Disability Rights and "Mercy" Killings

The case of Robert Latimer shows a disrespect for the rights of people with disabilities.

Latimer killed his disabled daughter in 1994. He claimed that she was in pain, and that what he did was a "mercy" killing. He was charged with second-degree murder. He started serving his sentence in 2001. Yesterday, he was granted day parole.

In Canada,where Robert Latimer was charged and imprisoned , a second-degree usually means the convicted person is not eligible for parole for at least 10 years. However, Robert Latimer has only served 7 years. This means that if you are described as a "mercy" killer (ex. kill people with a disability), your sentence will be 7 years without parole. This creates a double status for murder; kill a person without a disability, get 10 years without parole. However, if you kill a person with a disability, you'll only get 7 years without parole.

Of course, maybe the death of Robert Latimer's daughter does not qualify as second degree murder. Rather, it was a "mercy" killing. But it is Robert Latimer who made the choice to kill his daughter; his daughter did not choose to die. What is a "mercy killing"? To my knowledge, it is not defined in law. Is this going to lead people to kill marginalized people (ex. people with disabilities) and then claim it was a "mercy" killing.

Robert Latimer should be granted parole if he is not a risk to re-offend after he has served 10 years is prison. Anything less is creating a double standard.