Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:

Archives

Robert Latimer denied parole.

Just a short comment that I don’t agree with the Parole Board denying his early parole application. Whatever the controversy surrounding whether or not what he did was murder or mercy, It’s not like he’s a danger to re-offend or commit other murders. I think there are a lot worse people that the Parole Board has allowed parole, merely because they heard the applicant say what they wanted to hear. Because Latimer won’t express remorse for what he did, that means he doesn’t deserve parole in the Board’s eyes. I think they dropped the ball on this one.

Share

16 comments to Robert Latimer denied parole.

  • diane linde

    Let the man go home to his family. He is a man of courage and principle and through the years I have admired his  love for his child. To bad he can’t change the judgement on him .  

  • Rose

    I am totally disgusted with the Saskatchewan government.
    People are killing other people on the streets in cold blood and
    are getting a lighter sentence than Mr. Latimer.  I have been
    on Mr. Latimer’s side since the beginning.  As I said, it totally
    disgusts me what they are doing to this fine upstanding citizen.
    He is not a thief or robber or druggie.  He is a kind and loving and
    good family man. LET HIM GO HOME TO HIS FAMILY !!!!!
    To the people in the government who made this decision to keep him
    in jail for 10 years,  I can only say " what would you do if it was your
    child that you had to watch suffer day in and day out ?  Who made you
    people god ?"  You are all so arrogant and obnoxious.  It is revolting
    what you are doing to this man.

  • Mairi

    When a woman has an ultra-sound during her pregnancy and the fetus is shown to be deformed the law does not stop her from aborting that fetus.  Family and friends would be understanding of her heartbreak and supportive of her decision.  There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Latimer agonized over his daughter every day of her life and it took a brave, strong and loving parent to do what he did.  How can he in all honesty say he is sorry when he took he pain away in the only way he – indeed the only way anybody – could.
    As Stephen Karr says  "Robert Latimer is a threat to no one."
    Please let this man go home to his family.

  • t johnston

    I  NEED TO KNOW HOW I CAN HELP
    ROBERT SHOULD BE WITH HIS WIFE AND KIDS

  • Don

    I think a point that is missing in most arguements is the question of morality.  The NPB is making their decision based on two principals. One, the crime of murder (the taking of a life) and two, the lack of remorse.
    Why would Mr Latimer show remorse for doing something he truly believed in? Given the same set of circumstances, many other people would have at least considered doing the same thing.  He has done the minimum time required by law for the crime of murder. Is part of the NPB’s mandate to set standards of morality? He still believes he did the right thing. We euthanize beloved pets every day. Is that not a decision based in morality? I believe the same concept should be used with Mr Latimer. He’s done the minimum required by law. He has no reason to re-offend as his severly disabled daughter is already at rest. I say grant him parole.
       

  • Diane

    I think it is ridiculous that Robert Latimer was and is required to show insight or remorse for the death of his daughter Tracy.  It seems obvious that he thought long and hard about this decision and committed the crime to end her long struggle with pain.  He decided to end her life because he felt it was the right decision.  To take that away from Robert Latimer would be to strip him of all his pride and dignity.  Our judiciary has to accept that the justice system and the parole system are to serve the people.  If we were to follow the law to the letter why couldn’t we just put the information into a computer and it would give us the punishment.  The whole point of having the justice and parole system overseen by people is that they take into account the different circumstances that arise in each case.  I think the insight Robert Latimer has is that medical technology today does not always promote a quality of life that is acceptable.  Where are our government officials in this issue? Why are they not debating the issue so that our judiciary represents the values of the majority.  I think that a resolution could further recognize the needs of the disabled and serve proper justice to Mr Latimer.  It’s time Mr Latimer was allowed to go home. 

  • I have in my life been an advocate for the disabled.  I am disappointed, therefore, to find that disability advocates are taking such a strong stand in favour of continued incarceration.  As I understand it, his daughter was living her life in constant pain, and was facing an extremely painful operation.   The purpose of incarceration is supposed to be the protection of society.   Robert Latimer is a threat to no one.  He continues to spend time in jail for what was propably the hardest thing he ever had to do.  He should be free. 

  • Charles Sampson

    The Parole Board lacked its own "insight" into this case and failed to do the just thing regarding Latimer.  The law and the Parole Board cannot adjudicate morality, therefore Latimer killing of his daughter may be regarded as legally wrong under the existing law but not necessarily morally wrong in the minds of compassionate people.  As the father of a disabled adult son (but not to the extent Tracey was) who is also intellectually challenged, I, too, would hope I had the moral courage to rid my son of the ordeal Tracey faced.  The legal system cannot match the moral conviction of Robert Latimer and consequently its adoption of a mandatory minimum sentence is a manifestation of the ignorance of legislators that all such acts are identical and criminal -which they are not.
    Robert Latimer continued incarceration is a miscarriage of justice.

  • Rob

    I think this should make it fairly obvious how I feel.

    Please sign the Free Robert Latimer Now! iPetition

    Just click the link at : freerobertlatimer.ca

    Thanks

    RoB

  • Another miscarriage of justice…

  • John Mac

    A jury was selected of peers who could hear the case and make a judgement based on the evidence presented, in the presence of the accused.  A judge presided over the case, instructed the jury and heard the decision.  Latimer would have been freed 5 years ago if the system worked the way in which we designed it to.  Appeals courts and Supreme court through their wisdom and adherence to the mandatory laws, though certainly not Mr. Latimer’s peers, overruled.  The parole board would have nothing to do with it if the original system had worked.  Essentially the Supreme courts says that the trial judge is incompetent and what he says doesn’t matter and Ottawa knows better.  Someone needs to try 48 hours in his (Latimer’s) shoes trying to bring Tracy happiness in a day.

  • No remorse and refusal to say unequivocally  that he wouldn’t do it again.  Did the parole board have any other choice than to keep Latimer in jail?

  • Dillon

    I disagree with ‘me’, but at least he makes an honest argument (that Latimer requires more punishment), unlike the NPB.

    The NPB hid behind the idea that Latimer needs more counselling, in order to gain insight into the crime he committed.   That’s their argument – if Robert Latimer received more counselling, he would realize he made a huge mistake, express remorse, and he could be safely released back into society.  What rubbish.

  • You have to earn parole. When the legal system says you’re guilty, you have to admit you’re guilty. We can’t have a parole system where people can be granted parole while self-justifying murder.

    We cannot allow the legal system to say that the Charter Rights of disabled children are disposable on the whim of a father. And that’s the message that Parole would send: Charter Rights of severely disabled people you kill matter less because you took it upon yourself to "be merciful" and kill them.

    It doesn’t work that way. Progressives should be on Tracy’s side. She was unable to speak for herself. Society is growing more and more accepting of the idea that disabled people have less worthy lives and perfectly disposable. The Parole Board sent the right message in denying Robert Latimer parole: Tracy’s Charter Right to Life is just as important as anyone else’s.

  • me

    his daughter might still be alive today, right? when he killed her, did he see her eyes crying to daddy???   no, 7 years is not anough, and thats the opinion of a father….

  • Gayle

    Scott, one of the conditions that must be met before you can get parole is remorse. This is true even though most people convicted of murder are a low risk to reoffend (there is a very low recidivism rate for convicted murderers). This is the same reason why Milgaard could not get bail (hard to be remorseful when you are denying the offence). If Latimer does not change his attitude he may never get parole.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.