Law -- It's subjective.
I have a problem with this --
Calif. man gets death sentence in 5 arson murders
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) - A convicted arsonist was sentenced to death Friday for setting a Southern California wildfire that killed five federal firefighters struggling to defend a rural home from raging, wind-driven flames.
I'm not a great fan of the death penalty to begin with, but this is bullshit. Arson isn't a nice, good, or commendable action; but to fudge the rules and meaning of things is dangerous, perhaps more so than the actions of someone like an arsonist.
This is not first degree murder. This implies intent. He intended to start a big freaking fire. People were harmed as a consequence. He didn't target them or anyone specifically. Of course the language of the law is open enough to interpret this in such a way that this can fit.
(...)---------------------------------------------------
Not to uphold the sanctity of old men in robes being paid to say-so with stolen money, but these things are supposed to have meaning insofar as ... what's punishable by death? Death is not something to mess with. Not so easy to repeal there. Granted the U.S. exports it wholesale (but that's in defense of Freedom™, so it's okay). The inconsistency is so blatant here, it's almost as if:
"Here is a very bad man, and we want to kill him for causing the deaths of those other people. So we will."
So it's not the intent and conscious decision of the act? Just a desire for retribution .. 'um I mean, justice.
I'm not familiar with the case apart of the article and CNN blurb. I wonder what's their proof for convicting him. Do they know for certain he was the one who started the fire? or it was his fire? How certain?
Probably this will be overturned or at least legally-wrangled 'til the end of time. So likely he won't be killed. Hopefully they'll keep him locked up or fix him as such things are possible.
Just noting it's a scary thing when the law gets slippery/slipperier.
Then again this is something of a reminder: "Where there is a disparity in power, it will be abused."
So not exactly a new idea per se.
Calif. man gets death sentence in 5 arson murders
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) - A convicted arsonist was sentenced to death Friday for setting a Southern California wildfire that killed five federal firefighters struggling to defend a rural home from raging, wind-driven flames.
I'm not a great fan of the death penalty to begin with, but this is bullshit. Arson isn't a nice, good, or commendable action; but to fudge the rules and meaning of things is dangerous, perhaps more so than the actions of someone like an arsonist.
This is not first degree murder. This implies intent. He intended to start a big freaking fire. People were harmed as a consequence. He didn't target them or anyone specifically. Of course the language of the law is open enough to interpret this in such a way that this can fit.
(...)---------------------------------------------------
Not to uphold the sanctity of old men in robes being paid to say-so with stolen money, but these things are supposed to have meaning insofar as ... what's punishable by death? Death is not something to mess with. Not so easy to repeal there. Granted the U.S. exports it wholesale (but that's in defense of Freedom™, so it's okay). The inconsistency is so blatant here, it's almost as if:
"Here is a very bad man, and we want to kill him for causing the deaths of those other people. So we will."
So it's not the intent and conscious decision of the act? Just a desire for retribution .. 'um I mean, justice.
I'm not familiar with the case apart of the article and CNN blurb. I wonder what's their proof for convicting him. Do they know for certain he was the one who started the fire? or it was his fire? How certain?
Probably this will be overturned or at least legally-wrangled 'til the end of time. So likely he won't be killed. Hopefully they'll keep him locked up or fix him as such things are possible.
Just noting it's a scary thing when the law gets slippery/slipperier.
Then again this is something of a reminder: "Where there is a disparity in power, it will be abused."
So not exactly a new idea per se.