by TChris

Tempering justice with mercy is one of the most difficult tasks of the criminal justice system -- almost as difficult as deciding what constitutes "justice" in the first place.

Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer, killed his daughter in 1993. He says he did it to spare her from unbearable suffering.

At trial, Tracy's pediatric orthopedic surgeon testified that the tiny girl, contorted by cerebral palsy, would likely face "incredible" pain after surgery to ease a permanently dislocated hip. The procedure involved removing part of her upper leg to create a "flail limb" that would no longer be connected by bone.

Both the surgeon and a family doctor had told the Latimers that Tylenol was the only painkiller Tracy could have after her release from hospital. Anything stronger could have shut down her fragile respiratory system, Mr. Latimer said.

Knowing that his daughter would eventually need the same surgery on her other hip, Latimer couldn't bear to see his daughter suffer. A jury found him guilty of second-degree murder but recommended that he serve only one year in jail and another under house arrest at his farm. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Latimer would have to serve the ten year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime.

Latimer, who has served more than three years, hasn't yet applied for clemency because he thinks the Supreme Court misspoke when it said he could have controlled his daughter's pain with more effective medications. He worries that the misunderstanding needs to be resolved before his clemency petition will be taken seriously. That's unfortunate, because Latimer is a perfect candidate for clemency. Whether his actions are viewed as morally right or wrong, it's obvious that Latimer poses no risk to others. The unique and tragic circumstances of his case make the sentence proposed by the jury a more just outcome than continued incarceration.