It's so hard in these cases, because a major part of me says "yes, it was right". The other part of me says "it's against the law".

Mercy vs Justice.

i agree with Eiri..

I guess if he made that decision for her he also knew there might be consequences such as a lifetime in jail. It is against the law. She didn't make the decision but I believe he made it for her out of mercy and I feel for him for that. I know how hard it is to see your child suffer and if I were ever faced with that decision I would probably be willing to face the consequences regardless. I don't know what I would do if I were in his shoes and it's hard to judge him. But a message has to be sent to others that her life did have value and the choice to die was not her own. I think he should have day parole, personally, because he is not a threat to anyone, but at the same time, I think it is right that he is in jail. The real injustice is that there are people with no regard for life (like people who drink and drive) who do less time or no time at all.

ok, I'm not the only one.

If they didn't punish the father, I think it would reflect on society's values towards the disabled, children, and females.

Who was that one girl that her husband wanted the feeding stopped and her parents didn't.. I can't remember her name.. But I felt the way they let her strave and no water was terrible!

Terry Shivo (sp). Same case pretty much.

I think I agree with Kaerbear. That's how my mind feels about the situation.

And the comment about drunk drivers: Seriously!!! That's not fair at all!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/20 07/10/29/harveymordenzenk.html

a good example of the injustice

Thank you for the link, kaerbear. I saw "ex cop" and immediately raised an eyebrow.

You all remember the woman who left her kid in the car during the summer and her daughter died?

http://blackcincinnati.blogspot.com/2007/0 9/has-white-woman-brenda-nesselroad-slaby. html

Thank you for the link, kaerbear. I saw "ex cop" and immediately raised an eyebrow.

You all remember the woman who left her kid in the car during the summer and her daughter died?

http://blackcincinnati.blogspot.com/2007/0 9/has-white-woman-brenda-nesselroad-slaby. html

Frickin' double standards....

The Canadian justice systems main focus is rehabilitation. He has nothing to be rehabilitated from, and is not a threat to public safety. He is not a candidate for reoffending and keeping him in prison is costing $51 000 a year.

Well, and it's main focus is to enforce the rule of law. I think that's why there's such a big controversy. He broke the law, but has nothing to be rehabilitated from. interesting.

I understand why he did it, but I cant understand what makes him think he had the right to do it.

The Oregon Accountability Model was taken from the canadian system and yes while he broke the law and took a life (where's PL when you need'em?) he is not a danger to society at large.
Rehabilitation works well for people with certain criminogenic factors; factors which are assessed at intake; a treatment plan developed at that point and initiated which can and usually does involve single and group therapy; treatment of drug / alcohol related issues; addressing lack of education and job skills: life coping skills; budget management; parenting classes.

You see only what the news media chooses to show you but life behind bars is far different then Pelican bay facility in California or that discovery channel show that highlights the worst prisons.
No Mr. Latimer should not have gone free; he violated a societal norm and is paying the price but it is very unlikely he will get out of prison and go kill severely disabled children or any of his other children therefore there is not need to rehabilitate because he is not a threat.

you obviously do NOT have children..
Would you be able to sit back and watch a loved one deteriorate day after day, getting worse never to get better? Would you be able to accept the simple fact that this person will never be able to enjoy life, and will no doubt suffer each and every day until their death?

OR would you want them to be in a better place, without suffering, without deteriorating, without having to watch everyone else live incredible lives and sit back and feel sorry for themselves?

I think what he did was justified in a moral light, but when it comes down to the legality of things, it *is* against the law to intentionally take a human life.

So its a fight between morality and legality. Who wins? No one.. because either way your wrong.

Don't take a life.

Stop eating and breathing. You're killing animals and plants. Never use antibiotics for your sicknesses since it kills bacteria. Oxygen is a poison to many forms of life. So is carbon dioxide.

Sorry let me redo it

Try not to take a life.