Question

Select the accurate statement(s) about what the defence and Crown argued during the Latimer case: [select ALL that apply]

Defence-That serving a mandatory minimum sentence violated Section 12 of the Criminal Code.


Crown-That defence of necessity did not apply because there was a legal option: Leaving Tracy in excruciating pain.


Defence-That defence of necessity applied.


Defence-Inadmissibility of certain evidence introduced by the government.


Crown-That Latimer was at risk of re-offending.


Crown-That Latimer was a sociopath (has no feelings).


Crown-That Latimer broke the law.


Crown-That Latimer did it because he was tired of taking care of his daughter.


Defence-That serving a mandatory minimum sentence violated Section 12 of the Charter.

Answer 1

The defense in the Latimer case argued that a mandatory minimum sentence was a violation of Section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the defense of necessity applied. The Crown argued that necessity did not apply as there were legal alternatives and that Latimer had clearly broken the law.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Latimer case was a significant legal event that involved arguments around mandatory sentencing, the defense of necessity, and the admissibility of evidence. The defense argued that serving a mandatory minimum sentence for Robert Latimer, who was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of his severely disabled daughter, violated Section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the defense claimed that the defense of necessity applied to Latimer's actions, suggesting that his act was a compassionate response to his daughter's suffering. As for the Crown's position, they argued that the defense of necessity did not apply because Latimer had legal alternatives to killing his daughter, such as leaving her in pain. They also maintained that Latimer had broken the law and rejected the characterization of him as a sociopath or someone who committed the act due to exhaustion from caretaking duties. The question of Latimer being at risk of re-offending or his alleged motivations were part of the broader considerations during sentencing and public commentary.