[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=27909" target="_blank">Parole board reviews Latimer's bid for day parole</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/18-law--order" target="_blank">Law & Order</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Canadaka" target="_blank">Canadaka</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-12-05 12:43:00
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[Robair]

"The jury recommended he be eligible for parole after a year" Why are we spending tax money to keep this guy locked up while multiple offenders are let out? This guy isn't a danger.

[camerontech]

what he did was wrong. Him being a threat has nothing to do with it. Until he admits he did wrong he should stay behind bars

[Brenda]

According to him, it was not wrong. It was mercy.

I can see his point

[Freakinoldguy]

lily lily:

According to the law, what he did was murder.

I can see their point.

Apparently it's only law when it doesn't involve a Member of Parliment. Example, Sven Robinson former member from Burnaby who was present at the suicide of one Sue Rodriquez. He got nothing for aiding and abetting in "a murder", while Mr Latimer got 25 years. Is that fair?

Would the board have been more amenable if he had gone in front of them and lied, just to get his release.

Rightly or wrongly this man felt that he did the right thing and no parole board in the world is going to get him to change his mind. So, despite his extended stay in prison he has managed to mantain his princicpals, unlike the thousands of low life scum this same board almost automatically releases, to continue their assault on society.



He's done his time. Let him go and give his cell to some other deserving criminal.

[hurley_108]

lily lily:

According to the law, what he did was murder.

I can see their point.

The law is no less arbitrary than one person's choice. The law is not handed down from god. It's as fallible as you or I. There are just laws and there are unjust laws. There are laws passed by lawmakers that serve little purpose beyond removing irritants from those lawmakers in their administrative jobs.

Just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. Just because something isn't against the law doesn't make it right.

Each case is unique, and the law is a warped yardstick.

[Freakinoldguy]

lily lily:

What law did Robinson break? Was he an active participant or merely a supportive observer?

Latimer never claimed he didn't end Tracy's life.

By being at the bedside, offering support or what ever, without notifying the authorities, he was an active participant in the suicide. or muder, depending on which side of the law you stand on.

Now don't get me wrong, that's probably the only thing that Sven Robinson ever did that was right, but that doesn't, by legal definition exhonerate him of a crime.

Latimer admitted to killing his child but could have got around the problem by having more than one person present at the time and then having no one take culpability for the act, much like Sven Robinson and the doctor who assisted Sue Rodriquez did.

Unfortunately, it would appear that he was to honest and principaled to avoid prosecution by doing it that way. So asking him to show remorse for something he felt was his only recourse is never going to happen and he'll rot in prison, while alot of the societal scumbags who continue to tell the idiots at the parole board what they want to hear will be let out after their first hearing.