Punishment for arsonists

[Miss Chicken]

I like to point out that no-one set a fire that killed 131 people. There were multiple fires with different origimas but police believe that quite a few were deliberately lit.

In the last few days two people - a teenager and an adult - have been charged with lighting fires but in both cases the fires they lit were non-lethal.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

I like to point out that no-one set a fire that killed 131 people. There were multiple fires with different origimas but police believe that quite a few were deliberately lit.

In the last few days two people - a teenager and an adult - have been charged with lighting fires but in both cases the fires they lit were non-lethal.

Then the thread is pointless as neither of these people are responsible for the fires that killed people? Or are you not sure?

 

[Captain X]

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.

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. In any case, I wouldn't make a distinction here simply because of the massive loss of life. If they did it because they were a moron, then it's still plenty horrible to warrant a life sentence, because their lack of brain cells still got over 100 people killed.

 

[Candlelight]

The death toll is now 171.

If a man/woman sets fire to a building, knowing full well there are people inside, then he/she is guilty of murder.

If a man/woman sets fire to an ocean liner, knowing full well there are people on board, he/she is guilty of murder.

If a man/woman sets fire to an area of Victorian wilderness in the midst of one of the hottest fires on record, knowing people live and work in that area... you can see where I'm going.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I like to point out that no-one set a fire that killed 131 people. There were multiple fires with different origimas but police believe that quite a few were deliberately lit.

In the last few days two people - a teenager and an adult - have been charged with lighting fires but in both cases the fires they lit were non-lethal.

Then the thread is pointless as neither of these people are responsible for the fires that killed people? Or are you not sure?

Because I also asked in my opening post

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

So what happens to the two who have been charged is relevant to this thread.

Said by Candlelight

The death toll is now 171.

If a man/woman sets fire to a building, knowing full well there are people inside, then he/she is guilty of murder.

If a man/woman sets fire to an ocean liner, knowing full well there are people on board, he/she is guilty of murder.

If a man/woman sets fire to an area of Victorian wilderness in the midst of one of the hottest fires on record, knowing people live and work in that area... you can see where I'm going.

I couldn't agree more.

The people who lit these fires knew that the fires that they light might very well result in death and even didn't care or else wanted people to die. You don't light fires in the worst fire conditions ever if you care about what might happen to people. It is totally against the law to light a fire during a period of total fire restrictions and these arsonists very well know that and the reason for such restrictions. They are also aware of the potential death toll that their fires will bring.

 

[Crusher Disciple]

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.

I agree.

 

[cultcross]

Death penalty...

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

You can get life without parole without proving intent to kill?

 

[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.

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. In any case, I wouldn't make a distinction here simply because of the massive loss of life. If they did it because they were a moron, then it's still plenty horrible to warrant a life sentence, because their lack of brain cells still got over 100 people killed.

Well, that may be how you'd like it to work but in the real world intentions are taken into account.

It may well be worth a life sentence, but not the same sentence. I was quite careful to distinguish between a life sentence without parole and one with the possibility of parole. Life in legal terms does not necessarily mean life. I was not suggesting it was not a serious crime or not worthy of a long term of imprisonment.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Death penalty...

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

You can get life without parole without proving intent to kill?

You get whatever the judge gives based on statutory authority, nature of thje crime and other circumstances.

 

[Neroon]

I've read this story a couple of times now, as the death toll kept climbing and climbing. What keeps coming back to me is how many people were involved and just plain what in heaven's sweet name were they thinking when they set those fires? Regardless of their intent, I'd like to see each one of these people become indentured to the families who lost family and friend in these fires. Force these arsonists - regardless of their motivation - to look those surviving famlies in the eye and not say a word. Just let the pain and guilt sink in, so that each night when the perpetrators go to bed the last thing they see in ther mind is the grief they caused. I know it's not practical, heck ... maybe not even legal. Even so, how do you get the perps to comprehend the full extent of what they've done?

 

[cultcross]

You punish people for the crime they commit, not their intentions when they commit them.

Absolutely wrong. The intent and the mental state involved in crime is a major part of proving the offence for most serious offences. Murder is basically defined as separate to manslaughter by the 'intent' factor.
The exception that springs to mind is criminal damage (and, incidentally, the true definition of 'arson') - you can be 'reckless as to the consequences' of your actions, as an alternative to intent. But as I said earlier, this is only for 'arson', a damage crime. The human loss is legally distinct, and would fall under manslaughter, imho.

 

[cultcross]

Force these arsonists - regardless of their motivation - to look those surviving famlies in the eye and not say a word. Just let the pain and guilt sink in, so that each night when the perpetrators go to bed the last thing they see in ther mind is the grief they caused. I know it's not practical, heck ... maybe not even legal. Even so, how do you get the perps to comprehend the full extent of what they've done?

Actually what you describe is done here - with the victim's permission obviously - it's called 'Restorative Justice', and is designed to show criminals the true consequences of their actions by meeting their victims in controlled circumstances.
If you're interested, this book is by a reformed burglar who went through the process and met a doctor whose computer he'd stolen - he didn't appreciate that he was stealing all his patients' files at the same time.

 

[Neroon]

Really? That's fascinating, cultcross. Thanks for the clarification as well as the link.

 

[Mallory]

You can also get a sentence of life without parole for a third offense in some states. Here's an example from Oregon:

The presumptive sentence for a sex crime that is a felony is life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole if the defendant has been sentenced for sex crimes that are felonies at least two times prior to the current sentence.

 

[Star Wolf]

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.

Well you know how it goes because most TV Cop/crime shows are set in New York when talking to the world New York legal codes tend to stand in for US legal codes. First degree in New York state is the death penalty. The equivalent in my state is first degree with special circumstances, which I believe arson for profit eventhough felony murder qualifies under.

How the arsonist are punished is a local decision. Does Australia have a felony murder law? If someone dies because of some other crime you are commiting then they can be found gulity of murder. Is each victim considered a seperate crime or just each act of arson?

 

[cultcross]

Really? That's fascinating, cultcross. Thanks for the clarification as well as the link.

No problem. I actually met Mr. Woolf as part of a festive season burglary reduction initiative - he now works for the police advising on burglary reduction.
I must admit, I was sceptical of not just him but the whole process before meeting him, I imagined a former criminal who had got a bit long in the tooth for breaking and entering and so fancied making some money selling his story. I will happily admit that I was 100% wrong about him, and he's made me a believer in the RJ process. Of course, it doesn't always work, nowhere close to always, but if it can do to even 1% what it did to him, I'd call it worth it.

How the arsonist are punished is a local decision. Does Australia have a felony murder law? If someone dies because of some other crime you are commiting then they can be found gulity of murder. Is each victim considered a seperate crime or just each act of arson?

I can't find the original place I read about it now, so I may be wrong, but I think the 'felony murder' law in the US sense (any felony) is a unique quirk of the US system.

 

[Miss Chicken]

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.

Well you know how it goes because most TV Cop/crime shows are set in New York when talking to the world New York legal codes tend to stand in for US legal codes. First degree in New York state is the death penalty. The equivalent in my state is first degree with special circumstances, which I believe arson for profit eventhough felony murder qualifies under.

How the arsonist are punished is a local decision. Does Australia have a felony murder law? If someone dies because of some other crime you are commiting then they can be found gulity of murder. Is each victim considered a seperate crime or just each act of arson?

The law as it stands in Victoria

Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 3A

Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence

3A. Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence

(1) A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person by an act of violence done in the course or furtherance of a crime the necessary elements of which include violence for which a person upon first conviction may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be sentenced to level 1 imprisonment (life) or to imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more shall be liable to be convicted of murder as though he had killed that person intentionally.

(2) The rule of law known as the felony-murder rule (whereby a person who unintentionally causes the death of another by an act of violence done in the course or furtherance of a felony of violence is liable to be convicted of murder as though he had killed that person intentionally) is hereby abrogated.

 

[cultcross]

^ Would "act of violence" cover arson? Most definitions of 'violence' in law refer to 'against the person'.

 

[Miss Chicken]

^ Would "act of violence" cover arson? Most definitions of 'violence' in law refer to 'against the person'.

I think that is where the debate will be. Setting fire to a house knowing there might be people in it would be seen as an 'act of violence' but can the same be said of lighting a bushfire.

 

[DragonLady]

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

My Vulcan side says "Life imprisonment."

Sounds like me.

My Samurai/Ninja ancestors say "disembowel them".

My Buddhist side says "life in prison for reflection".