Punishment for arsonists

[Miss Chicken]

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?

 

[Dream]

Burn them alive. Eye for an eye.

 

[Pingfah]

Too many variables to be able to make a blanket decision.

Depends on age, mental ability, coersion, etc etc ad infinitum. This is what trials are for.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Let say that the arsonist is adult of average intelligence who has not be coerced.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The crime is mass murder (and massive destruction of property), so the punishment should fall along those lines. In this case, 131 charges of murder and whatever the property destruction is; I don't know what the laws are in Australia, but my opinion would be life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

If nobody is killed and no property is destroyed, the charges should be arson and whatever reckless endangerment law covers the possibility of multiple deaths and destruction of property.

 

[Pingfah]

Still too many variables.

A remorseless person who set the fires with the intention of killing people should get a harsher sentence than some thoughtless fool who thought it would be fun to play with matches. It might make the difference between life with no parole and a sentence which at least allowed for the possibility of release.

I'd still want to see a trial before I drew any firm conclusions, but regardless the sentences would be extremely heavy. 130 people died after all, whatever the intent.

 

[Miss Chicken]

These fires wouldn't be a result of someone 'playing with matches'. It would have been a result of someone wanting to feel a sense of power by lighting a big, destructive fire.

On a couple of occasions a firefighter have been charged with lighting the very fires that he was later sent out to fight. He lit it because he wanted to be a hero.

Though a few fires are set by children or teenagers who might not fuully understand the consequences, many of these fires are set in areas children/teenagers could not get to. The only way of getting to them would be by car.

 

[Deckerd]

I think it would be very difficult to detect who set the fires.

 

[Pingfah]

Well, as I say Miss Chicken, if it were premeditated murder then life without parole seems right. There are still plenty of details that can only be ascertained by a trial though.

 

[DragonLady]

Sounds like 131 counts of murder to me. With an appropriate sentence of course.

 

[Australis]

I think if it's not premeditated in terms of killing people, manslaughter instead of murder. But if a mental assessment shows the perpetrator doesn't give a damn, drop the full weight of the law on them.

 

[Garrovick]

Most places in the U.S. if an arsonist sets a fire the kills someone it's called Murder in the First Degree.

 

[cultcross]

In the UK, the arsonist must intend at least bodily harm for it to be murder if the fire kills someone. The crime of 'arson' alone is actually defined in simple terms as 'causing criminal damage using fire'. To be honest, the scale of the criminal damage alone here would probably set you back a decade or so in prison, before we've even got to the human cost.
As to that human cost, 131 counts of voluntary manslaughter could quite nicely push your sentence well over the normal human lifespan if they run consecutively instead of concurrently (concurrent is unusual for voluntary manslaughter)

In short, the combined prison time would be well over a life term even at 6 months per person. Parole if it comes at all should be at least 15 to 20 years down the line.

By the way, I can't get on board with your PM calling them 'mass murderers' on the national stage. How exactly does that lead to a fair trial for anyone charged in relation to these fires?

 

[Jadzia]

I agree with your post cultcross. And I think the UK legal perspective is preferable than the US legal perspective on this subject. "Intentions being 9/10 of the law" is an important moral guideline.

 

[sidious618]

I think intention needs to be taken into account here. If it was someone being an idiot they should be punished but not charged with 131 counts of murder.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

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?

Death penalty...

Althought you'd have trouble making that stick. Not unless you can proive they intended to kill. Life w/o parole.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

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?

I think intention needs to be taken into account here. If it was someone being an idiot they should be punished but not charged with 131 counts of murder.

No...

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Most places in the U.S. if an arsonist sets a fire the kills someone it's called Murder in the First Degree.

Actually, it would probably be felony murder.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'd settle for life without possibility of parole.

I wouldn't agree to 'burn' them in an 'eye for an eye' sense. That kind of justice doesn't work. Look at it this way: Unless they turn themselves around, they'll soon get plenty of fire as it is...

 

[T'Bonz]

My Romulan side says "Burn 'em at the stake."

My Vulcan side says "Life imprisonment."