Case 3 Analysis of the Robert Latimer Case

Case 3 Analysis of the Robert Latimer Case R v. Latimer [2001] 1 S. C. R. 3

The Latimer Case Issues Defence of Necessity The trial judge did not mishandle the defense of necessity. The defense of necessity is a last resort measure that is employed to ensure that people are protected against any laws that may be considered to be oppressive in the perception of the representatives of the public, the jury. Should the judge have indicated to the jury the possibility or the consideration of the defense of necessity, then it would have encouraged a malicious jury that would forego the provisions of the law. Suggesting the possibility of the defense of necessity would undermine the supremacy of the law as the jury would make a judgment outside the confines of the law that protects the rights all individuals. By ignoring the defense of necessity, the trial cannot be deemed as unfair; ignoring the defense of necessity upholds the supremacy of the rule of law and sets precedence for other similar cases with special circumstances.

The Latimer Case Issues Unfair Trial? The trial was not unfair because the judge led the jury to believe that they would have some input regarding the sentence. Role of judge and jury has clearly been delineated throughout history; the jury issues the conviction and the judge issues the sentence. As such, it is not the role of the jury to be involved in the sentence. The judge provided the jury the opportunity to influence the sentence by leaving the sentence up for discussion by the jury in the future. As such they could influence the period of time before which the defendants will be allowed an chance at parole. The judge followed the procedures prescribed for in the law that are used a standards for future cases. The judge applied the legally required remedy for a case of Latimer’s caliber i. e. the judge took into consideration the special circumstances surrounding the case and the impact of the outcome on future cases.

The Latimer Case Issues Cruel and Unusual Punishment? The judge imposed the mandatory statutory minimum sentence for second-degree murder. This did not amount to a cruel and unusual punishment. The special circumstances surrounding the case had resulted in the conviction being downgraded from a first-degree to a second-degree murder. Despite the special circumstances, the case still legally qualified as a first -degree murder. as such, the application of the mandatory statutory minimum sentence does not amount to a cruel and unusual punishment. Constitutional exemption should not have been granted to Robert Latimer because the aggravating factors in case far outweighed the mitigating factors in the case. There existed other legal alternatives that the defendant could have undertaken.

The Legal Outcome of the Series of Cases First Jury Trial Robert Latimer accused and tried for first-degree murder Conviction: Jury finds him guilty of second-degree murder Sentence: Judge sentences Latimer to the mandatory minimum sentence provided by the Criminal Code; life in prison with no eligibility for parole for 10 years (R. v. Latimer) Second Jury Trial Conviction: Jury finds him guilty of second-degree murder. Sentence: Judge grants him exemption from the minimum penalty provisions provided for in the Criminal Code. Sentenced to one year in prison to be served at his farm. Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Conviction: Latimer found guilty of second degree murder. Sentence: Given the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole in 10 years as prescribed for in the Criminal Code. Supreme Court of Canada Appeal dismissed No clear or imminent peril. There was a reasonable legal alternative. There was no proportionality between harm inflicted and harm avoided.

First Degree vs. Second Degree Murder The difference between first-degree and second degree murder is delineated by the intent of the defendant during the act of killing. According to Canadian Law, first-degree murder is a culpable homicide that is deliberate and premeditated. Second-degree murder is a deliberate killing that was not planned The jury did not act properly to reduce the charge from first-degree murder to second-degree murder. Latimer deliberately killed his daughter and had planned it prior to committing it, meeting the requirements of a first-degree murder. Latimer executed the murder when the whole family was away. Latimer chose a relatively painless method to kill his daughter The nature of the relationship between the defendant and the deceased, taking into account the circumstances around the case, disqualifies the murder from a first degree murder (Pro Bono Students Canada).

Jury Nullification is the choice of a jury to fail to apply the law in a case where the law could be applied to convict a defendant (Murchison). It is the protection of the people for oppressive laws and actions of the state by having a defendant judged by a group of their own peers. It allows the jury to fail to convict a defendant even though members of the jury believe that the defendant committed the offense for which they are accused. Jury nullification was not applied in the Latimer case as a result of the following; Latimer, as a defendant, is entitled to a fair trial, and not a trial that increases the chances of a jury nullification. The judge is legally bound to instruct the jury to properly apply the law and thus guarding against a jury nullification (Murchison).

Jury Nullification (cont. ) Jury nullification violates and undermines the supremacy of the law. It is a violation of the oaths that jury members swore to before providing their services to the people and the state (Murchison). It sets precedence to the undermining of the law in future cases of similar circumstances. It sets precedence for judgments that may undermine a particular minority or factions that are socially unpopular within society.

Mandatory Sentencing The Canadian Supreme Court did not uphold any of Justice Noble’s judicial rationale. The mandatory minimum life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 10 years prescribed for in the Criminal Code did not amount to an unfair punishment (Pro Bono Students Canada). The punishment is not excessive as to outrage the standards of decency. The aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors to requiring the application of the mandatory minimum sentencing prescribe for in the Criminal Code. The aggravating factors; Latimer initially attempted to cover up his act Latimer’s lack of remorse Latimer’s position of trust Degree of planning and premeditation Tracy’s extreme vulnerability (R. v. Latimer) Mitigating Factors Latimer’s good standing with the community Latimer’s anxiety for Tracy’s well-being His perseverance as a caring and involved parent (R. v. Latimer)

Mandatory Sentencing (cont. ) The trial judge was not justified in departing from the mandatory sentencing provisions. The mandatory sentencing provisions could not be perceived as a cruel and unusual punishment. The aggravating factors in the case superseded the mitigating factors The special circumstance surrounding the case were not solid enough to justify the judge departing from the mandatory minimum sentence provided for in the Criminal Code (Pro Bono Students Canada). The leniency that is provide for by the judge’s deviation from the mandatory minimum sentence requirement sets the negative precedence for future cases, where similar cases would result in defendants using the defense of necessity as a means to escape judgment and conviction by the jury and judge.

Mandatory Sentencing (cont. ) The motive of compassion should not be taken into consideration when sentencing someone convicted of murder. Taking compassion into consideration in a murder case places at risk those who are currently protected by the provision ignoring compassion in a murder case. Taking compassion into consideration in a murder case sets precedence for future offenders to evade judgment and conviction so long as they can prove compassion as a motive of committing a murder. Taking compassion into consideration would pose a risk to the underlying and central principle of protection and preservation of human life. Taking compassion into consideration would place specific socially unpopular minority populations at risk. Taking compassion into consideration would render particular socially unpopular minorities as second-class citizens

Works Cited Bauslaugh, Gary. Robert Latimer, A Story of Justice and Mercy. Toronto: James Lorimer and Co, 2010. Print. Murchison, Melanie J. Law, Morality and Social Discourse: Jury Nullification in a. Thesis Paper. Ottawa: Carleton University, 2012. Electronic Source. 18 May 2016. <https: //curve. carleton. ca/system/files/etd/e 5 edb 919 -b 291 -41 f 4 b 07 fe 945 a 82 b 654 d/etd_pdf/fc 635 bbd 04 a 6 f 7806444 f 4248803 d 130/murchisonlawmoralityandsocialdiscoursejurynullification. pdf>. Pro Bono Students Canada. "Mandatory Minimum Sentence for Murder: R v. Latimer. " Landmark Case (20018): 1 -15. Electronic Source. R. v. Latimer. No. 26980. Canadian Supreme Court. 18 January 2001. Internet Source. 18 May 2016. <https: //scc-csc. lexum. com/scc-csc/scccsc/en/item/1836/index. do>.