The Appeal Division of the National Parole Board today overturned a Board panel's decision to deny Robert Latimer day parole. Latimer, who has served seven years of a life sentence for the murder of his severely disabled daughter, will soon be released to a half-way house.
In essence, the Board had denied parole because Latimer remains convinced that he did the right thing and thus "lacked insight" into his crime. The Appeal Division rightly found that the Board's decision was "unreasonable and unsupported" and that there was no evidence that Latimer represented an "undue risk to society," which is the only basis for denying parole.
Whatever one thinks of the legitimacy of Latimer's conviction and sentence, he should not have been denied release solely because he believed his actions were moral and justified. The state has no right to compel us to think "correctly," only to take reasonable measures to ensure that our beliefs do not manifest themselves as harmful behaviour. This is the appropriate line between (illegitmate) paternalism and (legitimate) self-protection. It is also (among other things) what distinguishes authoritarian from liberal societies. Given the miniscule risk that Latimer would find himself in a similar position in the future (and his otherwise law abiding record) the fact that he would have made the same decision in retrospect does not justifiy his punishment.
For commentary from this site on the initial Board decision, see here.
