Robert Latimer denied day parole

[noahbody]

Robert Latimer was denied day parole. He says he does not feel guilt about what he did. I doubt his position will change. He felt it was the only option available to him to end his daughter's suffering.

For cases of cold blooded murder, feeling guilt should be a requirement for parole. With mercy killings, should this apply? It's not as if Latimer is incapable of guilt. It's that watching his daughter suffering was the greater guilt.

[Wilber]

The man is no danger to anyone. He is just not telling the Parole Board what they want to hear and is too honest to lie about it.

You can have a hundred criminal convictions in this country and the system will not send you to jail. You can have one conviction and honesty will not get you out.

Such is the state of our "justice" system.

[capricorn]

There is no law permitting euthanasia or mercy killing in Canada. We can't make up laws on the fly. Therefore Latimer is guilty of unlawfully taking a life. I agree with his guilty verdict.

As long as he doesn't dance to the tune of the Parole Board he'll remain in jail to serve his full sentence. No remorse, no parole.

[Fortunata]

There is no law permitting euthanasia or mercy killing in Canada. We can't make up laws on the fly. Therefore Latimer is guilty of unlawfully taking a life. I agree with his guilty verdict.

As long as he doesn't dance to the tune of the Parole Board he'll remain in jail to serve his full sentence. No remorse, no parole.

Seeing things so black and white is what makes you a conservative I guess.

Didn't whatshisface in Saskatchewan (former Premier, MLA?), convicted of premeditated murder of his wife and denying always that he was guilty, end up getting parole?

At least Latimer has admitted his guilt and the reasons why he did what he did. It doesn't make him right but it does make him honest.

[Guest American Woman]

Seeing things so black and white is what makes you a conservative I guess.

Didn't whatshisface in Saskatchewan (former Premier, MLA?), convicted of premeditated murder of his wife and denying always that he was guilty, end up getting parole?

At least Latimer has admitted his guilt and the reasons why he did what he did. It doesn't make him right but it does make him honest.

Was he wrong?

Tracy was a 40-pound quadriplegic, a 12-year-old who functioned at the level of a three-month-old. She had been repeatedly operated on and at the time of her murder was due for more surgery, this time to remove a thigh bone. She could not walk, talk or feed herself, though she responded to affection and occasionally smiled. Tracy was in constant, excruciating pain yet, for reasons not entirely clear, could not be treated with a pain-killer stronger than Tylenol. Link

"Constant, excruciating pain." How is that supposed to be a life worth living? How could anyone bear to see their child suffer such a fate?

[Riverwind]

As long as he doesn't dance to the tune of the Parole Board he'll remain in jail to serve his full sentence. No remorse, no parole.

That kind of thinking is one of reasons why wrongly convicted people have a tough time getting parole. People who believe they are innocent have a tough time expressing remorse. It is also unreasonable to expect Latimar to believe he was guilty of something because he lives in a culture where a significant majority believe his actions were morally justified. You also must remember that the jury recommended a sentence of 1 year and was overruled by the judge. The parole board should rubber stamp any parole application because that would ensure that Latimer's sentence is a close as possible to the sentence that a jury of his peers gave him.

[capricorn]

Seeing things so black and white is what makes you a conservative I guess.

Facts and logic trump emotion. Before you jump on this, I add that being logical and working with facts does not preclude being compassionate. Latimer had other options put decided to end his daughter's life. That was not his decision to make.

Didn't whatshisface in Saskatchewan (former Premier, MLA?), convicted of premeditated murder of his wife and denying always that he was guilty, end up getting parole?

Colin Thatcher served 20 of a 25 year sentence.

Thatcher was tried in Saskatoon for the murder of his ex-wife in the autumn of 1984. He was found guilty, and was given a sentence of 25 years to life. He appealed the verdict, but the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejected the plea in 1986. Subsequent requests to the Supreme Court of Canada and the national Minister of Justice for a review of his case were also denied. A request for an early parole hearing was rejected in 2000, though the jury of a later hearing in 2003 decided that he was eligible to apply. He did so, and on 31 March 2004 the National Parole Board rejected his bid for early release. Throughout his trial and his appeals, Thatcher has steadfastly maintained his innocence, which he admits is probably the reason he was not paroled until late 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Thatcher#Parole

I don't agree with his receiving parole. He should have served his full sentence.

At least Latimer has admitted his guilt and the reasons why he did what he did. It doesn't make him right but it does make him honest.

I don't doubt his honesty. Like I said, under our system, no remorse no parole.

[Fortunata]

Was he wrong?

In black and white thinking, yes. In the real world, not necessarily. I cannot either condemn him nor applaud him as it is a situation I cannot fathom having to make a decision on should it be my circumstance.

Should he be given immediate parole? Yes and not just day parole.

[Guest American Woman]

In black and white thinking, yes. In the real world, not necessarily. I cannot either condemn him nor applaud him as it is a situation I cannot fathom having to make a decision on should it be my circumstance.

Should he be given immediate parole? Yes and not just day parole.

What about in nations where euthenasia is legal? Would it still be wrong in "black and white thinking" in those countries? Just a thought.

But I do agree with you. I cannot fathom having to make such a decsion or taking such actions. And like you, I think he should be given immediate parole.

[Fortunata]

What about in nations where euthenasia is legal? Would it still be wrong in "black and white thinking" in those countries? Just a thought.

I'm not much of a black and white thinker so maybe capricorn or someone else should answer that one.

I personally think that there is a place for legal euthanasia. My fear of it is that it could be misused.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not much of a black and white thinker so maybe capricorn or someone else should answer that one.

I personally think that there is a place for legal euthanasia. My fear of it is that it could be misused.

I'm not a black and white thinker either.

Again, I agree with you. I think there is a place for legal euthanasia too, but of course along with legalizing it is the fear that it could be misused. But I think that could be true of any new line of thought-- any new law that's passed. So I think the answer is that there would have to be strict guidelines within the law.

[capricorn]

I'm not much of a black and white thinker so maybe capricorn or someone else should answer that one.

I'm more concerned about the laws of Canada.

I personally think that there is a place for legal euthanasia. My fear of it is that it could be misused.

I agree with you 100%. I never said I was against euthanasia in certain circumstances. My point is that at this time it is illegal in Canada.

[guyser]

What about in nations where euthenasia is legal? Would it still be wrong in "black and white thinking" in those countries? Just a thought.

Euthanasia occurs here on this continent everyday. I have been party to it, and I am sure there are others on this board who have also.

Passive euthanasia is what most of us have or will be faced with at sometime in their future. For me, in the first case, it was the withholding of medical technology that would prolong his life, and the inclusion of a DNR on his chart. In the second I was merely a close friend who assisted a friend in making the decision to allow her 42 yr old husband die.(against his parents wishes and their attempts thru the court to stop it-ultra catholics they were)

What is illegal is the administering of drugs that is guarenteed to bring about death. And I would bet that every doctor on this planet has done so, but try finding one to admit it. For instance, pain relief meds. Doc gives them to the patient after explaing to the family that it causes relaxation and relaxation may bring about cardiac stress.Injection goes in, life goes out.

For Latimer, he should play the game now. I dont know why he wants to stay in prison since all he has to do is bs the board and he is on parole. Could they revoke it if he got out and a month later thumbed his nose at them? Dont know and it may factor here. I have to give him credit for his personal convictions.

As to the killing of his daughter, I would not have convicted him using any moral compass I could find. He did not have options that I can discern. He had exactly one....if she lives she lives in immense pain. If she dies, she is free of that pain. Thats all he had.

I cannot fathom having to make such a decsion or taking such actions. And like you, I think he should be given immediate parole.

At some point in your life you will have to make that decision. Sucks, but I can tell you that you will likely not find it hard to do. When and if that time comes, you will do it as it will be the right thing to do.

[Wilber]

There is no law permitting euthanasia or mercy killing in Canada. We can't make up laws on the fly. Therefore Latimer is guilty of unlawfully taking a life. I agree with his guilty verdict.

As long as he doesn't dance to the tune of the Parole Board he'll remain in jail to serve his full sentence. No remorse, no parole.

The he will stay there for life believing he did the right thing for his daughter and willing to take the consequences rather than lie to get out. I can't imagine what he went through before he took his daughters life and I don't know what I would have done in his situation.

I agree with the guilty verdict as well but I think the Parole Board is on a power trip because he won't grovel for them. Nothing more. Who do they think he is going to kill now?

By the way, the guy who killed Const. Jimmy Ng when he ran a red light and T boned the officers car while street racing, then jumped in another car and fled the scene back in 2004. He just took another driving test yesterday. Thankfully he failed.

An addict with over 100 convictions who has to steal over $750,000 in property yearly to feed his habit and who the other day ripped off a seriously ill kids phone and DVD player in a hospital then pawned them, just spent less than 24 hrs in jail.

Robert Lattimer is still in prison for doing something no parent should ever have to even think about.

Such is the state of our "justice" system.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Wilber

[jazzer]

There is no law permitting euthanasia or mercy killing in Canada. We can't make up laws on the fly.

Then I guess I'm guilty of murder. I gave permission to withhold a feeding tube for my mother and upped the morphine for my terminally ill father. This is done everyday in Canada.

[capricorn]

Euthanasia occurs here on this continent everyday. I have been party to it, and I am sure there are others on this board who have also.

If you're referring to a living will, in my interpretation that is not euthanasia.

For Latimer, he should play the game now. I dont know why he wants to stay in prison since all he has to do is bs the board and he is on parole.

I think Latimer is very aware of the game he should play with the parole board. Could it be he is merely going through the parole process mechanically but deep down wants to be punished for his actions. Perhaps he feels guiltier than he lets on.

He did not have options that I can discern. He had exactly one....if she lives she lives in immense pain. If she dies, she is free of that pain. Thats all he had.

If he could not bear to see her suffer, could he have tried to put his daughter in special long term care? Whether such care is available is another question.

At some point in your life you will have to make that decision. Sucks, but I can tell you that you will likely not find it hard to do. When and if that time comes, you will do it as it will be the right thing to do.

I just can't see myself snuffing out the life of my child. I would look for other options.

[capricorn]

I agree with the guilty verdict as well but I think the Parole Board is on a power trip because he won't grovel for them. Nothing more. Who do they think he is going to kill now?

I wouldn't call it groveling. Many victims and offenders rights groups watch the Parole Board's actions very closely. The Board has a set of rules it operates by and any deviance from those rules would set of a furore.

[capricorn]

I gave permission to withhold a feeding tube for my mother and upped the morphine for my terminally ill father. This is done everyday in Canada.

Sorry to hear that jazzer. It must have been heartbreaking for you. Yes it does happen often. It seems if it is done in a hospital or under a doctor's supervision it is somehow acceptable. Yet, it's hard to compare these situations to that of a father gassing his daughter in an automobile.

[guyser]

If you're referring to a living will, in my interpretation that is not euthanasia.

No. And no in both cases. The first case was due to massive hemorraging and quality of life after would have proven not to be worth it.

IN the second case, it was from brain damage and in fact was exactly the same as Terry Schiavo's case in Florida. Brain dead, pneumonia no central core , family fighting tooth and nail for "Christs intervention" when it was obvious to all (except them) and the courts that it was pointless. I had known her since I was a kid, and she asked me to come to the hospital and assist her in making the choice. After meeting the docs and reading his charts, it was quite an easy thing to do. I dont mean to sound flippant, easy is a poor choice, but it just wasnt hard in either case. The pain comes later.

I think Latimer is very aware of the game he should play with the parole board. Could it be he is merely going through the parole process mechanically but deep down wants to be punished for his actions. Perhaps he feels guiltier than he lets on.

Perhaps, but I doubt it.If anything, I think he wants to maintain his position in order not to allow those that would surely stand up and say "Aha...I knew he felt wrong for it" Either way, I give him props for his stand.

If he could not bear to see her suffer, could he have tried to put his daughter in special long term care? Whether such care is available is another question.

I just can't see myself snuffing out the life of my child. I would look for other options.

On the one hand should he find another place for her to live means that his daily burden is lifted. He was seeking to lift a burden from his daughter thus I think he had one choice to make.

Of course you cant see it. I hope no one can see themselves doing it . But after years and years of painful suffering in a childs life, and the resultant lack of any quality of life , not to mention inability to talk eat sleep or converse on ANY level , I would think it at least would cross your mind. You , and me for that matter, might see the benefit in euthanising our child, and we may not have it in us to do it. That makes us nothing more than human. We might not, but can, after years and years of watching that suffering, understand why someone could, and did.

But this applies to extreme cases. Some people are in pain, but can converse. Some cant converse but can hear and understand/acknowledge. Latimers daughter was that and everything else. I cannot condemn a man for what he honestly thought was in her best interests.

[capricorn]

No. And no in both cases.

I hear you. Wow. Those were tough situations you dealt with.

On the one hand should he find another place for her to live means that his daily burden is lifted. He was seeking to lift a burden from his daughter thus I think he had one choice to make.

That's what many observers are debating. I have no view one way or the other on this point.

Some people are in pain, but can converse. Some cant converse but can hear and understand/acknowledge. Latimers daughter was that and everything else. I cannot condemn a man for what he honestly thought was in her best interests.

I see where you're coming from and appreciate your view.

[jdobbin]

Some awful stories from people about the decisions that have had to be made in terms of their family care.

Latimer's daughter suffered terribly. I don't know what I would have done. I don't know that the surgery that was being offered would have been an improvement in the quality of life. At some point, we have to ask how much pain and suffering has to be suffered for the preservation of life.

[guyser]

I hear you. Wow. Those were tough situations you dealt with.

Its kind of funny in that all emotion is scrubbed when you are dealing with this. Kind of hard to put in words, but as I recall in the first case I knew that life had left him, and that he was only there in body. The world seemed content in leaving him to live this way and I was adamant that it was not what he wanted. It was my dad. I knew my mother could not do it, so I did on her bahalf, although she had to nod her head when the Docs asked if it what she wants.

The second was at times more painful in certain ways. The man had two kids under 6 yrs of age. From their viewpoint I struggled, but then realized they dont really have a viewpoint except to have dad back and walking and playing with them. There was no way that was going to happen.

So, in the end, I gave my position, and shortly after it was all over.

[capricorn]

Its kind of funny in that all emotion is scrubbed when you are dealing with this.

I would say you put your emotions on hold. It's a blessing we can actually enter into this temporary state. I went through this when my first husband passed away. You're present but you feel nothing though you know what is going to happen. As you said, it kicks in later after it's all over.

Kind of hard to put in words, but as I recall in the first case I knew that life had left him, and that he was only there in body. The world seemed content in leaving him to live this way and I was adamant that it was not what he wanted. It was my dad. I knew my mother could not do it, so I did on her bahalf, although she had to nod her head when the Docs asked if it what she wants.

My current spouse went through the same thing with his mom about 20 years ago. It's still painful for him to talk about it.

[sideshow]

This was a terrible decision. The court that convicted him was left with no other option under the legislation. But the parole board did have the power to free this man. Yes, killing is wrong, yes it is illegal. But he did it out of love for a child in terrible pain, that he watched in pain for 12 YEARS long.

That man is no threat to anyone, and I believe the personal pain he had to bear watching his child all those years in pain and then finally having to end her life himself to spare her more pain is more then enough punishment then the "justice" system could ever dole out to him.

Maybe sometime someone will use a little common sense and compassion.

[Wilber]

I just can't see myself snuffing out the life of my child. I would look for other options.

I can't imagine that you would think he didn't.

I wouldn't call it groveling. Many victims and offenders rights groups watch the Parole Board's actions very closely. The Board has a set of rules it operates by and any deviance from those rules would set of a furore.

That's what I said. The game is the thing.