Father denied day parole after mercy killing

[Richards 0]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/

http://torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2007/12/07/4712544-sun.html

I'm really conflicted on this one. On one hand I feel we cannot allow people to commit euthanasia so it was right that he went to prison. On the other hand, however misguided his actions were he did so out of compassion for his daughter and he has done time for it so why can he not be considered for day parole? I doubt he is a threat to society compared to the creatures we routinely parole out.

The parole board did not find he was sufficiently remorsefull because he stuck to his position that he acted to end her pain. At least he was honest in front of the board and spoke his mind rather than what they want to hear. How many career gang bangers or repeat pedophiles get paroled yet again because they end up in front of a parole board again and convincingly say something to the effect of "I regret the pain my actions have caused and am ready to become a productive member of society" and apparently really mean it this time.

I am curious to hear other opinions on this. Again I am not saying that he shouldn't have gone to jail. I am just unsure as to whether denying him parole was the right decision.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Glitch 0]

  Quote

...On one hand I feel we cannot allow people to commit euthanasia so it was right that he went to prison. On the other hand, however misguided his actions were...

As someone who cared for a loved one from diagnosis till death, I CAN understand euthanasia and DO support those who chose that path. Until you experience something like this, you will likely never understand it.

Parole the guy...

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[Richards 0]

  Quote

As someone who cared for a loved one from diagnosis till death, I CAN understand euthanasia and DO support those who chose that path. Until you experience something like this, you will likely never understand it.

OK. I cannot possibly understand what it is like because I have never been there and I fully acknowledge that I am being a monday morning quarterback. I do support doctor asisted suicide. If a person wishes to die because they are in unbearable pain then we should have legal means for that person to do so in a painless manner.

My reservation about euthanasia is where the line would be drawn. Would it become used as a tool to dispose of inconvenient patients? Patients who's treatments cost too much? What if the patient does not want to die?

Either way, I do sympathise with any individual in his situation (and yours) who comes to the day where they feel the need to make that decision. I personally feel he should be paroled but I threw this out here because I often find on SC that some posters say things that drastially change the way I look at things I had strong opinions about.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

  Quote

  Quote

...On one hand I feel we cannot allow people to commit euthanasia so it was right that he went to prison. On the other hand, however misguided his actions were...

As someone who cared for a loved one from diagnosis till death, I CAN understand euthanasia and DO support those who chose that path. Until you experience something like this, you will likely never understand it.

Parole the guy...

There is no great statement in your supporting his parole as you stated you support his original decision; the question is more germane to those who supported his original incarceration.
I agree with the OP; this is a clear example of the weakness in the basic principles of the parole system. Unfortunately when this guy is up for full parole in a few years he will be unable to stand up and say he is sorry for what is no doubt is the central moral choice of his life. According to the rules of the parole board they will have to keep him in for the full twenty-five years. It is very sad.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

The question of parole should have never come up.....


he never should have been in jail to begin with.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Can't agree with that.
No-one has the right to make that decision for someone else. I do believe that there needs to be a route for the crown to make it, but parents do not have life and death choice over their disabled children.

[Richards 0]

  Quote

  Quote

The question of parole should have never come up.....


he never should have been in jail to begin with.

I'm not sure I agree.This was not a case of assisted suicide. Where do we draw the line on an individual deciding on behalf of another person to end that persons life? Given the specifics of the case I feel that the courts had to send a clear message, but he should have been given a shorter sentence and at an easier institution.

Part of the problem is that I do not know enough about severe cerebral palsy to know whether his daughter was actually in terrible pain. Was it compassion? Or was it a convenient solution to a burdensome situation? If it was the latter then life would be appropriate. I think he was genuinely motivated by compassion.

Do you think individuals should have the right to end another persons life if they feel that person is in pain? I do not feel comfortable with that. I fear where it could lead.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

  Quote

but he should have been given a shorter sentence and at an easier institution.

A shorter sentence was not available to the court; Life/10 is the minimum.
I was a bit surprised to read that he was still in William Head (a medium security prison). As I understand the prison system, you ascend through the security levels as you demonstrate your decreasing risk levels. Lattimer is quite obviously not a threat to anyone and should have been at a minimum security farm almost immediately. I wonder if this is also related to his lack of "progress" (read:proclaiming his wickedness and remorse).

[Richards 0]

  Quote

but he should have been given a shorter sentence and at an easier institution.

A shorter sentence was not available to the court; Life/10 is the minimum.

I didn't know thst.

  Quote

I was a bit surprised to read that he was still in William Head (a medium security prison). As I understand the prison system, you ascend through the security levels as you demonstrate your decreasing risk levels. Lattimer is quite obviously not a threat to anyone and should have been at a minimum security farm almost immediately. I wonder if this is also related to his lack of "progress" (read:proclaiming his wickedness and remorse).

[Danger 0]

The jury recommended he serve one year and another of house arrest. The judge imposed a 2 year sentance. This was overturned by a higher court to the minimum of 10 years.

The daughter had the mental capacity of a six month old. She was about to go for another surgury to remove 1/3 of her femur. Due to anti-seizure medicne the most powerful pain drug would by Tylonal.

This guy deserved to be punished but I think the jury had the right sentance.

[tbrown 26]

Yeah, I'd say parole the guy.

The problem is that parole boards are politically appointed and politically motivated. Their only real concern is that THEY look good and that nobody comes back asking embarrassing questions about why they released some crazed serial axe murderer. Which Mr. Latimer is not.

Going deeper than that, this also points up the fact that ALL governments, regardless of their ideology, whether to the left or the right, are about power and exacting obedience from ordinary people. Mr. Latimer was not paroled because he refused to kiss the asses of a bunch of political hacks, so they excercised the power they have over him by keeping him in prison. This is why the battle for personal liberties against any and all governments will never end, the best we can hope for is a process that aloows the battle to proceed on something like a level playing field.

But finally, on the cheery side, I think the media attention, as long as it keeps up, will finally secure Mr. Latimer his parole. Because the hacks on the Parole Board will finally decide that all the attention is once again making them look bad. Which is all that matters to them. That's the real world kiddies.

I hope he's home on parole in time for Christmas.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[tkhayes 348]

I only disagree with the way he did it. I am sure that with consultation about the matter with a few doctors, he could have found one that would have helped him with the process.

It would not be called 'murder', it would read "Died from natural causes' or died from complications due to her various illnesses" etc.

That sort of thing (I believe) happens every day. in the USA, Canada and I am sure the rest of the world, where people are left to die or 'helped' long by well intentions families and doctors.

But even so, I think the guy should be released on time seerved - it was a touchy case in Canada, but the law is what the law is.

bad laws need to be changed, too bad politicians think to much about being re-elected and will not touch the issue.

TK

[Lindsey 0]

  Quote

Can't agree with that.
No-one has the right to make that decision for someone else. I do believe that there needs to be a route for the crown to make it, but parents do not have life and death choice over their disabled children.

I agree with you. There is a difference between euthanasia when a person has a terminal illness and has reached the end of what can medically be done to ease their suffering and a person deciding it's "compassionate" to end a 12 y/o child's life because of a disability. Many people have pain. I don't think that pain makes their lives meaningless. Lots and lots of people live with pain every day and don't choose to end their own lives. Why would someone else have a right to end it for them.

I agree that this guy's probably not a threat to society anymore. I don't think that his crime can be overlooked though. That's taking the concept of what might be acceptable euthanasia a bit far, imho.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Richards 0]

  Quote

Mr. Latimer was not paroled because he refused to kiss the asses of a bunch of political hacks, so they excercised the power they have over him by keeping him in prison.

That really seems to be the driving force behind his parole being denied unforunately

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Richards 0]

  Quote

  Quote

I only disagree with the way he did it.

I think we will have to disagree there. Short of someone giving me a compelling argument otherwise, I will hold my position that it is not acceptable to euthanise ones child because of illness

  Quote

I am sure that with consultation about the matter with a few doctors, he could have found one that would have helped him with the process.
It would not be called 'murder', it would read "Died from natural causes' or died from complications due to her various illnesses" etc.That sort of thing (I believe) happens every day. in the USA, Canada and I am sure the rest of the world, where people are left to die or 'helped' long by well intentions families and doctors.

Sounds a bit sketchy but maybe a few MD types on this forum could imply one way or the other to resolve this,

  Quote

But even so, I think the guy should be released on time seerved - it was a touchy case in Canada, but the law is what the law is.

He belonged in jail but I believe he should now be paroled

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

• Quote

[Richards 0]

Sounds like we are on the same page here. Can you clarify whether or not he should be paroled?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Lindsey 0]

  Quote

Sounds like we are on the same page here. Can you clarify whether or not he should be paroled?

I don't begin to know the answer to that. Don't know anymore about the case than what was presented in that first article. I believe that a person who was sincerely acting in what he thought was the best interest of his child in an act like this should probably be paroled. But who knows what this guy's motives were. Maybe they have reason to believe that he was acting in his own best interest. If that were the case, then I'd have to say no.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Richards 0]

  Quote

I believe that a person who was sincerely acting in what he thought was the best interest of his child in an act like this should probably be paroled. But who knows what this guy's motives were. Maybe they have reason to believe that he was acting in his own best interest. If that were the case, then I'd have to say no.

[auburnguy 0]

Go to the netherlands, euthanasia is legal there.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[Lindsey 0]

I doubt that in the Netherlands this would fit their criteria....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Richards 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Go to the netherlands, euthanasia is legal there.

Without the consent of the person to be euthanised?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Lindsey 0]

I'm floored that people aren't more bothered by how spooky this is. This guy killed his daughter....for some reason. LOTS of people have cerebral palsy. Lots of parents don't kill their children who have cerebral palsy. My bet is, with *some* knowledge of the medicine, that if her pain were all that severe then she'd have been prescribed something more than tylenol. This gives me the heebie jeebies. That's all.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[auburnguy 0]

If they are not capable of making the decision then it falls on the next of kin.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[Lindsey 0]

  Quote

If they are not capable of making the decision then it falls on the next of kin.

????That's insane. No it doesn't. You think I, as my son's next of kin, can just decide it's time for him to die????? NOPE! Not unless he's on the ventilator or requires other measure to keep him alive. That's the ONLY time it's my decision. Go read up a bit.

edited to add: hell, I'm not even allowed to decide it's my OWN time to die unless I'm choosing to have no life-sustaining measures to be taken....like CPR, intubation...that sort of thing. Short of that I can be locked up and FORCED to live, whether I like it or not, if I decide that life's just too painful for me to live.

No...you can't just take your child's life because you're the parent.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jenfly00 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Can't agree with that.
No-one has the right to make that decision for someone else. I do believe that there needs to be a route for the crown to make it, but parents do not have life and death choice over their disabled children.

I agree with you. There is a difference between euthanasia when a person has a terminal illness and has reached the end of what can medically be done to ease their suffering and a person deciding it's "compassionate" to end a 12 y/o child's life because of a disability. Many people have pain. I don't think that pain makes their lives meaningless. Lots and lots of people live with pain every day and don't choose to end their own lives. Why would someone else have a right to end it for them.

I agree that this guy's probably not a threat to society anymore. I don't think that his crime can be overlooked though. That's taking the concept of what might be acceptable euthanasia a bit far, imho.

linz

What more compassionate medical alternatives were available to him?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".