John Whitehead's Commentary
Are Sincere Killings Okay?
Tom Latimer, a confessed murderer, should be excused from the mandatory sentence for killing his disabled daughter, Tracey, because he believed she would be better off dead. That's the argument currently before a Supreme Court in Ontario, Canada in the case where 12-year-old Tracey Latimer, a victim of cerebral palsy and mental retardation, was gassed to death by her father in his pickup truck.
Advocates for the disabled are on the front lines of this case, as they should be. After all, this issue would not even be before the Supreme Court if Tracey had not been disabled because no one would seek to excuse the murder of a healthy 12-year-old.
Those with handicaps understand that accepting Latimer's "honest belief" defense--he honestly believed murder was the right choice for his daughter--would create a legal double standard. People with disabilities could be murdered without fear of punishment, if it were done for their own good. And the murderer would be the one to decide that death might be the best choice.
"We are scared for our lives, particularly those who are perceived to be severely disabled or who cannot verbally speak for themselves," says Paul Young, a man labeled as mentally handicapped who is part of a coalition intervening in the Latimer case.
Latimer's lawyers have argued to the court that he should be excused for the sole reason that he really believed that he had no choice but to kill his daughter. Although Latimer had options such as putting Tracey in a home or exploring additional feeding and pain management techniques, they say it should be irrelevant whether Latimer's belief that he had no choice was correct or even one that a reasonable person might mistakenly hold. They argue that Latimer's views alone should be sufficient to get him off the hook. The Canadian AIDS Society has argued in support of Latimer and is using the case to urge the legalization of euthanasia.
The implications of this case are enormous. At its most obvious level, acceptance of the honest belief defense would create a kind of "open season" on those who suffer disabilities. The disabled would become vulnerable to any particular decision that they would be better off dead--no point in asking the disabled for their opinion because it wouldn't really matter. Just put them out of their misery--or at least someone's perception of their misery.
But what about the Nazi who believed he had no choice but to kill Jews because it was his sincere belief that they would destroy his country? He wouldn't be required to prove that he was right or reasonable--just that he honestly believed what he believed. What about parents who believed that killing their homosexual child would save him or her from damnation, or at least a lifestyle of which they do not approve? The examples could go on and on as a precedent is developed for other murders based on "higher" motives.
Civilized society cannot condone one law for the able-bodied and a different one for those who are not. Tracey's life was no less sacred, she was no less a human being because she was a quadriplegic or because she was suffering pain. To avoid this bottom line, some prefer to call this a case about involuntary euthanasia. That undoubtedly sounds better.
But it's still about murder--and murder of some of society's most vulnerable. So it is with abortion, or "choice." The standard proposed is the same: Someone decides for another whether they should live or die. And, in the end, it's only the killer's perspective that counts.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
