R vs. Supreme Court of Canada

R vs. Supreme Court of Canada

R vs. Supreme Court of Canada was a case presented to the Supreme Court of Canada on January 18, 2001. The Appellant, Robert Latimer, had been sentenced for life imprisonment without parole eligibility for ten years after he was found guilty of second-degree murder of his daughter, who was suffering from cerebral palsy. There were two main questions that the appellant challenged the Supreme Court. First, was the defense of necessity ignored, leading to an unfair trial? Second, is the compulsory minimum sentence for second-degree murder classified as cruel and unusual punishment in this case?

Argument

Defense of necessity is when a defendant argues that it was essential to commit a crime. Various factors can make a defense of necessity considered. First, the defendant must have been in immediate danger when committing the crime. Second, committing the crime was the only way out of the issue. Lastly, the harm caused by the defendant must be equal to the harm that he or she was avoiding.

Argument B

It is not right to let people go through permanent suffering in their life. Robert’s daughter was going through a lot of pain due to the numerous surgeries that she had gone through. Killing by suffocating her was appropriate to stop the pain she was enduring.

The court ruled that in this case, no evidence proved it necessary for the defense of necessity is included. The court stated that there was no clear interpretation of why Robert should have taken her daughter’s life. The court also upheld the minimum mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for ten years. The court also confirmed that the sentence could not be classified as cruel because of the crime that the appellant had engaged in.

The theory that can best explain this case is natural law theory. The theory argues that law and morality are highly connected. In this case, the Canadian law prohibits murder, either first degree or second degree. Human life is one of the critical principles of morality. As a result, Robert’s engagement in killing his daughter was both immoral and illegal in Canada.

Analysis

Despite going through a lot of pain, Robert’s daughter enjoyed the company of family members, as it is evidenced in the case. It is stated that she used to smile at the family members. Raising the child and showing her compassionate love and medication would have served as the best option. People with disabilities have the right to life, and nobody should terminate it. In this case, Robert willingly decided to end her daughter’s life, thus interfering with her right to life. Murder is considered the most severe crime in most jurisdictions, and Canada is one of them. This makes it a necessity for the imposition of the ten years of mandatory parole eligibility in this case. This was not cruelty compared to the wickedness that the appellant had committed to his daughter.