The National Parole Board (NPB) decision to deny parole to Robert Latimer has put our justice system into disrepute.
Robert Latimer is a Saskatchewan man who cared for his daughter Tracy for the first 12 years of her life, but then caused her death because, he says, he couldn't stand to see her suffer. Tracy was a quadriplegic who suffered from cerebral palsy. She couldn't speak or feed herself, suffered seizures, chronic vomiting and was in constant pain. Latimer's second-degree murder conviction illustrates the idea that our criminal justice system is often about punishing proscribed behavior, rather than protecting society. So be it. But judging from numerous newspaper letters and blogs on the subject, many Canadians feel strongly that his punishment in this case was far too harsh.
Part of every legal decision concerns the potential effects of the precedent on future actions. The NPB's decision to deny Latimer day parole will set a precedent that will have at least two devastating consequences, compounded by the high publicity of this case. First, it sends the message to future mercy killers that they are now more likely to receive an acquittal, even if the law remains unchanged, given the amount of sympathy that exists in the general public for Latimer. In fact, one juror even stated that the jury decision would have been different had they known that Latimer would have to spend so much time behind bars. Given the public outrage at the NPB Latimer decision, "the next Latimer" will likely be held to a lower standard of justice-and juries may even allow him to walk free rather than dole out a draconian
mandatory sentence.
Further, the decision sends a problematic message from a different perspective, which is that if Latimer had lied and showed remorse in front of the NRB, he would have almost certainly been granted parole. This is because the system often rewards supplication, rather than impartiality. However, the problem is that remorse can easily be feigned. This idea has practical implications. Most notably, it has the potential to give rise to false convictions, something that legislators, lawyers and judges alike all fear and abhor. Those wrongly accused will feel more compelled to plea bargain (to confess in exchange for a lighter sentence than if convicted following a full trial) and take their chances with a parole board.
Although this may be more difficult to remedy, the problem of future juries ignoring the law ("jury nullification") when faced with a sympathetic defendant can be avoided if Parliament should change the law to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for murder. Mandatory minimum sentences-advocated by those who purport to be "tough on crime"-may actually have the opposite effect, if juries and judges decide to acquit (or convict of lesser and included offences) when faced with sympathetic accused and strict sentencing regimes.
In the end, those who champion the rights of disabled children should not be applauding this decision, and neither should those who believe in harsh punishment. Beyond the fact that it is unjust and inconsistent for the NPB to grant parole to malicious killers and rapists while denying it to someone like Latimer, the precedent established by the recent Latimer decision carries the potential for far more dangerous legal and social effects. n
Be the first to comment on this story