At the first trial Justivce Noble attempted to clarify the difference between mercy killing and premeditated murder, granting Latimer a constitutional exemption from the minmum 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, recongizes that the moral culpability or the moral blameworthingness of murder can vary from one convicted offender to another., in his opinion, the murder of Tracy Latimer was a rare act of homicide that was comitted 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 the answer
Was the trial justified in departing from mandatory sentencing provisions? Should the motive of compassion be taken into account in sentencing someone convicted of murder?