Comments on: Latimer paroled http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/ Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about. Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:06:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: mythago http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319614 mythago Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:53:51 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319614 RonF - I doubt if it is the sole criterion. But "likelihood of re-offending" is an element considered by every parole board I've ever heard of. It has the effect of excusing crimes against relatives. RonF - I doubt if it is the sole criterion. But “likelihood of re-offending” is an element considered by every parole board I’ve ever heard of. It has the effect of excusing crimes against relatives.

]]> By: RonF http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319549 RonF Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:28:46 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319549 I apparently don't understand the Canadian parole system. Is the sole criterion by which parole is granted or withheld the parole board's judgment on whether or not the inmate is likely to re-offend if released? Does "this crime demands more punishment" a factor? Are there established minimum sentences for offenses of this nature? I apparently don’t understand the Canadian parole system. Is the sole criterion by which parole is granted or withheld the parole board’s judgment on whether or not the inmate is likely to re-offend if released? Does “this crime demands more punishment” a factor? Are there established minimum sentences for offenses of this nature?

]]> By: Daisy http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319546 Daisy Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:04:27 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319546 Penny, OMG, I expected a few photos and names, not a list like that! Those sentences speak volumes, don't they? No time served for strangling your daughter? Wow. Penny, OMG, I expected a few photos and names, not a list like that!

Those sentences speak volumes, don’t they? No time served for strangling your daughter? Wow.

]]> By: mythago http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319544 mythago Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:29:28 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319544 Exactly, Dianne - the courts are much more lenient with offenders who victimized family members. They're not a threat to the rest of us, you see. Exactly, Dianne - the courts are much more lenient with offenders who victimized family members. They’re not a threat to the rest of us, you see.

]]> By: Penny http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319527 Penny Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:26:18 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319527 I don't think it sets a precedent, it just continues the usual treatment of such cases in the courts--reduced charges, light sentences (or no sentence at all) if the victim is disabled and the killer was a parent, son, daughter, partner, roommate, paid carer, etc. <a href="http://thiswayoflife.org/murder.html" rel="nofollow">This site </a> lists many such cases involving victims with autism. I don’t think it sets a precedent, it just continues the usual treatment of such cases in the courts–reduced charges, light sentences (or no sentence at all) if the victim is disabled and the killer was a parent, son, daughter, partner, roommate, paid carer, etc. This site lists many such cases involving victims with autism.

]]> By: Dianne http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319526 Dianne Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:01:20 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319526 <i>The appeal division, following a month-long review, concluded Mr. Latimer does not in fact pose an undue risk to reoffend.</i> They're probably right in the limited sense that he probably won't reoffend: he doesn't have any other children, as far as I know. But is this going to set the precedent that it's ok to kill your kid as long as he or she is disabled and you only do it once? It just doesn't seem good...quite apart from general issues of justice. The appeal division, following a month-long review, concluded Mr. Latimer does not in fact pose an undue risk to reoffend.

They’re probably right in the limited sense that he probably won’t reoffend: he doesn’t have any other children, as far as I know. But is this going to set the precedent that it’s ok to kill your kid as long as he or she is disabled and you only do it once? It just doesn’t seem good…quite apart from general issues of justice.

]]> By: Robert http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319524 Robert Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:09:01 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/27/latimer-paroled/#comment-319524 “I believe most Canadians will agree with the compassion and wisdom shown by the appeal division.” That's Latimer's attorney. Isn't compassion wonderful? How about some compassion for the little girl who gasped out her last minutes in incomprehension, wondering why her daddy was killing her. Fuck Robert Latimer, and fuck the appeal division. “I believe most Canadians will agree with the compassion and wisdom shown by the appeal division.”

That’s Latimer’s attorney. Isn’t compassion wonderful? How about some compassion for the little girl who gasped out her last minutes in incomprehension, wondering why her daddy was killing her.

Fuck Robert Latimer, and fuck the appeal division.

]]>