The illogical Semrau verdict

The case of a Canadian soldier who shot a wounded Taliban fighter shows Canada's justice system is ill-equipped to deal with battlefield mercy killings.

Now that the verdict has come in on the Robert Semrau case, op-ed pages are passing judgement on the military justice system that demoted and discharged him for killing a wounded Taliban soldier (allegedly out of compassion), but declined to convict him of murder. The consensus is that the verdict made little sense.

A National Post editorial says “the outcome confuses far more than it clarifies … it is patently illogical that Capt. Semrau was found guilty only of disgraceful conduct and not, at the very least, of attempted murder.” The Post says the verdict “highlights a gaping hole in Canadian legislation regarding the termination of lives without malice” because the law makes no distinction, in either civilian or military life, between mercy killings and murder. Semrau seems to have fallen through this gaping hole. The court couldn’t in good conscience have convicted him of murder, and their only recourse was the lenient, but illogical verdict of discharging him.

An Ottawa Citizen editorial compares Semrau’s situation with the famous case of Robert Latimer, who killed his severely disabled daughter to liberate her from untreatable pain. In that instance, a jury found him guilty of murder but refused to recommend even the mandatory minimum prison sentence of 10 years. “It's possible the automatic prison time attached to murder charges in Canada was a factor in” the court’s decision not to convict Semrau for murder. “Either through the introduction of new charges, or the removal of mandatory minimum sentences,” the Citizen suggests, “the law should be made ready to deal with the next mercy killing.”

“If the Semrau case proves anything, it’s Canada’s need for an inspector general (IG) for the army,” argues Sun Media’s Peter Worthington. IGs are common in other militaries, and serve as independent investigators who can determine what, if any, charges should be laid as a result of soldiers’ actions. “Referring some cases to an inspector general could satisfy those who want an independent adjudicator who understands the military, and those who favour the full impact of military law.”