Latimer: Something Ominous is Happening in the World of Disabled People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Latimer decision breaks no new substantive ground, it has created a furore over the application of the mandatory minimum sentence for murder. This article maintains that, despite the pre-existing need to examine the complex range of issues in mandatory sentences, the Latimer case provides a wholly inapposite base for revisiting this sanction. The Supreme Court of Canada properly rejected the accused's attempt to invoke the defence of necessity, as well as some procedural contentions. The Court also determined that the mandatory minimum sentence for murder was not cruel and unusual punishment as applied to the accused. The reaction of the accused, as well as others, is discussed as a setback for people with disabilities, exposing the shallowness of equality protections for this disadvantaged group. The accused has been portrayed as the victim, despite his having intentionally and premeditatedly killed his child. This article argues that the voices of people with disabilities should be heard and responded to in a manner that more accurately reflects the nature of this homicide. Protections for people with disabilities, as well as children, should be expanded by creating offences and sentencing principles, recognizing the trust reposed in care-providers and the dependence that characterizes some presumably supportive relationships. This article suggests that using the criminal law to promote equality may help to reverse the threatening tide created by the Latimer case.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".