's hard for me to say that he doesn't deserve protection under the law because of his limited level of development. On the other side, I work with babies whose parents often don't understand their prognosis and we cause them horrible unecessary suffering. I've often thought it would be kinder to let them die, and sometimes we do. But, we don't actively kill them. There is a line there I wouldn't be comfortable in crossing. I've taken babies off ventilators and let them die. I have never injected them with a lethal overdose.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I thought parole boards were supposed to look for remorse. The rationale is that people should regret breaking the law...

I think you can regret breaking the law, in the sense of wishing you hadn't felt you had to do it, without feeling any remorse over the deed itself. I'm sure he does regret breaking the law in that sense, considering the consequences it's had for him, but the law--and the Parole Board--isn't equipped to deal with a situation like Latimer's. I don't really see how it could be either, there are so many complex issues in a case like this the law can't hope to specify an appropriate response for every imaginable circumstance.

I think the real question is the same one that's at the heart of debates over things like capital punishment and abortion: under what circumstances is it permissible to kill another human being? The law has always recognized certain circumstances, like self-defense, but it's a tough question in general. I don't know the answer either, and I'm not sure a detailed one is possible.

 

[Nuggler]

Will the parole board release him if he becomes extremely guit ridden and suicidal? Is that what they need to make things safer for his family?

Most likely the only thing that will help.

Glad my future (so far) is not in the hands of those naval-gazing numbnuts.

He's not going to change his opinion, and will likely have to do his full time.

:-(

 

[tracy]

I think the real question is the same one that's at the heart of debates over things like capital punishment and abortion: under what circumstances is it permissible to kill another human being? The law has always recognized certain circumstances, like self-defense, but it's a tough question in general. I don't know the answer either, and I'm not sure a detailed one is possible.

I don't know either. I do know that there are no grey areas with mercy killings. They're clearly against the law. I feel horrible for those families, but I don't know that changing the law would be a good idea.

 

[earth_as_one]

There should be a law which addresses people who kill out of mercy and compassion. The current laws don't fit this case. Judges and parole boards are expected to use judgement. That's why I'm also against mandatory sentencing. It takes away the ability of these people whose judgement we trust, to use common sense.