 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
TRACY LATIMER
Page Contents
Backgrounder from CCDTracy Latimer — Some of the Facts
Sample Letter
Take Action
CCD Latimer Watch (new Link)
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of OntarioDownload the Latimer Petition (as a WordPerfect doc)
Download the Latimer Petition (as a WORD doc)
Articles/InterviewsOur Lives Are Worth Living - Comments from a Vigil for Tracy Latimer, by Catherine Frazee, 1995
A Wake Up Call: An interview with Catherine Frazee, Why is the Latimer case important? 1994
To
speak out Against the
Royal Prerogative of Mercy for Robert Latimer
and to express concern about the
protection of vulnerable persons with disabilities,
please TAKE ACTION!
email the Right
Hon. Prime Minister
email the Hon. Anne McLellan,
Minister of Justice
Follow this Link to our
TAKE
ACTION PAGE
email to fax addresses for the Prime Minister,Liberal Cabinet Ministers,
and Members of the House of Commons
The email you send from our Friends of Tracy Latimer Take Action Page will generate a fax at the government's end. This is called an email to fax service and is of no cost to you... as you simply send an email. However, since the end copy is printed, it is harder to be ignored.Key Email Addresses:
Jean Cretien, Prime Minister
Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Top of page
|
From
the Canadian Council on Disabilities website at: Latimer Appeal Scheduled For 27 November 1996 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 October 1996 --In November, 1994 a Saskatchewan Court convicted Robert Latimer of murdering his daughter Tracy Latimer. The Supreme Court of Canada will hear his appeal on 27 November 1996. Once again, the onus will be on the community of people with disabilities to fight for justice for Tracy Latimer. As CCD will not have standing in the courtroom, our organizations will need to position themselves with the media to be key commentators on the Latimer case. The public needs our perspective to counteract the misperceptions fostered by Latimer and the mainstream media. Dick Sobsey reports that a poll conducted by the Calgary Sun revealed that 92% of more than 500 respondents believed Latimer was justified in killing his 12 year old daughter Tracy. CCD's Human Rights Committee will direct a media campaign promoting the fundamental human rights of people with disabilities. The CCD Latimer Watch is a vehicle for the community of persons with disabilities to share information and viewpoints on the Latimer case and the issues it raises. If you have a perspective that you would like to share in the CCD Latimer Watch please forward it to the CCD office. (CCD, 926-294 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg MB, R3C 0B9. Tel: 204-947-0303; Fax: 204-942-4625; email) The CCD Latimer Watch will also be available at this link.
Some
Info About Robert Latimer No. Saturday Night magazine reports in 1974, a jury found Latimer guilty of rape of a minor in Wilkie, Saskatchewan; but, on appeal, Latimer got off on a technicality. The Crown did not attempt a re-trial. Consequently, the rape trial was not discussed during his murder trial. In his dissenting decision in the Latimer murder trial, Judge Bayda described Latimer as "a typical, salt of the earth, 42 year old farmer...", "a loving caring nurturing person" and "not a murderous thug, devoid of conscience, whose life has been one of violence, greed, contempt for the law and total disrespect for human beings." In light of his past history, Latimer seems less kindly than he purports to be. Coincidentally, Judge Bayda was the presiding judge in the trial that convicted Latimer of rape in 1974. Is it possible he forgot his earlier court experience with Latimer? When was Tracy murdered? Tracy was murdered on Sunday, October 24, 1993. When did Robert Latimer confess his murder? Latimer first lied and tried to conceal what he had done. Prior to the autopsy, Latimer said that Tracy died in her sleep. When the autopsy proved that Tracy died of carbon monoxide poisoning, Latimer confessed to gassing her in his truck and then putting her in bed. How did Latimer murder Tracy? He put her in the front seat of his truck beside the steering wheel. He attached a hose to the exhaust pipe and put the other end through a narrow opening in the cab's rear window. He then started the engine at 11:30 a.m. In seconds the truck filled with lethal fumes. Latimer told the police, "I let it run until noon. I was timing all this stuff. I was sitting there watching through the back window." Did Latimer consider using other methods to kill his daughter? Yes. He looked at giving her an overdose of valium or shooting her and then burning her body in a fire. The Crown Prosecutor called it a "calculating scheme". What did Tracy Latimer's mother feel about her? She wished Tracy "would just go to sleep and not wake up." "We lost Tracy when she was born," said Laura Latimer during her court testimony. Does Latimer express any guilt or remorse? No. "I honestly don't believe there was ever any crime committed," stated Robert Latimer in a CBC video, entered by the Crown as evidence. When did Robert Latimer decide to kill his daughter? In his confession, Robert Latimer said he decided to kill Tracy 12 days prior to actually committing the murder. He made the decision after learning Tracy's doctor had offered surgery to remedy Tracy's pain from a chronic hip dislocation. What distinguishing feature defines first degree murder? Murder must be premeditated to be first degree. Of what crime was Robert Latimer tried and convicted in regard to his daughter's death? Robert Latimer was tried and convicted of second degree murder. Why did Robert Latimer dislike the idea of surgery as a remedy for Tracy's hip dislocation? Robert Latimer described the surgery as mutilation. Mrs. Latimer said it would not cure her disability. Canadians
Respond to Latimer Senator Sharon Carstairs told the Winnipeg Free Press, "I'm no judge, but I think the appropriate sentence in this case would have been between three and six months." Carstairs sat on a Senate Committee that urged a third category of murder--with no minimum sentence-- for "mercy killing". In December 1994, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called upon the Federal Justice Minister to revoke Robert Latimer's prison sentence. "Do not let this family endure another moment of needless suffering," said Alan Borovoy, counsel for the Association. "Society must do the right thing. The legal arguments are really beside the point, " Borovoy. A section of the Criminal Code allows sentences to be shortened on compassionate grounds. Dick Sobsey explains that positive attitudes toward "mercy killing", as Latimer's act has been characterized by some, are both a symptom of discrimination and violence against people with disabilities and a fundamental cause of future killings and abuse. To help promote the fundamental human rights of persons with disabilities, contribute to the Tracy Fund. (CCD, 926-294 Portage Ave., Winnipeg MB, R3C 0B9.)
Tracy Latimer — Some of the Facts Alex
Schadenberg, Executive Director On January 18, 2001 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal giving Robert Latimer the mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison 10 years before parole eligibility. Vulnerable people across Canada can now be assured that they will be equally protected under the law. There are many misconceptions pertaining to the Latimer case that are generally held by the public that need to be cleared. Tracy Latimer was born with a severe condition of cerebral palsy. She was unable to walk, or talk. She had seizures everyday and was mentally disabled. She depended on others for all of her basic needs in life. Even though she was unable to do many things, she would smile, laugh, and cry. She could think, communicate and recognize people she knew. She loved music, and campfires. She could be fed with a spoon, and went by bus everyday to school. Robert Latimer killed his daughter Tracy on October 24, 1993, by putting her into the cab of the family pickup truck, connecting a hose from the exhaust to the cab of the truck and gassing her to death. Latimer confessed to killing Tracy and allowed the police to videotape his explanation. He claims that his motive for killing his daughter is that he had no other choice because of how much he loved her. Robert Latimer has been convicted twice and found unanimously guilty of second degree murder by all 24 jurors. All Robert Latimer needed was 1 sympathetic juror to have been acquitted of murder. In the trials, both Robert and his wife Laura claimed that Tracy was experiencing constant and uncontrollable pain. If this were true then why were they allowing Tracy to suffer when her pain was medically controllable? Their testimony conflicted with the writings in Laura's own diary pertaining to the daily condition of Tracy. Laura's diary stated that Tracy was often happy and smiling, and lately she had been eating well. Tracy's teacher described her as a happy and loving person who did not show signs of extreme and uncontrolled pain, even though she had a dislocated hip. Tracy was scheduled for surgery to repair her dislocated hip which would have alleviated the pain and discomfort she was experiencing. In fact, Robert Latimer was charged with homicide on the same day that her surgery was scheduled to happen (November 4, 1993). Many people are under the impression that the Latimers were overly burdened and lacking in support and respite service to care for Tracy. In fact, Tracy had lived in a respite home in North Battleford from July until early October, 1993. Tracy had returned home because she was scheduled for surgery. Tracy was also at school everyday. On October 12, just twelve days before Tracy was killed, Robert Latimer was offered a permanent institutional placement for Tracy in North Battleford. He rejected the placement because he said he had ‘other plans'. At this time, he had already decided to kill Tracy. Generally, Tracy was a happy disabled girl who had serious health problems. Tracy is dead not due to her condition, but because she was disabled. I ask the question, did having a severe disability make Tracy any less human? The Supreme Court has upheld Tracy as an equal citizen. There are thousands of people in Canada who have physical and mental disabilities. The Latimers are not the only family who struggle with the care of a family member. For some people, pain and symptom management is a normal part of their life. These people are often dependant on the care of others and need the support of community. These people also need to be protected from those people who question their "quality of life" or their right to live. Able-bodied people cannot judge the "quality of life" of a disabled person. Tracy needed care and protection, not death. The care and protection we grant to disabled Canadians may be positively affected by the punishment that is given to Robert Latimer. I have sympathy for the Latimer family and all people in society, like myself, who care for a disabled family member. I also have sympathy for Tracy Latimer and the people like her who are cared for by people who would rather see them dead. We now call on the Federal and Provincial governments to re-examine the level of care that is provided for the disabled, elderly, chronically ill, and all other vulnerable people who are highly dependant on others for their basic care. Canada must now become a leader in the care and defence of the disabled, elderly and other vulnerable citizens to prevent any further Latimer type cases. A just society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.
ROBERT LATIMER SHOULD SERVE THE TIME: Dear (Your MP, Anne McLellan, or the parole board): I am opposed to Robert Latimer receiving a lesser sentence or clemency for the act of killing his daughter Tracy. Reducing Robert Latimer's sentence sends the message o elderly, disabled or otherwise vulnerable Canadians that it is a lesser crime to kill them. Instead, I call for the Federal government to re-examine the level of care that currently exists for the disabled, elderly, chronically ill, and other vulnerable Canadians. We must protect vulnerable Canadians. Signed _________________________.
(Your MP)
National
Parole Board
From
the Canadian Council on Disabilities website at: 2 February 2001 Responding
to Concerns Some Canadians have been calling for the Government of Canada to grant Robert Latimer a Royal Prerogative of Mercy. Publicly, Mr. Greenspan, one of Latimer's defense lawyers, has indicated that he would not seek the Royal Prerogative of Mercy before Latimer had served at least a year in prison. Some Canadians have been signing petitions calling for a Royal Prerogative of Mercy. Others have been going to rallies to express their concern about Robert Latimer's sentence. The CCD office and volunteers who have been working on the Latimer case have received many communications from people who are concerned about the Royal Prerogative of Mercy issue. CCD continues to monitor the developments in this case. Part of CCD's role is to be vigilant and work to protect vulnerable persons with disabilities. CCD will continue to be vigilant on this issue, as it has been during all the previous stages.
18 January 2001 Supreme
Court Decides Against Robert Latimer In its decision in the Latimer case, the Supreme Court of Canada summarized the questions in Latimer's appeal in the following manner: "This appeal deals with three questions of law arising from his trial. First, did the trial judge mishandle the defense of necessity, resulting in an unfair trial. Second, was the trial unfair because the trial judge misled the jury into believing that they would have some input into the appropriate sentence? Third does the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence for second degree murder constitute "cruel and unusual punishment' in this case, so that Mr. Latimer ('the appellant') should receive a constitutional exemption from the minimum sentence?" In the second paragraph of its decision, the Supreme Court provided the following succinct answer to these questions. It states, "We conclude that the answer to all three questions is no." The Court then goes on to explain its decision. Some highlights of the Court's explanation follow: The Court made the point that, "His care of his daughter for many years was admirable. His decision to end his daughter's life was an error in judgment. The taking of another life represents the most serious crime in our criminal law." With respect to the defense of necessity, the Supreme Court stated, "The defense of necessity is narrow and of limited application in criminal law. In this case, there was no air of reality to that defense." The Court explained that, "Tracy's proposed surgery did not pose an imminent threat to her life, nor did her medical condition. In fact, Tracy's health might have improved had the Latimers not rejected the option of a feeding tube. Tracy's situation was not an emergency. The appellant can be reasonably expected to have understood that reality. There was no evidence of a legitimate psychological condition that rendered him unable to perceive that there was no imminent peril. The appellant argued that, for him, further surgery did amount to imminent peril. It was not reasonable for the appellant to form this belief, particularly when better pain management was available." The Court went on to state that, "The harm inflicted in this case was ending a life; that harm was immeasurably more serious than the pain resulting from Tracy's operation which Mr. Latimer sought to avoid. Killing a person--in order to relieve the suffering produced by a medically manageable physical or mental condition--is not a proportionate response to the harm represented by the non-life-threatening suffering resulting from that condition....In considering the defense of necessity, we must remain aware of the need to respect the life, dignity and equality of all the individuals affected by the act in question." The Court rejected Latimer's arguments with regard to the timing of the trial Judge's decision on the necessity defense. They stated, "In most cases, the trial judge will be able to rule on the availability of a defense before counsel begin their closing addresses. But that does not mean that the trial is unfair where the trial judge delays his ruling. In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the fairness of the trial was not affected." On the matter of cruel and unusual punishment and a constitutional exemption, the Court stated, "Finally, this sentence is consistent with a number of valid penological goals and sentencing principles. ...[T]he mandatory minimum sentence plays an important role in denouncing murder. Since there is no violation of the accused's s.12 right, there is no basis for granting a constitutional exemption." The Supreme Court stated, "On the one hand, we must give due consideration to Mr. Latimer's initial attempts to conceal his actions, his lack of remorse, his position of trust, the significant degree of planning and premeditation, and Tracy's extreme vulnerability. On the other hand, we are mindful of Mr. Latimer's good character and standing in the community, his tortured anxiety about Tracy's well -being, and his laudable perseverance as a caring and involved parent. Considered together we cannot find that the personal characteristics and particular circumstances of this case displace the serious gravity of this case." The Court went on to state that, "...we are mindful of the important role that the mandatory minimum sentence plays in denouncing murder. Denunciation of unlawful conduct is one of the objectives recognized in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. As noted by the Court...: 'The objective of denunciation mandates that a sentence should communicate society's condemnation of that particular offender's conduct. In short, a sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law.'" The Court continued, "Furthermore denunciation becomes much more important in cases where there is a 'high degree of planning and premeditation, and where the offense and its consequences are highly publicized, [so that] like minded individuals may well be deterred by severe sentences.' This is particularly so where the victim is a vulnerable person with respect to age, disability, or other similar factors. In summary, the minimum mandatory sentence is not grossly disproportionate in this case. We cannot find that any aspect of the particular circumstances of the case or the offender diminishes the degree of responsibility borne by Mr. Latimer."
|
|