Crime and punishment: Arson

[stephbg]

I've mentioned several times before how much the crime of arson annoys and indeed angers me. Why? I've tried to record a few of my thoughts here, but this is by no means a coherent essay.



I'm not commenting here on Australia's system of law, nor do I have any solutions to "fix" our court or prison systems. As I understand it, many prison terms seem short because of purely financial and logistical restrictions. Prisons are crowded, simple as that. If only we could export spare prisoners...

I also feel for judges and legal workers in general when a victim's family protest that the sentence dealt to an offender in no way compensates for the loss of their loved one. An 18 month prison sentence for dangerous driving (or whatever) is not meant to equalise the consequences for the victim and their families, but it's human nature to desire this.

There are bad people, and there are stupid and careless people. Some crimes are focused on a particular victim, some have consequences for many people. Some people are more affected than others, and I heartily approve of the introduction of victim impact statements into court proceedings.

We're starting to get to the heart of why arson bothers me so much, more so than even a personal assault of the most vicious kind. Drunk driving strikes me as being worse than burglary, because of the potential for ripples of harm. A personal assault is bad for the victim, and possibly the psychological health of their friends and family. A drunk driver has the potential to kill and injure many people, damage quite a lot of property, and tie up traffic and cause quite a lot of inconvenience.

Fire has potential like nothing else. Few arsonists--even those who like to light fires so they can be seen to fight them--are going to be willing or able to ensure that a fire is contained to a particular area, so once it's off it can be very bad indeed. The arsonist is reponsible for every death, injury, loss, stress, inconvenience and nightmare that that fire causes. They are also responsible for every ripple effect from loss of electricity or water pressure, to the tying up of resources and emergency services that might have saved someone else.

Not all arsonists are pyromaniacs, or even mentally ill (and when did that become an excuse?). Many are after simple thrills. Some just don't think enough, and do a burnoff on a 46C day in 80kph winds, or chuck a cigarette butt out of the car window. Those are the ones that need to be slapped and slapped hard. *If* they can be identified with confidence.

My biggest problem with all this is children. Little monsters or curious kiddies light fires all the time. At some point, and it has nothing to do with age, they become responsible for that act because they understand that acts have consequences. Picking that point, knowing what someone else knew as they made a decision is an enormously difficult task.

Fatigue stops me now, and I know I've not said all I'd like to say, but I'll try to clarify in comments if anyone has questions.

Comments

[leecetheartist.livejournal.com]

Someone doing a burn off that gets out of control or chucking a ciggy out the window isn't an arsonist. Arson is the *deliberate act of setting a malicious fire*.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

I'd go the opposite way on drunk driving vs burglary. Drunk driving is a very high risk activity that may or may not cause harm. In the best case, which happens very often, nothing unusual happens. In the worst case, people get injured or killed. Burglary is a deliberate attack on someone which will always cause harm.

However, arson combines the worst of both of those concepts. It is a deliberate attack on a large number of people and the worst case result is extremely devastating.