Latimer: Something Ominous is Happening in the World of Disabled People

Although the Latimer decision breaks no new substantive ground, it has created a furore over the application of the mandatory minimum sentence for murder. This article maintains that, despite the pre-existing need to examine the complex range of issues in mandatory sentences, the Latimer case provides a wholly inapposite base for revisiting this sanction. The Supreme Court of Canada properly rejected the accused\u27s attempt to invoke the defence of necessity, as well as some procedural contentions. The Court also determined that the mandatory minimum sentence for murder was not cruel and unusual punishment as applied to the accused. The reaction of the accused, as well as others, is discussed as a setback for people with disabilities, exposing the shallowness of equality protections for this disadvantaged group. The accused has been portrayed as the victim, despite his having intentionally and premeditatedly killed his child. This article argues that the voices of people with disabilities should be heard and responded to in a manner that more accurately reflects the nature of this homicide. Protections for people with disabilities, as well as children, should be expanded by creating offences and sentencing principles, recognizing the trust reposed in care-providers and the dependence that characterizes some presumably supportive relationships. This article suggests that using the criminal law to promote equality may help to reverse the threatening tide created by the Latimer case