Punishment for arsonists

[Captain X]

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

But the topic asks for what we think the punishment should be.

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.

I'd be more for it actually being life imprisonment, even if that means they have to say give them 100 years for each death they caused to be served consecutively, so if they ever came up for parole on one sentence, they'd have another one to serve right away.

I like your avatar, BTW.

 

[cultcross]

^ 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.

The point is the 'target' though - setting fire to a house knowing there are people inside is direct violence against the person, i.e. there is deliberate intent there to harm that person or persons.
You'd have a hard time presenting a bush fire as a deliberate act of violence against the person in court - there is a layer of discontinuity between their intent and the resulting consequences.
The way the law reads to me, as you posted it, is that the intent is for people who assault others, or cause similar direct violence against the person (say, hit them with their car), and kill them unintentionally as a result, are still guilty of murder - which isn't really the same thing as the US 'felony murder' law which is much more wide ranging and encompasses a large number of felonies which are not in themselves 'violent', and deaths only indirectly connected to your actions.

 

[Captain Pike]

The Kinglake fire - the deadliest of the fires, actually two firefronts that merged - has today been officially ruled as not the work of arsonists.

The Gippsland fires are another matter though. The police are confident they will find the arsonist(s) responsible.

 

[Dayton3]

I always believed in executing arsonists whether someone is killed or not.

Unless of course they have some clear mental problem compelling them to start fires (some do).

 

[cultcross]

I always believed in executing arsonists whether someone is killed or not.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

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.

WRONG!!! Utterly and totally wrong.

 

[MANT!]

As Australia has no crime punishable by death...I for one think that anyone convicted of the crimes mentioned above should get life in prison..the harshest type of prison available to the government...Yatala Labour Prison with no parole..

 

[Lookingglassman]

If their arson kills people then execute them.

If their arson destroys property then 50 years in prison.

 

[Holdfast]

I always believed in executing arsonists whether someone is killed or not.

http://www.thebeeskneesdaynursery.com/obvious-troll.jpg

If you think someone's trolling; please notify on it, and we'll take a look at it. Or if you disagree with their point (and don't think it's trolling) feel free to argue the point with them. Just don't do this please.

 

[Bears Discover Fire]

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.

True in California as well. My neighbor's son is currently serving a life sentence without parole for setting a fire in the foothills above Corona, CA that killed one person and several horses, and destroyed a few buildings.

It was his third strike. Strike one was for attempting to run down his ex girl friend with a stolen car and strike two was for beating a prostitute.

As for the topic at hand, I believe a murder charge should accompany each death caused by a deliberately set fire.

 

[Captain X]

WRONG!!! Utterly and totally wrong.

Don't explain why you think that or anything...

 

[Alpha Romeo]

WRONG!!! Utterly and totally wrong.

Don't explain why you think that or anything...

It's not just that I think that. It IS wrong. Have you ever heard of first degree murder or pre-meditated murder?

 

[Captain X]

Yes, they have different degrees of murder, so? And yes, just as what you responded to was my opinion, your response is indeed your opinion. So do tell us all why you think my opinion is wrong.

 

[cultcross]

^ 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?

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Yes, they have different degrees of murder, so? And yes, just as what you responded to was my opinion, your response is indeed your opinion. So do tell us all why you think my opinion is wrong.

Because I'm a lawyer and you're not. I know the law and you don't. Intent is absolutely measured in criminal law. If you intend to commit a crime its much worse than say manslaughter or an accident...

 

[Miss Chicken]

If someone lights a fire in an environment as fireprone as the Australian bush, in a period of total fire ban, when anyone with a single brain cell knows how dangerous a fire in extreme conditions can be than I think his intent is clear. He must realise that the fire he lights has the possibility to cause death.

We have TV commercials that make it clear what happens when fires are litt, bushfires are the most common of all Australian natural disasters (at least in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia ) and certainly have cost many lives in the past. This is especially true in Victoria which has the highest number of bushfire deaths, I believe that their total is more than double the rest of Australa combined.

Lighting a fire in extreme weather conditions knowing that there is a chance that it could kill people is not manslaughter. In is a much murder as someone who repeatedly shoots at a house knowing that there are people inside. He knows there is a significant chance he might kill people.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

If someone lights a fire in an environment as fireprone as the Australian bush, in a period of total fire ban, when anyone with a single brain cell knows how dangerous a fire in extreme conditions can be than I think his intent is clear. He must realise that the fire he lights has the possibility to cause death.

We have TV commercials that make it clear what happens when fires are litt, bushfires are the most common of all Australian natural disasters (at least in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia ) and certainly have cost many lives in the past. This is especially true in Victoria which has the highest number of bushfire deaths, I believe that their total is more than double the rest of Australa combined.

Lighting a fire in extreme weather conditions knowing that there is a chance that it could kill people is not manslaughter. In is a much murder as someone who repeatedly shoots at a house knowing that there are people inside. He knows there is a significant chance he might kill people.

Unless the person intended to kill, it would most likely be manslaughter.

 

[Miss Chicken]

If a person fires into a house 20 times and kills someone do you think he would get away with just manslaughter if he said "I only did it to scare them".

If someone knows that there is a significant chance that they could kill someone and they go ahead with their dangerous behaviour anyway, their intent is clear - they wanted to light a fire that they know could kill someone. I don't see how that is different than setting a house on fire.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

If a person fires into a house 20 times and kills someone do you think he would get away with just manslaughter if he said "I only did it to scare them".

If someone knows that there is a significant chance that they could kill someone and they go ahead with their dangerous behaviour anyway, their intent is clear - they wanted to light a fire that they know could kill someone. I don't see how that is different than setting a house on fire.

The description you first gave was different. That could be interpreted as a person being stupid or careless. Your second example above is closer to intent to kill.

 

[Pingfah]

^ 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.