The case of Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer who killed his disabled daughter Tracy, has once again brought into focus the issue of mandatory minimum sentences (MMS). Latimer was twice convicted of second degree murder for what he claimed was a compassionate killing. His case culminated in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that the circumstances of the killing merited a constitutional exemption, under s.12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, from the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with ten years of parole ineligibility (Grant 2001). The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal that a life sentence, in his case, constituted cruel and unusual punishment on the basis that the planning and premeditation of the act, as well as his attempts at concealment and lack of remorse, overrode his dedication to Tracy and other mitigating factors.
             Unlike previous cases, the Latimer appeal did not challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory sentence for murder; only the applicability of this sentence to his case. Nevertheless, the case brought into full view the fundamental dilemma associated with MMS; namely, that their predictable quality, which is said to afford their retributive and deterrent effects, also renders them inflexible and unduly harsh in cases where the offender's motives are not entirely dishonourable. Grant (2001) notes that our law currently has no defence available to those who can no longer cope with the suffering of a loved one.
             The inflexibility of mandatory penalties for murder is of particular concern in another context; those instances in which an abused spouse kills her tormentor in a premeditated fashion. Such killings are usually prompted by credible threats against the life of the victim and/or her offspring. Presently, planned killings of this nature carry the same sentence as contract killings.
             In Canada, over two dozen offences in the Criminal Code carry MMS, including f...