Ernestly ?!Ernestly ?!By ERNEST NEUFELD, Weyburn Review Associate Publisher
A new threshold was reached this month in what surely will go down as a landmark in Canadian criminal jurisprudence. And it is likely that we'll hear more, rather than less, about it.
Reference, of course, is to the second conviction for second-degree murder of Wilkie area farmer Robert Latimer in the death of his seriously disabled 12-year-old daughter Tracy. A subsequent second sentence of life imprisonment with no parole for 10 years may be imposed - not as a judgment or whim of the judge's, but as matter of law. The jury had recommended leniency.
It will by no means be the end of the matter, since appeals are inevitable, and even if they are exhausted without any reduction of the punishment, ultimately there may be extraordinary remedies not obvious now but unofficially mooted.
You all know the background of the sad story as well as I do, but a few paragraphs seem appropriate in the remote event that a future reader, or a newly arrived visitor from Mars, craves clarification.
Since infancy, Tracy Latimer suffered from a severe case of cerebral palsy. She never learned to speak, to walk, to dress or feed herself, and - accordingly to credible testimony - was in almost constant pain. The catalyst that led, according to Latimer, to the final, irrevocable deed in 1993, was the medical decision to perform yet another painful operation promising little relief.
Robert Latimer, who comes through as an ordinary, decent, ingenuous farmer, killed Tracy by carbon monoxide poisoning, and although he first told police she had died in her sleep, it didn't require thumb screws to extort the whole story from him. He said he killed her because he could not bear to see her suffer any longer.
The result was a second-degree murder charge and a trial about a year later. To the regret of many, including myself, the jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with no chance of parole before 10 years. The general feeling, as I sensed it, and which I shared, was that whatever culpability may have existed, Latimer had already endured as much punishment as he deserved. I think we hoped for some recognition of extenuating circumstances in the justice system.
Conviction and sentence were upheld by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals, but when it came to light that the RCMP had questioned potential jurors about their views on moral issues touching on the case, the Supreme Court set aside the verdict but ruled Latimer's confession could be used in a new trial.
The second trial was held in October and November of this year, with a new jury again finding Latimer guilty. Sentencing is expected next month, and it will come as a pleasant surprise if the sentence is anything short of the prescribed minimum.
The jury decision again obviously rejected mercy killing as legitimate grounds for ending a life (particularly in the absence of the consent or request of the individual whose life is ended). So there is no precedent offered for future reference. Many feel an exception ought to be available in law to serve justice in exceptional instances, and that enabling legislation is needed.
After about three years of widespread public debate offering every conceivable opinion and positions conceivable, I believe many people have reexamined their own instinctive reactions.
Shortly after the verdict, a tight-lipped spokesman for a national association of handicapped persons spoke forcefully in favor of both. While I did not agree with his repeated assertions that Tracy was murdered simply because she had a handicap (frankly I would sooner be at the mercy of Robert Latimer than that of this individual), I could not ignore his citing of the fears of disadvantaged people who are terrified that a strong body of opinion may be sympathetic to the principle of killing the handicapped.
I don't agree with this inference, but it may seem more credible to many whose condition has caused people to make them feel unwanted and unworthy of living. Many of our laws establishing the sanctity of human life reflect, after all, our collective fear that we ourselves might find ourselves the victims of laws and precedents trivializing this sanctity. And as for the sentence: most of us have asked for harsher minimum sentences in response to a perceived increase in violent crime.
Thus however genuine and understandable Bob Latimer's action may have seemed, he is an intelligent and mature man familiar with the probable legal definition of what he was doing and its legal consequences. He proceeded, society acted not unpredictably, and the result is what we have before us. In honesty, do you think you could have acted differently as an investigating officer, a prosecutor (no relation despite the similarity of his name), a juror or (presumably) the judge?
While I remain sympathetic to Bob Latimer, and am cautiously - very cautiously - sympathetic to euthanasia in some cases of terminal and incurable illness (if requested by the sufferer), I would view with suspicion, alarm and skepticism, any hasty initiatives to legalize mercy killings.
So if I agree essentially with the existing definition of murder, and agree with mandatory minimum sentences for convicted murderers, and still want to spare Robert Latimer from spending a decade in prison, just what in the world do I want?
Sometimes, I suppose, one hopes by some miracle that justice will emerge not as a robed, blindfolded lady hefting a pair of scales and doling this commodity out by prescribed spoonfuls, but as something just a bit more compassionate.
And just a ferinstance: I recall that a few years ago, when Ontario police were preparing to throw the book at Paul Bernardo, they made a deal with Karla Homolka, which gave her a few years in prison in exchange for testimony against her former husband. This unholy pact was allowed to stand even though subsequent evidence disclosed shocking participation on her part in heinous crimes against young girls - including her own sister.
If that sort of compromise was possible, surely there is some legitimate way to have Robert Latimer pardoned - perhaps by the federal cabinet. Millions of tax dollars have been spent to try and convict the man. Grounds seem to exist to go a step farther and mete out justice, without any change in law that could be viewed by anyone as an invitation to wholesale euthanasia.
Box 400, 904 East Avenue
Weyburn, SK
S4H 2K4
Phone: (306) 842-7487
Fax: (306) 842-0282
E-mail: production@weyburnreview.com
This web page and its contents are copyright of the Weyburn
Review (1987) Ltd.
