Tag Archives: crime

be the change: violent criminals

marshall rosenberg, the man known for his work in nonviolent communication, appears in the section off the cushion and into life in be the change: how meditation can transform you and the world). he works a lot in prisons.

the people there have done some stuff that i really do not like, like sexually molesting children. so i usually ask each one of them what need of theirs was being met when they did that. and i usually get back, “huh?” because nobody has ever asked them that question before. so i will say, “i’d like to know what need you were trying to meet when you were doing that.” then they’ll usually answer something like, “i do it because i’m a pervert.” and i say, “now you are telling me what you think you are. i am asking what needs of yours are getting met?” and they say, “what the hell are you talking about?” and i say, “i believe you are doing this for the same reason that i do everything. i think you are doing it because it is the best way you know of meeting some need you have. that is what i do every moment – the best i know to meet my needs. and i am confident that if we can get clear about what needs of yours are being met by doing that, i bet we can find other ways of getting those needs met that don’t create so much pain for you and others.

mindfulness is about attending to what’s right in front of us. right in front of marshall rosenberg is a person. it is a person with a past, who has done violence to a child, and a future, who may do it again, or become a priest, or die the next day. but right in front of marshall there is a person, and about persons marshall knows that they have needs. there is something starkly sober and yet infinitely loving about cutting to the chase like that.

“if meditation and mindfulness make me forget the horrible crimes people like that have committed – no thanks.”

“if meditation and mindfulness help me to be loving even in such a tough situation, i want it!”

i can understand both reactions. which one is yours?

some thoughts on the robert latimer affair

today, the appeal division of the national parole board overturned a board panel’s decision to deny robert latimer day parole. latimer, who has served seven years of a life sentence for killing his severely disabled daughter, will soon be released to a half-way house.

here are a few blog reactions to this.

what are your thoughts?

at the university of alberta

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.

john murney from the saskatchewan liberty train

so, latimer is finally going to be released from prison after serving 7 years. i know the robert latimer controversy is very emotional and i expect to get a lot of different opinions on this matter. personally, i wouldn’t have done what latimer did, but i haven’t walked in his shoes either. latimer should not have served any prison time for what he did. if anything, i feel tremendous pity for him and his family.

and some comments on that blog

important things to consider: why did he attempt to hide his “crime?” what were the rights of his daughter? i’ve worked with people who suffered from similar disabilities, like the one afflicting latimer’s daughter, so i cannot comprehend euthanasia as the only option.

as well as

the cerebral palsy had strangled her muscles … she had a dislocated hip, believed to have been caused by the two steel rods in her back. her left chest was twisting in towards her spine. her lungs were constricted. she regularly suffered from bronchitis. her stomach was constricted. at times, she could barely swallow. her rigid back left her with pressure sores at the base of her spine.

it hurt to move, even a bath was painful.

and because swallowing was hard, she often had vomiting episodes that went on for months at a time. and another long surgery to come, with only liquid tylenol as a pain treatment latimer lied about it at first because he was trying to buy time for his family to have a proper funeral.

i remember when mrs. latimer was on the stand she said, “whatever hell they put him through will not begin to match the hell that our little girl went through.” that was her mother.

brigitte pellerin at pro woman pro life writes

so robert latimer is to be released from jail. that makes me angry. i understand that he’s no danger to society, and that he’s unlikely to re-offend. but that’s not the point, and never was. it is illegal – and wrong – to take the life of disabled people no matter what the reason.

finally, at alas, a blog, a blog written by a person with a disability

while there’s always been a frightening and enraging degree of support for latimer’s actions (which, interestingly, played out while susan smith was simultaneously being castigated for the murder of her non-disabled children in the u.s.), much of the fervor has been about the mandatory sentencing that required him to serve at least ten years in prison. the canadian supreme court overturned a lighter sentence that failed to follow sentencing guidelines. he’s currently spent seven years in jail.

in an appeal to his conviction, latimer contended that he “had the legal right to decide to commit suicide for his daughter by virtue of her complete lack of physical and intellectual abilities.”

grant mitchell, a lawyer representing disability groups in relation to the case, said yesterday:

“i think it’s really sad that he’s still maintaining that he committed no crime … that killing a member of his family was a private matter that the public had no business getting involved in. and i think it’s particularly concerning that when he was asked by the parole board whether he would do the same thing if another member of his family were in distress, he said he wasn’t sure what he would do.”

i agree with mitchell. more importantly, i agree with the guilty verdict that holds latimer accountable for murdering his daughter.