At the first trial Justice Noble attempted to clarify the difference between mercy killing and premeditated murder, granting Latimer a constitutional exemption from the minimum sentence of 25 years with no chance of parole for 10 years. He explained that, for Latimer, imposing the minimum sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The law, he said, recognizes that the moral culpability or the moral blameworthiness of murder can vary from one convicted offender to another. In his opinion, the murder pf Tray Latimer was a rare act of homicide that was committed for caring, altruistic reasons. That is why, for lack of a better term, this is called compassionate homicide.
To what extent did the supreme Court uphold Justice Nobles judicial rationale? support your answer.
Was the trial judge justified in departing from mandatory sentencing provisions? Should the motive of compassion be taken into account in sentencing someone convicted of murder?