LIFE in prison for arson!?!

[Greensub]

It's not just Texas that would classify a church burning as first degree arson, and most provide for 20+ year sentences and life in prison off just one charge.

Originally Posted by Minnesota's Arson statute
"First degree; dwelling. Whoever unlawfully by means of fire or explosives, intentionally destroys or damages any building that is used as a dwelling at the time the act is committed, whether the inhabitant is present therein at the time of the act or not, or any building appurtenant to or connected with a dwelling whether the property of the actor or of another, commits arson in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to a fine of not more than $20,000, or both."

not more than 20 yrs does not equal 20+ years.
here's a minnesota woman guilty of an apartment building arson... that's a lot of people potentially affected... she got 4 years.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/26/arson-sentence/

Life imprisonment on one charge... Not if the structure is occupied... Merely if it had been in the past 6 months.

that's one state you've found... Rhose Island

Other states seem to mostly read the same way.

One is not most... did you miss posting #93 somehow... I posted links to multiple examples in multiple states of lesser severity of penalties in other states. One guy lit 89 house fires in 3 different states and got a total of 132 months... that's 11 years total.

Given that there were multiple charges in this case, the life sentence makes sense legally, and it likely would have been applied in most other states given the sheer amount of churches these guys burned down.

No it wouldn't have (but I'll go see what I can find)

To those of you who argue the sentence was too harsh - exactly how many churches does one have to burn down before they earn a life sentence?

I don't know if it's too harsh or not... but it's not what they would have gotten in other states.

One of four people charged in the August arson fire that destroyed the Hemlock Grove Church of Christ was sentenced to four years Tuesday on three counts of a seven-count indictment.

Read more: Gallipolis Daily Tribune - First sentence imposed in Hemlock Grove church arson ​

​

So he's got 4 years so far... he still has to come back for sentencing on the other 4 charges.

A former firefighter and co-author of a book on the deadly 1958 Our Lady of the Angels School fire was sentenced today to three years in prison after he admitted torching a storage building at a church on Chicago's North Side.

well.. he only torched the storage building.

here's one that's a more severe sentence... The only one I've found so far.

A man who pleaded guilty to charges that
he set a fire that gutted St. Anne Catholic Church in New Castle
has been sentenced to 40 years in prison.

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/41320937.html

New York, New York...

Syracuse, NY -- A Nedrow teenager was sentenced today to 1 1/3 to four years in state prison for his role in torching two churches on the Onondaga Nation in July.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/nedrow_teenager_sentenced_in_c.html

A-HA!!! I just found out the specifics of the texas sentencing... I no longer believe that the sentence is to harsh... all those life sentences are running concurrently (at the same time)

Bourque's sentences for the five counts of arson and two of the attempted-arson counts will run concurrently, making him eligible for parole in 15 to 20 years. If he is paroled, he will then serve the third 20-year attempted-arson sentence and would be eligible for parole on that sentence after five years.
McAllister will be eligible for parole after he serves 15 years on two counts of first-degree arson and two counts of second-degree arson. Both men waived their rights to appeal the sentences.

So at the end of all this arguing over the severity of life in prison... it was all for nothing. As I said earlier... life sentences in texas are 30 years. These guy's will be out in 15-25 depending on behavior.


I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS... BUT I FEEL A LITTLE SILLY RIGHT NOW!!! PRETTY MUCH ALL OF OUR ARGUMENTS WERE IRRELEVANT!!! IN THE END 5 LIFE SENTENCES CONCURRENTLY IN TEXAS EQUALS 15-20 BEFORE ELIGIBILITY OF PAROLE.


AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT I WITHDRAW MY ARGUMENTS THAT THIS IS EXCESSIVE. (THERE IS A DISCREPANCY AMONG STATES SENTENCING... BUT NOT AS LARGE AS IT ORIGINALLY LOOKED TO BE.)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Then how do you account for things like night time breaking and entering vs day time breaking and entering?

I would account for... according to statue, not hypotheticals.

The serial arsonists in Texas didn't injure or kill. But they apparently stacked up enough church arson in Texas to get life. But it wasn't violent crime because nobody was injured or killed. Texas threw the proverbial "book" at them, not the "good" book.

One (night time) carries a harsher sentence based solely on the idea that at night you're more likely to find people at home and therefore more likely to have the crime become violent.

Maybe, maybe not. But since I'm discussing church burnings and whether they're considered violent crime or just punished harsher according to state, night/day home burning has nothing to do with what's on the jurisdiction's statue.

But I'll go ahead and respond to your scenario. If the jurisdiction has written statue that states what you hypothesize, no harm no foul. If the jurisdiction relies on moral dilemma when sentencing, were fucked.

If you tell a judge something like, "I never had any intention of hurting anyone" do you really think he's going to say, "Oh okay then, well just because you say so, we'll go easier on you then."

Hemp, you're a fine fella. But the conclusion you draw is a stretch of the imagination.

I would expect the judge to say, "Guilty as charged."

If the criminal says "sorry, I didn't mean to injure or kill," tough shit.

Actual crime committed vs hypothetical and or moral dilemma.

The problem with arson is that once the fire is started it's hard to control or stop. So just because you robbed the place you torched first and made sure nobody was in there to be hurt it doesn't mean the fire won't hurt the people who try to put it out, or the people in the building next to the church when the fire spreads there.

Overruled - speculation. Now if you talking an actual crime committed according to statute, we have no disagreement. In the above scenario, nobody got hurt or killed. It's a hypothetical. My argument is, put it on the books before throwing it at the perp.

If your hypothetical actually injures or kills = violent crime, regardless of intent. In this case, intent might determine capitol murder as opposed to lesser degree.

But suggesting that I advocate lesser or no sentence for "I'm sorry" isn't reality.

Basically an arsonist is responsible for creating and releasing on the public a nearly uncontrollable force that has huge potential to cause indiscriminate death and destruction.

"huge potential" = hypothetical

IMO, charge and sentence according to statute, not the above. Or, incorporate the above into statute so one guy doesn't get significantly more or less depending on who he/she is or isn't.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It's not really always as clear cut as your statement makes it seem. A person can have no intention of killing anyone and still be convicted of vehicular manslaughter because they didn't notice the kid running into the street in front of them.

In your hypothetical, the person won't get capitol murder unless the system convicts on gut reaction. In your scenario, the person applies to the statute, regardless of intent. Give them the statue.

The thought behind the laws that can make this scenario happen (pedestrians always have the right of way) is that a moving vehicle with all it's mass and momentum is such a potentially deadly force that it's the responsibility of the driver to be acutely aware of the surroundings and in control of the vehicle. Even if the pedestrian is crossing the street illegally in places not designated for crossing.

It's this same reasoning that is behind why a person rear ending a vehicle is automatically guilty of causing the accident, even if the driver in the vehicle being rear ended slammed on the brakes unexpectedly and for no obvious reason. The courts will look at that and say that you were following too closely and/or not paying attention if you didn't have time to react.

Charge according to statute. Or addendum and or modify the statute according to the legal process.

 

[MJBadger]

Texas obviously has severe penalties & these sick f**ks took that risk . I am a complete athiest but believe that if you pick churches/religion for your arson hobby there is definately something screwed in the brain .

As a very wise man said . If you can`t do the time don`t do the crime .

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That's what happened though, in Texas the law states that serial Arson can be considered First degree when the targets are dwellings and/or places of assembly or worship.

"First degree", did you get that from the jurisdictional statute? Greensub pasted some info that might interest you.

We already discussed my and others' impression on the surface (Texas = arcane sentencing in this particular case) was wrong. I admitted my narrow view and since reconsidered.

Just because you personally don't agree with the law does not mean that the sentencing was not in accordence with the law.

Hemp , the only thing I may or may not disagree with are your potential hypotheticals and whether they follow or don't follow respective jurisdictional statute.

I've dropped lots of posts in this thread. You may have to consider they pretty much reflect the same thing, even when I was under the impression these two were unfairly sentenced:

Sentence according to statute. < Nothing there suggests I recommend my personal preference over law.

 

[Mr. Bongjangles]

not more than 20 yrs does not equal 20+ years.
here's a minnesota woman guilty of an apartment building arson... that's a lot of people potentially affected... she got 4 years.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/26/arson-sentence/

that's one state you've found... Rhose Island

One is not most... did you miss posting #93 somehow... I posted links to multiple examples in multiple states of lesser severity of penalties in other states. One guy lit 89 house fires in 3 different states and got a total of 132 months... that's 11 years total.

No it wouldn't have (but I'll go see what I can find)

I don't know if it's too harsh or not... but it's not what they would have gotten in other states.

​

So he's got 4 years so far... he still has to come back for sentencing on the other 4 charges.

well.. he only torched the storage building.

here's one that's a more severe sentence... The only one I've found so far.

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/41320937.html

New York, New York...
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/nedrow_teenager_sentenced_in_c.html

A-HA!!! I just found out the specifics of the texas sentencing... I no longer believe that the sentence is to harsh... all those life sentences are running concurrently (at the same time)

So at the end of all this arguing over the severity of life in prison... it was all for nothing. As I said earlier... life sentences in texas are 30 years. These guy's will be out in 15-25 depending on behavior.


I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS... BUT I FEEL A LITTLE SILLY RIGHT NOW!!! PRETTY MUCH ALL OF OUR ARGUMENTS WERE IRRELEVANT!!! IN THE END 5 LIFE SENTENCES CONCURRENTLY IN TEXAS EQUALS 15-20 BEFORE ELIGIBILITY OF PAROLE.


AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT I WITHDRAW MY ARGUMENTS THAT THIS IS EXCESSIVE. (THERE IS A DISCREPANCY AMONG STATES SENTENCING... BUT NOT AS LARGE AS IT ORIGINALLY LOOKED TO BE.)

Those examples were not about the sentencing, rather the point brought up next (and immediately before the quotes,) regarding the legal distinction between people actually being in the building or not, and its relevance to the class of arson.

And yes, "not more than 20 years" in the statute can easily equal 20+ when stacked with other charges.

But since you disagree with my opinion regarding the sentencing in other states, I have to say - none of your examples compare to this case at all because they didn't burn anywhere close to 10 churches.

Citing some teenager who burned one church? Come on man - you gotta know that is useless for comparison to some adults who burned 10.

You've even found a guy getting 40 years for burning just 1.

I stand by my opinion that they would have been dealt with similarly in other states.

Sounds like you've reached the same conclusion now that you figured out what a life-sentence is, but I'll be here if you'd like to take another stab

 

[Weird]

There you go again, Nancy. You too have made comments synonymous with ignorance (because of disagreement with your opinion.)

no you rolled out derlic, it was relative to his comment. His judgement against people who he percives to have an inadequate intellectual capacity so they dont deserve the same consideration

equality means everyone not eveyrone you like

Check the dictionary for opinion versus bias. You're applying a term that your opinion appears to reflect.

Let me remind you.... "so your bias is predicated on intellectual capacity ?" Lets leave those types of comments and Santa Claus out because it's human nature to sling mud. Lets all admit we have the propensity to get personal and leave it at the door.

once again you missed the mark. if you comprehended my comment it is in regard to his rant about the negative influence of churches and the subseqent labeling of believers as intelletually inferior by proxy of his statement a mere proof of prejudice
plain and mother fucking simply

maybe you shouldn't try to tick up for others when you dont fucking undetrstand the context of the conversation

I've "studied" enough to know that religious people disagree with each other enough that non-religiosos can avoid the mud (if they choose.)

well i dont paradigm a whole segment of society based on a sterotype

I dont judge a persons value on what they take in but rather what type of person it makes them become

ive seen everything from drugs to religin both save an ruin people and im not so shallow and afraid of the world and the people in it that "any" sterotype makes me hate

justify that one all you want. your frustrated at your interpitation of the religious and the bearing its had on your life so you marginilize them

thats like going through the "ethnic" part of town, getting harrassed and then painting the whole otthet ethnic as unworthy

this is how the genocide of the jews started

rationalizing the marginalization of any people based on any cirteria other than their own personal actions is belligernet

Sure there's two choices - to break or not break the law. Unlike devolution, evolution denotes progress. IMO, it ain't progressive to devolve into sentencing of violence when no violence occurs.

Why do you think we have degrees of crime and the arguably appropriate punishments rendered? Because crime (like MANY aspects of life) isn't black and white.

Embrace what you wish, I address what appears to be disparity in criminal sentencing. Disparity that on the surface appears devolutionary. After the facts start to surface, not so much.

You refuse to address the op's point and instead substitute your own. The subject is crime, serial arson to be specific. The nature of the crime (according to Texas statute) doesn't have to qualify as violent (to persons) in order to render life sentencing.

It's not the nature of the target that determines sentencing unless hate laws dictate otherwise. (Excepting churches in Texas.) Are there currently any hate crimes associated with church arson? Many peeps aren't fans of the "hate crime" laws simply because they want to hate. Then they want to disassociate themselves from crimes that appear to be influenced by hate rhetoric.

What are the most-likely "church" burnings to receive hate-crime status in the future? LGBT churches, minority churches and segments of the population that already have hate crimes established.

i never even onsidered this as a hate crimem

case in point people could have died and they maliciosuly destroyed other peoples property serially

dd to that they are serial arsonists which have a much harder rate of rehabilittion

fuck who cares its a punk ass fucking mover robbing peoples shit and burning it down let alone a place of publc assembly

if IT IS A HATE CRIME ?!?!?! I NEVER CONSIDERED IT

well then they are the same as terrorists and to be honest then

fuck em there is no need for terrorist hate in this country and if your down wiht that EN FUCKING JOY your self

bottom line for every one of them there are 100 dudes in prison doing life for far worse from non violent offenders to desperate epople wh fucked up once let alone habitually

Fortunately for you, rich, white peeps and white in general ain't minority status. Haven't you ever heard of the "Moral Majority"? I know it's a myth but so is the so-called minority of religious peoples. Surveys poll religious versus non-religious sympathies with the citizenry. While a majority doesn't necessarily advocate organized religion, as many as 87% of our country has polled as religious in their own right.

only if you have difficulty separating church and state.

If you advocate violent sentencing where no violence occurs, you might be excluded from most people.

I love it when peeps bring up "most people" as if they assume they're in a majority. Last time I checked, the thread poll is 50/50. While not scientific, it's a reflection of the community that chose to respond.

Congrats weird, you're basically saying you're a minority while suggesting the majority feels the same as you. And all within three paragraphs of each other.

Then try addressing pertinent posts. It's a lot harder than addressing haters. Haven't you seen the recent rhetoric bouncing between political parties? Some of it is disposed of as more hate. But the ramifications are real and the problem has to be addressed.

The solution? Direct comments and or rebuttal toward non-haters.

Another wonderful assumption exposed in this thread. You're not a hater, weird.

Agreed. But your context is short. Our country was founded (in part) so people could worship their own religion, not an imposed, state religion.

There's no Constitutional protections that declare victimless church burnings are to be treated as potential or future murderous scenarios. But the serial nature of arson alone can beget life in prison.

Well, don't take this personal. Organized religion OFTEN judges others as unfit for society because all us heathens are going to HELL. I don't need religion to subscribe to The Golden Rule.

I don't have to subscribe to a story to know how to treat others.

One particular religion, one that happens to be a minority in the face of Islam, Hindu and Buddist says they'll all go to HELL if they don't accept this minority religion. Sorry, that's a crock of crap.

If I want to belong, I have to repent publicly in church. If that's not bad enough, church bean counters will accept or deny my membership based on income and potential (sometimes required) offerings. Nothing to do with repentance.

That comment is made up. All three points so deftly imagined and posted as relevant.

What does the term persecution invoke? Persecution by the church.

Live and let live, a message the church can't ascribe to and still survive. The church will always have demons, the very people who reject organized religion and those who choose other, organized forms.

If you want to stop persecution, start in the church where it's most evident. Maybe non-religious people will treat you and yours like the clubs or associations that don't divide depending on personal belief.

Faith can't conclude others are deluded. That's your religious paradox. You can't seek proof because that in itself challenges your faith. You're dependent on belief, not fact.

So your comment of delusion could be relegated to yourself.

How about the crimes we don't justify by ignoring law and risking incarceration? Sorry, pot has nothing to do with violence or non-violence in church burnings.

Then give logic a try, yourself.

Debating disparity in sentencing laws has nothing to do with hate. Specifically, we're discussing a particular case and the merits of the sentencing rendered. You just pick the stuff that's easy to black n white your issue of choice, not the parameters of the original post.

I invite you to post your own philosophy, in your own philosophical thread. Otherwise, try to maintain the topic.


If you insist on the wide-angle philosophy, try this one on.

How do regard abortion clinic destruction in regard to victimless vs victimized crime? Your opinion may be why you've possibly avoided the comparison.

i will not in any way justify the marginilization of any set of non violent peoples in america

you can and try to justify it because you feel all people of a certain beleif are homogenous and carry a cosmic debt because of those who came before them but thats a crock of shit

black religious gay ukranian it doenst matter

once again take this statement and ponder it

rationalizing the marginalization of any people based on any cirteria other than their own personal actions is belligernet

robbng pepople and burning their houses down makes you a depraved

doing it 10 times is unsufferable

if these were grow houses youd this would be a different thread

 

[Greensub]

Those examples were not about the sentencing, rather the point brought up next (and immediately before the quotes,) regarding the legal distinction between people actually being in the building or not, and its relevance to the class of arson.

And yes, "not more than 20 years" in the statute can easily equal 20+ when stacked with other charges.

But since you disagree with my opinion regarding the sentencing in other states, I have to say - none of your examples compare to this case at all because they didn't burn anywhere close to 10 churches.

Citing some teenager who burned one church? Come on man - you gotta know that is useless for comparison to some adults who burned 10.

You've even found a guy getting 40 years for burning just 1.

I stand by my opinion that they would have been dealt with similarly in other states.

Sounds like you've reached the same conclusion now that you figured out what a life-sentence is, but I'll be here if you'd like to take another stab

Actually, I reached that conclusion after I found out that the sentences are concurrent... I almost went back and edited the earlier quotes and responses in my post, as they were no longer relevant, but I got lazy. I would still argue if the sentences were consecutive instead of concurrent (125yrs Vs 25 years).

Everyone (or at least me) has been arguing from the point of view that this was "Life" sentence... not 15-25yrs. As that quote and link was the first time I'd finally come across the specifics of the sentencing I had to change my opinion as new evidence was introduced.

I guess the poll should have been is 20 yrs (with good behavior ) to harsh a sentence for serial arson?

That's not what we've all been arguing about. Now that it is... I guess I have to switch sides to agreeing that 15-25yrs is a fair sentence for serial arson. That guy who only got 6 in an earlier post became a repeat offender.

 

[supermanlives]

they should fry their ass. maybe an outdoor barbecue. you know texans like that outdoor cooking

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You're slicing and dicing and picking apart wierd's post here as if it was personally addressed to you and it wasn't.

Speculation. I happen to disagree with weird, Hemp. A public forum doesn't necessarily have to address an individual to receive difference of opinion. I quote weird for reference, nothing more.

But I'll split this hair so you don't have to....

You're welcome to address any comments I make. Whether I address you formerly or not. It's not an invitation to personally insult, which neither weird nor I have done.

You may disagree with my opinion but I'm referencing the original post with weird, not getting in the middle of the religious (or personal) argument he and another member engaged.

It's not as easy to make sense of a rebuttal that doesn't reference another point of view. Sorry if you think orderly address has anything to do with an opinion I wish to make.

Yet amazingly you seem to completely overlook the comments and poster wierd was replying to.

Ya thinks? I don't take issue with their personal squabble. If you wish to reference what I do engage with weird, it's your privilege.

In context of what he was replying to wierd was spot on.

You're welcome to your impression Hemp, so am I

It was the other poster that suggested anyone believing in religion was ignorant, it wasn't that wierd had decided the other person's comments were ignorant.

Speaking of ignorance, I chided weird for taking on comments that appear hateful. It's similar to the negative political rhetoric that goes on since the Tucson tragedy. IMO, doesn't serve any purpose other than lending the appearance of hate.

I invited weird to debate:

Church arson with no injury or death doesn't constitute violent crime.

I could be wrong but given the amount of time and energy you're focusing on wierd it seems like there is some deeper issue between the two of you.

Your welcome to think as you wish, Hemp. For the record, I happen to disagree and I expressed. Not much different than you're doing here, choosing an opposing view and expressing your opinion.

If I keep making (what you consider) knucklehead comments, how you respond may be a good thing. It not so much about me vs weird or yourself. I happen to accept difference of opinion and simply want to know how it's formed. And weird doesn't have to respond if he doesn't want.

If it makes you feel any better, I take no issue with weird other than what I consider his gut reaction to sentencing. He's religious and I'm not so I don't argue religion with weird. No harm no foul.

 

[Greensub]

Everyone (or at least me) has been arguing from the point of view that this was "Life" sentence... not 15-25yrs. As that quote and link was the first time I'd finally come across the specifics of the sentencing I had to change my opinion as new evidence was introduced.

I was aware that life in texas is 30 yrs... as I'd brought up a couple pages ago. Nobody knew how they were served, it was assumed for arguments sake that they were consecutive terms. Basically while I was in the middle of writing that post when I finally found that article I posted stating that they were concurrent. I wasn't under the impression that you were arguing that 25 yrs was a fair sentence, so I'm not sure what you mean by this...

but I'll be here if you'd like to take another stab

But I appreciate the smiley face. If you'd like to argue that life in prison with no parole... or 5 consecutive 30 year sentences (150 yrs) is appropriate or similar to other states... I'll be here if you'd like to take another stab.

But I say that in friendship... I enjoy a good debate

But really... I kind of feel that with this new revelation I don't feel like I have much to contribute to this thread at this point.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

In Texas they do...according to the law.



http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/28.02.00.html

FOR THE RECORD - Sorry to cap, you'd have to read more than a few of my posts to get this...(I'll borrow your phrase)

In Texas they do according to law.

If it's according to law, doesn't matter what state. I don't take issue with jurisdictional statute. According to the info that Greensub posted, the serial nature of the church burnings influenced the sentence.

Hemp, I think you entered this horse race on the final stretch. I'm attempting to assume you're not taking things out of context, not making word battles or not splitting hairs. But I don't think you borrow my gist as much as suggest I'm saying something different.

I don't really mind repeating but can't help it's a little boring.

 

[Marshall]

way too harsh

 

[Nor'Easter]

the question is, is life too much for this crime, not what you think of arsonists as people. The answer is, of course it is! Life and Death sentences were meant for aggravated murder only, and that's the way it should stay. I think the sentences on most crimes are overblown, especially victimless crimes like possession. If you support them, you support the for-profit slavery that are prisons today, of course they want to keep people there as long as possible to make as much profit as possible. So I wholeheartedly disagree with the guy called Weird.

I don't agree with the parallels you draw either with what the anti-pot people say. It is very similar to what they say, that pot makes you a crazy person capable of anything. That is pure rubbish, and so is you saying that pro-pot people are "Pro-rape and pillaging". I am pro common sense, I don't think there should be ever be absolutes, that the circumstances should play a role. I think the goal should be rehabilitating people to be functioning, contributing members of society again whenever possible, not writing people off and placing the emphasis on vengeful punishments. Only the very worst of the worst have to be isolated permanently from others, I'd guess that at least 90% could be fixed. Look at the examples of those who have murdered and fled and led model lives and not hurt a fly until they are found like 20 years later. I think it is a crime to put these people back in jail and serves no useful purpose. And what about those who have spent like 20+ years in jail and found to be totally innocent? Those people should be awarded millions, those that put them in jail from the prosecuters (who are often persecuters) to cops to judges and jury should lose everything they own to pay for it, and they should be put in jail for the same amount of time. That would teach people to not rush to judgement in the absence of hard evidence.

 

[Greensub]

Disco, hemp, weird, catcher...Did you guys notice what I posted I few back?

Turns out it's only gonna be 15-25 yrs total for these guys. Not actually life, or 5 30 yr sentences...

It's still high when compared to that one guy with 89 fires under his belt...

89 structure fires in 3 states get 11 years

or go to texas and get

25 yrs for 10 structure fires (actually it was less than ten that they were convicted for)

It was 10 counts between them that they were convicted on... one guy had 5 felony arson charges & 3 attemted arson charges...
the other had 3 and 2 respectively I believe.

So worse than most states... except for Minnesota they're a bit harsher there.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I don't care if it is a church, a liquor store, or a house....I don't even care if they get a life sentence, or 5 years!!
My point is, that when you start a fire, you have no way to control what happens after that moment....embers can easily start a house on fire...a mile away!! Or firefighters may get hurt or killed...or maybe while they are fighting this fire, another one starts that they cannot get to in time to save occupants--
I'm really not saying I think they deserve life in prison....I am saying I honestly don't give a fuck what happens to their cowardly asses!!

And I'm not saying you have no right to your opinion. After reading Greensub's post including reference to Texas law, I take no opposing issue with the life sentences rendered. The part I disagree with (no ruckus, just disagree) is the "may" aspect or hypothetical situation.

I'm not suggesting church arson should be a misdemeanor. I'm suggesting the injury and death from church arson should render stiffer sentencing than victimless church arson. Just like other crime examples:

burglary vs robbery - the law doesn't say..."You're convicted of robbery because your burglary "might" have endangered others.

manslaughter vs murder - the law doesn't say... "You're convicted of murder because you may have intended your manslaughter.

arson vs personal injury or murder - the law doesn't say... "Your convicted of injury to others and or murder because your intent "may" apply.

I made the connection with child molesters, only because that is how they are dealt with in prison....they are cowards, plain and simple--

Depends on the circumstances.

Arsonists are only not murderers because of luck--

Some arsonists never injure or kill. With some, at least with our two Texas arsonists, it's a matter of unusually stiff laws or the serial aspect. No victims.

Imagine suggesting that because you grow and smoke weed that you're a meth dealer or you could possibly regress to robbery, murder, etc.

If that's a gut reaction, we're fucked. If it's the statute, it's arcane. But it's not, I just made a silly comparison.

Once again...I am not advocating mandatory minimum sentencing, nor life sentencing....but when these weak ass psycho's go around lighting that many major fires...you cannot convince me that they were not aware of the danger of it causing another fire, or killing somebody through mishap--

In all fairness, I'm attempting to be a little more comprehensive...

I advocate the respective, jurisdictional statute. I'm not attempting to convince anybody of anything they reject. IMO, the sentence should reflect the crime, not crime potential. If you want to sentence potential, I say put it in the statute so we have less disparity in sentencing.

I think pot prohibition is arcane and rife with disparity in sentencing. People get prison or probation depending on who they are, how much money they have and who prosecutes. Sentencing according to what the perp could do versus what they actually did to break the law is two different things and should have degrees of infraction.

As much as I hate to admit, some folks think that pot smoking, growing and especially dealing is a major crime. IMO, it's not a stretch to suggest some of them would lock us up and forget release.

All I say is put that crap on the statute so we as potential criminals don't have to deal with the judge on Tuesday as compared to any other day. We know what we're dealing with according to statute.

Do I compare arson to pot sales? Hell no but I don't want others that draw no distinction to have anything to do with sentencing. If statute drew no distinction, I'd probably contribute money or time to advocacy and definitely exercise my vote.

Saying, "Nobody got hurt, it should be ok.", is, IMO...like robbing a bank, and just because you get caught before you get the $$....saying, "I didn't get no money, so it isn't a robbery!!"--
Anyway....not trying to start shit, or create animosity....just clarifying my position--

You're making the same point that Hemp did and I never suggested such. You guys are taking me black and white and I'm suggesting there are shades of gray.

If injury or death due to arson occurs, you've got a point I don't take issue. But the word arson doesn't define injury or death. It may be a catalyst and "may" is the key word.

**EDIT**
For the record...I think Religion is the single most Evil thing to ever hit Man Kind!! So this has nothing to do with what they torched--

I accept the fact you make no difference between victim vs victimless crime. I'm agnostic and don't hate what religion is. I often dislike what some religious peeps think but I don't hate em. And for the record I draw distinction is what happens, not hyperbole.

 

[kmk420kali]

If injury or death due to arson occurs, you've got a point I don't take issue. But the word arson doesn't define injury or death. It may be a catalyst and "may" is the key word.

If some guy watches little girls through the window...he is harmless...right?? Because he didn't "Touch" them??
Where do we draw the distinction?? When they "Touch" them...or when actual penetration takes place??
I know this is a fucked up scenario...and I hope it doesn't get deleted--
But it is pertinent to what I am saying--
They are fucking SERIAL ARSONIST'S... they will do it again, and it is not worth our while to hope they won't elevate it to Murder next time??
I love to grow pot...but I can still see the Darker Side of Man--

I accept the fact you make no difference between victim vs victimless crime. I'm agnostic and don't hate what religion is. I often dislike what some religious peeps think but I don't hate em. And for the record I draw distinction is what happens, not hyperbole.

What Hyperbole??

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

no you rolled out derlic, it was relative to his comment. His judgement against people who he percives to have an inadequate intellectual capacity so they dont deserve the same consideration

equality means everyone not eveyrone you like

You want to check post #10 (and more). It's no big deal, wierd but you reference ignorance over difference of opinion. You're referenced as ignorant by others for being religious. Do we really need either instance?

I'm not picking, you're obviously intelligent. I don't address the drive bys in this thread because they're not interesting. I'm just curious why a guy of your smarts doesn't recognize a slippery slope toward more disparity in sentencing. It's not black and white, there are degrees of crime. All I care is the respective statutes are followed to achieve less disparity.

Speaking of, it doesn't sound like you consider equality when it comes to arsonists that don't injure or kill, compared to the ones who do.

once again you missed the mark. if you comprehended my comment it is in regard to his rant about the negative influence of churches and the subseqent labeling of believers as intelletually inferior by proxy of his statement a mere proof of prejudice
plain and mother fucking simply

The mark I made a direct hit on was arguing religious vs non religious differences. It's the kind of subject I invited you to ignore (if you may) and offer why you're convinced an item burning is considered violent. What distinction do you make between the item burning and same with added injury or death? Apparently, none.

maybe you shouldn't try to tick up for others when you dont fucking undetrstand the context of the conversation

Sorry, weird. I didn't take up for anybody. I'll ignore that squabble and hope you take a break long enough to offer your insight to the aspects of the original post. But like I've already stated, you don't have to answer if you don't want to.

well i dont paradigm a whole segment of society based on a sterotype

I dont judge a persons value on what they take in but rather what type of person it makes them become

ive seen everything from drugs to religin both save an ruin people and im not so shallow and afraid of the world and the people in it that "any" sterotype makes me hate

justify that one all you want. your frustrated at your interpitation of the religious and the bearing its had on your life so you marginilize them

But not you, weird. My decision to be agnostic starts and ends with me. I don't play the religion is whacked game but that card was dealt. I tried to get you off the idea and suggested you know why some aren't religious. But I have no bone in me to put others down for their beliefs. You are not marginalized, you're just being asked a question.

Sorry for editing but I think you got off on a tangent and I don't want my post to be 11 pages long. So I'll give you a break.

robbng pepople and burning their houses down makes you a depraved

doing it 10 times is unsufferable

Sure is. Is it violent when there are no victims? Even the Texas statue doesn't equate arson with violence, unless it applies.

if these were grow houses youd this would be a different thread

Yep, but you said you treat everybody the same. I like to think I do but how do you sentence fairly when a and b get the same punishment?

BTW, you mentioned bullshit to one of my comments but you had to take me out of context to make your point. Suggesting that anybody in this thread is sympathetic to the op arsonists is speculation. You've got some thin skin to go with your gut reaction and I'm curious where you draw a line. Instead you pretend I'd let the criminals go. I hope you'll excuse me for considering that lame.

 

[HempKat]

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/the_other_shoe_child_molesting_by_non-catholic_cle.php

I made a generalization based on what I believe is the type of person who aspires to become a priest, chaplain, reverend, what have you. Am I wrong?

Yeah you are because each of these cases is not a reflection of the Church or it's doctrine but rather a reflection of sick twisted individual's that should be taken out back and have a bullet put in their skull. It's also wrong to say that because there are these exceptions that anyone wanting to be a priest, reverend, chaplain, etc. is the type of person to also be a child molester.

Generalizations are usually best avoided because they usually paint too broad a stroke. I mean you can make the generalization that all these priests and what not molesting children are men and therefore all men are child molesters and be no more accurate or inaccurate then your generalizations about Religions.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

29/24