Court Case: The Case Of R V. Latimer

R v. Latimer

The case with Robert Latimer all began with his twelve year old daughter having cerebral palsy and being quadriplegic. Tracy would suffer from many seizures a day and was also believed to have a brain capacity of a four-month old which caused her to be dependent. Tracy underwent many surgeries to try to give her an “easier” life but nothing seemed to chance any changes. No changes for the better or for the worse. So it wasn’t like she was near death. November 19th 1993, she was supposed to attend another surgery for her hip but on October 24th 1993, around a moth before, he father decided he would take her life. Before being confronted by police Mr. Latimer stated that his daughter had died in her sleep, but when police came with autopsy evidence he confessed by saying he had killed her in his truck. By putting a hose in the exhaust to where Tracy was. He also said that he thought of other ways to kill her, by making her overdose or by shooting her in her head. None of his actions were done out of
hate for his daughter instead they were out of love. He was just trying to release her from her pain. In 1994 Latimer was convicted with second degree murder and was sentenced to life in jail without parole for ten years. In 2001 the trial was brought up again, but this time Latimer’s sentencing was reduced to one year before he could get parole. In my opinion I think that this verdict was and eye opener for Canada’s justice system.
Since nothing like this happened prior the criminal code was very narrow on the sentencing for murder, this actually allowed changes to happen within the criminal code. Which would make sense given the circumstance. Before this situation everyone that was convicted with murder, didn’t have a legit reason as to why the person’s life was taken. In my opinion people just kill because they have problems within themselves of out of hate for the person. But in this situation there was a somewhat positive reason to why a life was being taken. The only thing I don’t agree with is that I think his sentence was reduced to much. He still did take someone’s life even if it was to help. No one can be sure that she was in a lot of pain. On the outside it could of looked like she was in pain but what if on the inside she was happy and she enjoying the way she could live her
life. I think that Latimer’s intentions were morally right, because he is on the outside looking at someone he loves very much suffer. And on top of that there isn’t much he can really do to help with the situation but hope and pray that the surgeries she undergoes helps in anyway possible. However on the other hand his actions were morally wrong in the eyes of society. Not just because he killed his daughter but because she was no where near death. To me I understand both the positive and negative side to this story. On the positive side he was doing a good thing for his daughter and their family because none of really know the stress that was put on the family to have someone in the house that could fend for themselves. The downside to something like this is that now the family has to deal with the loss of not one but two members of the family, since the father had to go to prison. The one theory that I believe best fits this case would be utilitarianism. Because Latimer was trying to do something to make his daughter find happiness. Also his intentions were all pure and based on something in a positive light.