Latimer vs. Kong

[fredr123]

A couple interesting stories caught my eye recently.

Robert Latimer became famous after being convicted of second degree murder for the killing of his own disabled daughter. The verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada and became a catalyst for lively debate regarding euthanasia in Canada. He was sentenced to life in prison in 1994 and was recently denied day parole, in part, because of a lack of remorse for his actions: http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National...10479-sun.html

Vuthy Kong is well-known to Calgary police. He has been connected to a number of nefarious incidents in and around the city in the past few years involving violence and drugs. Kong was recently convicted of manslaughter after fatally stabbing Adam Miu in February 2002. He was released from custody in July, following the second trial for this charge, after serving 2/3 of his sentence. Yesterday, Kong was arrested during a traffic stop after officers allegedly found him in possession of a loaded pistol and crack cocaine. He was also wearing body armour: http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...10459-sun.html

To me, there is something completely incongruent between these two cases. On the one hand you have a farmer from Saskatchewan getting on in years denied parole because, even to this day, he believes he was doing the right thing in helping to end his daughter's suffering. On the other hand, you have a young man well-known to the local police for his involvement in gang activity serve part of a 7 year sentence for violently killing another young man and he's caught less than 6 months later continuing this kind of behaviour.

I've spent time before defending the Canadian justice system from critics, but these kinds of situations call for a critical review of the way things are done. I have a hard time justifying the decisions in these two cases.

Thoughts? Rants?

[metal_geek]

People who get made an example of have way more media attention, and way more groups arguing both sides.

During his parole hearing latmer says, he did what was right for his daugher and wants to move to ottawa to lobby on behalf of mercy killings... so Disabled rights advocates want him to serve his full sentence and spend money lobbying to make sure that happens.

The other guy, nobody cares about untill he kills someone they know, and even then there are 100's of others out there like him. He gets 10 seconds on the news after britney spears and paris hilton, so no one cares when his parol comes up and he tells the board "He will never wear body armor while carrying a pistol and smokling crack again"...
________
Recall Wellbutrin

[Cowboy89]

The big thing in the Latimer case is the lobby and the high profile role of disabled asociations. In our country if you can prove an affliation with any sort of minority or special interest group your voice is always louder and more just. The last thing anyone wants to do is appear to disadvantage a special interest group (sometimes to the point of insanity). Canadians pride themselves of being champions of fighting for the little guy. Personally not disagreeing with the decision here because it's one thing to want to end one's own life but it's quite another to kill someone because you deemed their life to be unbearable. Years later and still not understanding that distinction and also not having respect for the law that we do not allow mercy killing is what kept Latimer from parole. It's a moral grey-zone as I'm sure Latimer has a good percentage of Canadians on his side, however maybe if we treated the laws of the land this seriously we wouldn't have as many cases as the second one where laws and sentances are merely suggestions for a judge to be persuaded to either enforce or look past or maybe legislatively we would make sure that we only passed laws that we wanted enforced.

The second case isn't as popular and thus the public is less aware that we have murderers walking freely among us still in their prime danger to the public years. We are obsessed with criminal rehabilitation over punishment suited more as a deterrant for others to commit crimes. Our laws and application thereof are simply not tough enough on real criminals. We are soft to the point that gangsters feel no deterant to carry out their activities. For the average person a criminal record could impact your job prospects and provide as a social stigma so even a light term might be punishment/deterant enough, however for those who are in gangs prison terms are worn as a badge of honor and since their later income earning potential is not threatened by a short prison term they feel no need to respect our laws.

[automaton 3]

The Latimer case really bothers me. We must beyond question protect the weak and those who cannot defend for themselves.

However I can also imagine myself in Latimer's shoes. I know there's the whole arguements of "we can't judge someone else's quality of life, ect" and "if they couldn't handle it the should have put her in a care facility".

But at what point does it become ok to relieve a loved one from their incurable and unrelenting condition?

My grandpa died of massive internal cancer a few years ago. When it went into his bones he was in constant excrutiating pain that no amount of drugs would relieve. I am extremely thankful that this only lasted a few weeks, but really why is it ok to allow someone to suffer through their final days like that? Maybe not comparable to the Latimer situation where she wasn't terminally ill, but it raises the same types of questions in my mind.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

The Latimer case really bothers me. We must beyond question protect the weak and those who cannot defend for themselves.

However I can also imagine myself in Latimer's shoes. I know there's the whole arguements of "we can't judge someone else's quality of life, ect" and "if they couldn't handle it the should have put her in a care facility".

But at what point does it become ok to relieve a loved one from their incurable and unrelenting condition?

My grandpa died of massive internal cancer a few years ago. When it went into his bones he was in constant excrutiating pain that no amount of drugs would relieve. I am extremely thankful that this only lasted a few weeks, but really why is it ok to allow someone to suffer through their final days like that? Maybe not comparable to the Latimer situation where she wasn't terminally ill, but it raises the same types of questions in my mind.

The more I think about the Latimer case, the more I believe that he wasn't ending her suffering, he was ending his responsibility for her. He justifies his actions by saying he was ending her suffering, but my understanding is that it was more her mental capacity that was diminished.

[Ozy_Flame]

These decisions are based on both common law, and as such, are subject the discretion of decisions made in past cases. These two cases are completely different, so I wouldn't be surprised to see different rulings.

Using 'remorse' in courts is a touchy, TOUCHY, subject.

[Ford Prefect]

Whether what Latimer did was right or wrong is not a black and white matter and really depends on a person's own views, morals, etc. Personally, I feel for the guy, but he committed a crime and that requires him to do the time. But to deny parole because he doesn't play the game and pretend to be remorseful like other convicts, yet parole career criminals like Kong, is a travesty and only makes me more jaded with our legal system. What kind of threat to society does Latimer pose? Kong? What a lot of bull whacky.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The more I think about the Latimer case, the more I believe that he wasn't ending her suffering, he was ending his responsibility for her. He justifies his actions by saying he was ending her suffering, but my understanding is that it was more her mental capacity that was diminished.

I think it's a combination. He and his wife suffered along with their child.

And it is absurd that a guy who stabs someone to death is paroled and Latimer is left in prison. His honesty is keeping him in jail.

[metal_geek]

I would argue Kong is an example of how the typical murder case is treated, Latimer is a political prisoner..
________
Applebees gift cards

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The more I think about the Latimer case, the more I believe that he wasn't ending her suffering, he was ending his responsibility for her. He justifies his actions by saying he was ending her suffering, but my understanding is that it was more her mental capacity that was diminished.

I've contemplated that point of view about Latimer myself. Who's to know though. As a parent, I've tried to put myself in Latimer's position and see the situation through his eyes, and it's impossible. I don't think anyone can judge his thoughts and motives without actually living his life, and even then it would be different for everyone. Therefore, what I keep coming back to, as I posted above, is that he committed a crime and therefore has to do the time. However, his was a crime of passion (as opposed to career criminals), and I don't see why he should be treated more harshly than career criminals. Denying his parole seems to indicate that he is being a held to a stricter standard than career criminals, who seem to have no problem getting parole after serving 2/3s of their time just as long as they've kept their noses clean and jumped through the appropriate hoops. It's certainly an interesting, sensitive and sad case.

[Dion]

There is something about the Latimer case that has always bothered me.....

If Latimer felt he was doing the right thing, why did he stick his daughter in a truck with a hose attached to the exhaust - the other end directed towards the inside of the truck, wait for her to die, then carry her to her bed, tuck her in as though she died of natural causes and why did he lie after she was found dead?

If he felt that she was living in extreme pain and that he was doing the right thing, he should have been a man about it. He should have taken responsiblity.

He was refused parole because he has yet to acknowledge what he did to his daughter.

If we were to give him parole before his time is served, the message sent to those who have to care for the disabled, is one of acceptance.

Tracy couldn't speak for herself. The person she trusted the most, killed her. I struggle with this one.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Dion

There is something about the Latimer case that has always bothered me.....

If Latimer felt he was doing the right thing, why did he stick his daughter in a truck with a hose attached to the exhaust - the other end directed towards the inside of the truck, wait for her to die, then carry her to her bed, tuck her in as though she died of natural causes and why did he lie after she was found dead?

If he felt that she was living in extreme pain and that he was doing the right thing, he should have been a man about it. He should have taken responsiblity.

He was refused parole because he has yet to acknowledge what he did to his daughter.

If we were to give him parole before his time is served, the message
sent to those who have to care for the disabled, is one of acceptance.

Tracy couldn't speak for herself. The person she trusted the most,
killed her. I struggle with this one.

He didn't want to upset his wife. He was trying to hide the real
cause of death from his wife. So he killed her in the truck,
and then moved her to her bed. [Ironically, his wife has stood
by his side through all this -- a very strong woman there]

I too struggle with this one, and it's obvious that many Canadians
do as well. On one hand, what right did he have, no matter the
suffering. On the other, the suffering of his daughter, from
Wikipedia, she suffered 5 to 6 seizures per day and had pain
and numerous surgeries. What kind of life are you prolonging?
I think he's right in calling the surgeries "mutilation and torture."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer]

Very interesting that both judge and jury wanted him off the
hook with minor penalty, but the prosecuters wanted him
punished more severely.

Another reason for the struggling over the right and wrong with
this one is the reality that [hopefully] none of us have to face
this decision. There are some comments that you cannot imagine
what he faced. I agree, I doubt very few could.

I was living in Saskatchewan when all this went down. I can't
recall anyone I knew actually arguing in favour of locking him
up and throwing away the key.

ers

[ericschand]

Aw, crap, I don't want anyone getting a black eye out of this,
as I don't believe anyone should be held at blame in this issue.

I wrote, "...the prosecuters wanted him punished more severely."

What I mean is that they need him to be punished by the
law, as the law states (life w/ 10 year parole). They probably
cannot allow anything else, as it may set precedent, and I
understand this from their point-of-view.

On the other hand, if they went after him because they got
a conviction and they could pad their resumes with a longer
sentence, then they need to DIAF.

ers

[Dion]

And there is something else to consider. It has been suggested that after Latimer killed Tracy, there was a 45% increase in filicides.

http://www.chninternational.com/latimer_lethal.htm

Now Dick Sobsey, director of the JP Das Developmental Disabilities Centre at the University of Alberta, presents evidence that Latimer's widely publicized self-justification has contributed to an upsurge in copycat killings unique to Canada. In the fall issue of the journal Health Ethics Today, Professor Sobsey suggests that starting in 1994, the year of Latimer's first trial, roughly 20 more children found their parents going over the brink each year. "Latimer's lionization sends the message that killing a child is okay," he says.

To connect Canada's rising filicide rate with Latimer, Prof. Sobsey uses social learning theory, which posits that when aggression is modelled, its influence will be heightened if the model's behaviour is endorsed by the public. In his words, "The widespread social perception that 'altruistic homicides' like the killing of Tracy Latimer are the acts of heroic and loving parents who deserve praise... should be expected to encourage more parents to kill their children." Prof. Sobsey predicted that Latimer's favourable publicity would lead to:


One or more copycat homicides.
An increase in children killed by their parents relative to the national homicide rate.
An increase in children killed by fathers and stepfathers relative to the number killed by mothers and stepmothers.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I've contemplated that point of view about Latimer myself. Who's to know though. As a parent, I've tried to put myself in Latimer's position and see the situation through his eyes, and it's impossible. I don't think anyone can judge his thoughts and motives without actually living his life, and even then it would be different for everyone.

You are right on the money there. You, me or anyone else could not imagine his position. As a parent, I went through the stress of having my 3 year old suddenly develop epilepsy and suffering from multiple seizures. Trust me when I say that the level of compassion and the feeling of despair and helplessness, watching your own child suffer, is nothing that I would have imagined.

At least in our case, with counseling and great medical attention, the situation improved somewhat over time (and he has stopped requiring medication last year). In Tracy Latimer's case, there was no potential good news on the horizon. I am not necessarily defending Latimer's actions, but I have had a glimpse of what he may have felt like...

[metal_geek]

People make sacrifices for their children all the time....

Looking like Latimer sacrified 20 years in prison for his...
________
Headshops

[maverickeastwood]

I say cut him loose.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by maverickeastwood

I say cut him loose.

seconded, He's spent quite awhile in prison and is no threat to society, it is utterly pointless to keep him locked up in prison while all these repeat offensers get almost no jail time.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Dion

There is something about the Latimer case that has always bothered me.....

If Latimer felt he was doing the right thing, why did he stick his daughter in a truck with a hose attached to the exhaust - the other end directed towards the inside of the truck, wait for her to die, then carry her to her bed, tuck her in as though she died of natural causes and why did he lie after she was found dead?

If he felt that she was living in extreme pain and that he was doing the right thing, he should have been a man about it. He should have taken responsiblity.

He was refused parole because he has yet to acknowledge what he did to his daughter.

If we were to give him parole before his time is served, the message sent to those who have to care for the disabled, is one of acceptance.

Tracy couldn't speak for herself. The person she trusted the most, killed her. I struggle with this one.

Not only did he try to protect his wife from what he felt compelled to do... he probably knew he would be crucified for it should the truth come out.

This has become a case of politics rather than a case of law. This girl was so far gone and in such pain, her father felt compelled to relieve her from it, feeling no hope for her recovery, her quality of life, his family's quality of life. The fact that this has fallen on deaf ears, when the sob stories of disgusting murderers and rapists do not is what I find disgusting.

Even if one considers what he did to be totally wrong, (I feel its a shade of grey, but clearly a mercy killing) there is no good reason why he should suffer for the rest of his life, while disgusting scum like Kong and Homolka walk free.

I'm sick of some of these special interest groups influencing social policy when they have no idea what people who are actually in these situations are going through. It reminds me of a pro-life rally I saw that overwhelmingly featured elderly people and (likely) their elementary school aged grandchildren.

Personally, I've come to believe that the only reason euthanasia is illegal is selfishness. Our morals sleep better at night knowing its illegal, yet we fail to consider terminally ill people living in intense pain... We consider euthanizing a beloved family pet to be the decent and moral thing to do when they are in extreme pain or terminally ill with no hope, yet we'd rather watch our beloved friends and family deteriorate in intense pain then release them (when all hope is gone). Its a very interesting debate... I'm not so sure where I'd stand, I can't say my own personal selfishness might not come to the forefront if a case like that hit close to home.

[Ford Prefect]

Thunderball ... I pretty much agree with everything you say, particularly with regards to Latimer's case being a political case rather than a legal case. It also royally cheeses me that my tax dollars are being spent to keep Latimer in jail while letting Homolka and the like walk. Friggin' special interest groups suck rocks.

I must add a comment about euthanasia. It may be illegal, but it's not too difficult to practice. It's not that hard to find a sympathetic, obliging, anonymous medical practitioner to assist anyone who wants to go this route. Therefore, it's still a moral issue in my mind. If I had a family member dying and in extreme pain, it's something I'd have to consider. My only wish would be that the family member is in a sound enough mental state to participate in the decision. I guess that's the aspect of Latimer's case that muddifies things for me ... his daughter wasn't in a state where she could participate in the decision. Maybe that's just being a bit cowardly though, looking for an out to absolve myself of blame for having to make the decision.