Punishment for arsonists

[Captain X]

^ I explained the concept of intent in criminal law, you seemed to skip over it.

Actually no, I didn't, I just didn't agree with you in this case since we were dealing in hypotheticals according to the OP anyway.

The crux: if intent is ignored, what is the legal difference between manslaughter and murder?

The particulars of the crime, like say if the deaths occurred as a result of another crime being committed.

Because I'm a lawyer and you're not. I know the law and you don't.

That's your reasoning for failing to elaborate in a debate? "Oh, I don't have to explain myself because I'm a know-it-all and you're just an ignorant dumb-ass." Had it occurred to you to, oh, I don't know, just be polite and explain yourself instead of just doing a drive-by and then following it up by being rude? Had it also occurred to you that just because I'm not a law student that I might actually still know a few things about law & justice? One doesn't need to be a lawyer to know anything about the law.

Intent is absolutely measured in criminal law. If you intend to commit a crime its much worse than say manslaughter or an accident...

You don't consider lighting a fire for kicks in a dry region, resulting in massive loss of life and property to be worse than manslaughter? That's part of what I'm talking about when I say how I think things ought to be, because I know there are plenty of lawyers who would argue there was no intent to kill people even if there was intent to cause property damage, but the fact remains that the person who committed the crime is still a danger to society, is a risk for causing more deaths through their pyromania or their stupidity, and should be treated accordingly, as in they should be locked up for a very long time if not for the rest of their lives.

^ I explained the concept of intent in criminal law, you seemed to skip over it.

The crux: if intent is ignored, what is the legal difference between manslaughter and murder?

I'm being presumptuous in talking for Captain X I know, but if I read his comments to me up thread correctly, I think he is aware of the way matters are handled in reality, but is saying that he doesn't personally consider lack of intent to be much of a mitigating factor in this case.

Thanks, exactly right. And I still love that avatar.

 

[Miss Chicken]

A 39 year old Gippsland man has been arrested over the Churchill fire which caused 21 deaths. He has been charged with 'arson causing death". The police have said that he is mentally in a fragile state and that his name is not being released to protect him.

Link to story

 

[cultcross]

I'm being presumptuous in talking for Captain X I know, but if I read his comments to me up thread correctly, I think he is aware of the way matters are handled in reality, but is saying that he doesn't personally consider lack of intent to be much of a mitigating factor in this case.

If that is his point, fair enough. I disagree, because I don't think intent is a "mitigating factor"; I think it is an absolutely key component of the crime itself. But it's a fair thing to say. I was responding to the way he initially phrased it:

You punish people for the crime they commit, not their intentions when they commit them. That's part of why hate crime laws are bullshit, but thats the topic for another discussion.

Which is legally incorrect.
If there was intended to be a "should" in there, then please ignore that objection.

 

[Dayton3]

In America they have a saying

"Intent follows the bullet".

In other words, intent can be inferred by actions. If such actions cause death, the inference is that death was the intention.

 

[Gov Kodos]

So far the death toll from the Victorian bushfires stands at 131. These people deaths are tragic but what makes the toll even more horrific is that it seems that many of the fires were deliberately lit.

The Australain Prime Minister has said that people who lit these fires are mass murderers and I believe most Australians would agree with him.

What sentences should be given to arsonists who light bush/forest fires? Life? If so, what non-parole period?

What about those that light fires that don't result in death? What length sentence would you like to see them get?

To dig up the bodies, identify them, find the remaining families and loved ones to tell them what happened including his/her part and then to bury the dead by hand.

 

[Dayton3]

So far the death toll from the Victorian bushfires stands at 131. These people deaths are tragic but what makes the toll even more horrific is that it seems that many of the fires were deliberately lit.

The Australain Prime Minister has said that people who lit these fires are mass murderers and I believe most Australians would agree with him.

What sentences should be given to arsonists who light bush/forest fires? Life? If so, what non-parole period?

What about those that light fires that don't result in death? What length sentence would you like to see them get?

To dig up the bodies, identify them, find the remaining families and loved ones to tell them what happened including his/her part and then to bury the dead by hand.

That isn't punishment. That's inconvenience.

 

[cultcross]

If such actions cause death, the inference is that death was the intention.

What a ridiculous notion. The concept that actions allow you to infer intent refers to the point in criminal law that intent must be proven by actions - we can't get inside someone's head and tell their intention. So unless they tell you their intent was to kill, you have to infer it from their actions at the time. Go up to someone and stab them through the heart with a knife - you can infer death was the intent. Light a fire in the woods - much less clear cut, and requires corroborative evidence before you could make a determination that killing was the intent.