Mercy for Murderers? An Historical Perspective on the Royal Prerogative of Mercy

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the constitutionality of Robert
Latimer's mandatory minimum sentence for second degree murder, Canadians
took sides over the question of his motive: was he a cold-hearted murderer, or a
mercy killer? In the aftermath of the ruling, however, public debates have
shifted. Now the question has become: is Latimer's sentence excessive? If so,
how might mercy be dispensed?
This paper looks at the question of mercy for murderers from a historical
perspective. In an era when the death penalty was the mandatory sentence for
murder, cabinets dealt with such difficult questions on a regular basis. Informal
means of assessing the deservedness of the death penalty developed over the
nineteenth and twentieth century. Some types of murderers, particularly women
convicted for killing their own infants, were considered worthy candidates for
commutation.
The current government faces growing public pressure to make a similar
disposition in the Latimer case. However, discretionary executive mercy has
taken on an antiquated gloss since the death penalty was abolished in 1976.
Furthermore, an individual solution would not satisfy those who are calling
upon the government to abolish mandatory minimum sentences—not only for
second degree murder, but also for the growing range of offences that rule out
discretionary sentencing.