Robert Latimer decision sparks parole debate

The much-maligned National Parole Board decision refusing day parole to Robert Latimer has re-ignited two long simmering debates: whether Canada is ready for a euthanasia law and secondly, whether we are a country in need of parole reform.

Both questions are political minefields. One of them the Conservative government will surely detour around, but the other it may well plow through.

Sympathetic as I find Latimer — the father who killed his very ill 12-year-old daughter who was suffering with cerebral palsy — the rule of law required that he be charged and convicted.

Canadians have yet to legally recognize a right to assisted suicide let alone euthanasia.

And, as we lawyers like to say, bad facts make bad law.

Nonetheless, criminal charges and conviction is one thing, appropriate sentencing and execution of that sentence are another. Latimer, sentenced to the mandatory minimum of life in prison for second-degree murder and behind bars since 2001, was denied day parole by the board, which noted his lack of insight and understanding into the crime he committed.

And yet, a tour through the National Parole Board site indicates that among numerous factors to be considered in granting parole, the offender's expression of remorse is only one of many.

Primary, of course, is the risk potentially posed by the offender if released and the safety of the public.

Questions must be raised

As many Canadians did, one has to question the denial of parole to Latimer.

We can safely assume that he poses no risk to the public, and his incarceration for the last seven years has served with overkill the purpose of public denunciation and general deterrence for other Canadians who might be considering a similar crime (if there are any).

Is the Canadian taxpayer getting good bang for their buck in keeping someone like Latimer incarcerated?

Not to mention that this parole decision highlights how seemingly arbitrary the granting of parole appears to be across the country, given the significant liberty interests engaged by granting parole or not.

For example, in 2006 Colin Thatcher was granted day parole despite his continued pleas of innocence in the face of his first-degree conviction for killing his ex-wife.

Granted, I don't have their respective parole files before me. But there have long been concerns about who does and doesn't get parole across the country. These allegations usually go the opposite direction of the Latimer case; that is, the public is often outraged as to why certain offenders are paroled, and most particularly about those who re-offend while on parole.

Ever the party to cash in on law and order outrage, the Conservatives committed to revisiting parole as part of their policy platform. The party promised to replace statutory release with earned parole (a la Mike Harris in Ontario), noting that parole is a privilege.

What works best?

By law, most federal offenders are normally eligible for full parole after serving one-third of their sentence, or seven years, whichever is less, at the discretion of the board.

In contrast, statutory release automatically entitles most offenders who have not been granted parole to serve the final one-third of their sentence in the community.

The corrections review panel struck by the federal government to review the Correctional Service of Canada's operational priorities and strategies is expected to tackle statutory release among other corrections issues, if and when the report is released.

Yet criminological evidence clearly shows that a gradual, controlled and supervised release is the most effective way of ensuring public safety. In other words, offenders fare better released into the community supervised and on parole than unsupervised, having served their full sentence.

According to the board, "Long-term studies show that 50 per cent of offenders who were released directly from prison 12 years ago, without the benefit of gradual and controlled supervision, were later re-admitted for having committed new offences. By contrast, only 10 per cent of those who were released on parole and completed their sentences under parole supervision, were subsequently re-admitted to federal penitentiary with new offences."

So why does the Conservative proposal fly in the face of logic? Shouldn't a government of any political stripe pass laws rooted in fact and reason, rather than ideology?

The party also promised to reform the board to include increased input from the community in its decisions.

In Latimer's case, the community already spoke (albeit without any authority) in the form of a jury of his peers, recommending that he be eligible for parole after a year.

In his continued incarceration, Latimer has become the unwitting poster child for all that is wrong with mandatory minimum sentencing and a parole system that at times appears to operate more on political considerations than with common sense.

Letters

It is nice that you lay your bias out at the very beginning so that we know the content will support your biased position. Interesting that all journalists for CBC hold a left wing view, but i digress.

You overlook the deterrent factor in parole and sentencing. Both situations demand that both the criminal,in this case Mr. Latimer, and society, accept that a heinous crime was committed, in this case the murdering of a defenseless, disabled child. It appears that has been difficult for the criminal, and his ardent, misguided supporters to accept.

I also disagree with your analysis that the criminal would not reoffend. The crossing of moral and human boundaries required to kill another human being is extremely significant, therefore he represents a portion of the population that can and would kill again if placed in the right set of circumstances.

I wonder how he will respond when released with a confrontation with disabled persons activists. No this is not a grey area. Murder is exactly that no matter what spin lawyers and philosophers want to give it.

– K Grondin | Fredericton