PDA

View Full Version : Robert Latimer



Said1
12-06-2007, 07:53 PM
Here's a name from the past. Latimer claimed he killed his disabled daughter because she was suffering. From what I can recall, I'm pretty sure he had a lot of national support for his actions. Anyway, he was given a life sentence and recently denied parole.


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

Said1
12-07-2007, 08:37 PM
Wow. No one cares about euthanasia? Can anyone say 'board burn out'. Maybe you're all just used to Chesswars. Should I start numbering all sentences? :coffee:

hjmick
12-07-2007, 08:45 PM
Wow. No one cares about euthanasia? Can anyone say 'board burn out'. Maybe you're all just used to Chesswars. Should I start numbering all sentences? :coffee:

It's not that we don't care about euthanasia, we just don't care about Canadians. ;)

Seriously?

I have my doubts about the man's motivation particularly if hisdaughter was "facing another operation to fix a permanently dislocated hip." That sentence alone raises doubts. She had obviously had at least one previous operation and would quite possibly be facing more in the future, this had to be a financial drain on the family.

On the subject of euthanasia for humans in general, I'm not sure where I stand.

Said1
12-07-2007, 09:03 PM
It's not that we don't care about euthanasia, we just don't care about Canadians. ;)

Seriously?

I have my doubts about the man's motivationm particularly if hisdaughter was "facing another operation to fix a permanently dislocated hip." That sentence alone raises doubts. She had obviously had at least one previous operation and would quite possibly be facing more in the future, this had to be a financial drain on the family.

On the subject of euthanasia for humans in general, I'm not sure where I stand.

No financial drain on the family. We have socialized health care. Emotional drain, maybe? I'm sure there were extra costs associated with he care, but most of it is paid for by the province or federal government. That includes any aides and special equipment, meds and so forth.

I don't really know enough about her condition to comment on it. Apparently she was a vegetable, in constant pain and had the mentality and motor skills of a 3 month old. He has to live with killing his daughter and he's done more time than people who have done a lot worse, in cold blood. Should he be paroled? He supposedly didn't have a guilty mind (mens rea sp??) but he's not insane, so he's liable for his actions (actus reus). Pretty black and white in the eyes of the law.