Should somebody get the death penalty for starting forest fires?

Specifically, this guy:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/18/california.fire.death.penalty/index.html

(CNN) -- A California jury Wednesday recommended the death penalty after convicting a man on murder and arson charges in the deaths of five U.S. Forest Service firefighters who died in a 2006 blaze outside Los Angeles.

Raymond Lee Oyler of Beaumont, California, was convicted on five counts of first-degree murder, including two special circumstances -- that the murders were committed during an arson and that multiple murders were committed -- making him eligible for the death penalty.

Oyler was also convicted of 11 counts of arson and 10 counts of use of an incendiary device in those arsons.

Sentencing is set for June 5.

more@link

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, but if you're going to have it, let the punishment fit the crime.

east where two people entered a family home at one or two in the morning, raped all the women, killed the father and set fire to the home. The two daughters died of smoke asphyxiation.

Arson is also used to "cover up" homicides as a staging method.

ON EDIT:

But I voted "No." I have to be consistent about the DP. I'm against it.

often people who cause forest fires are simply negligent or have a screw loose.

He deliberately set the fire knowing full well what the results could be.

It's analogous to firing a gun in a random direction. If your bullet kills someone, you can be charged with murder.

Was there a specific plan or scheme to kill? That seems more like the plot from Backdraft than something that happens in California every single year.

What was this guy's motive and why did he have faith in fire over a more reliable form of murder?

Death resulting from the perpetration of arson or even attempted arson is murder in the first degree.

189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.
As used in this section, "destructive device" means any
destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and "explosive" means
any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety
Code.
As used in this section, "weapon of mass destruction" means any
item defined in Section 11417.
To prove the killing was "deliberate and premeditated," it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.

Being put to death isn't punishment. It's revenge. I don't understand how that is such a difficult concept to grasp.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Revenge is an ego-based reaction. In this case, revenge would be taken by the State. The State wasn't wronged by the original crime, so it's revenge by proxy. Proper "revenge" would be allowing the loved ones of the deceased to beat the crim to death. At which point, we stop being a civilized society and we can toss the rules into the trash.

The idea of the penal system is to PUNISH for crimes, not to outsource revenge.

My motivation for opposing the death penalty is based on concern for the progress of society more than anything else. You did a nice job of making that point.

:thumbsup:

State sanctioned revenge, is that what you want?

Sanity in your reply!

How refreshing.

I don't approve of the DP because people aren't smart enough to be 100% sure they aren't executing an innocent person. However, the laws of the state of California are clear.

All DP cases here get automatically reviewed by the California Supreme Court.

I'm being slightly facetious, but the motive is sexual.

See "Crime Classification Manual (either first or second ed.): A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crimes" by Douglas, Burgess and Ressler, Jossey Bass publishers, 2006.

somewhere near the fire scene

Life in prison at hard labor without parole seems more fitting.

I think motive is important

Would a charge of murder be appropriate?

i dunno so i'm asking, you'd think 19 years of watching law and order i'd know that already.

You'd think it would be manslaughter or 2nd or 3rd dgree max. I think they are trying to dissuade arsonists.

it's a volunteer firefighter who wants to be a hero so he starts the fire, calls it in and is the first on the scene.

Anyhow i really doubt the dp in this case is going to stop a firebug, sure as hell hasn't stopped murders.

Things are dry a lot of the time here, and water supplies aren't always reliable. Arson is one of the most heinous crimes in this state.

If I understand the law, an "accidental" death caused in the act of a felony (arson, robbing a bank, etc.) becomes murder.

It is not necessary to have intent to kill someone. If you intentionally start a fire and someone dies, it's first degree murder here.

but that does not stop prosecutors from trying to apply it to people who are not capable of criminality due to mental defect.

and I'm guessing that's how this guy got it. Gross indifference to human life, aka "depraved heart". Basically, if you act so recklessly as to exhibit a gross indifference to human life, then you can catch a murder conviction without exhibiting the traditional intent to kill. For example, say that I want to shoot someone in a crowded bar and I start firing wildly. I hit my target, but also hit and kill four bystanders. I didn't intend to kill them, but under the circumstances I was acting with a gross indifference to human life and so instead of four manslaughter convictions, they become murder convictions.

families that will be hurting for the rest of their lives because of one man's selfish/stupid act.

How do you know this?

wildfire when our winds were probably at their worst. He had to know ahead of time that this was a possibility.

Should any state/government be allowed to engage in murder.

IMO, the answer should always be no.

As someone who had a friend raped, tortured and murdered, I used to be for the death penalty. Believe me.

It was a very long process of listening to others, thinking about the purpose of government, and listening to others to get me to change my mind. Even now I struggle with it, although I've made my choice against it.

So sorry for your loss.

The focus should be - as you pointed out - on what the purpose of government should be and whom it serves.

:hug:

I had a friend disappear almost 20 years ago, 3 different and unrelated people confessed to killing/raping and murdering her but they never found any direct evidence or her body, it's still an open case.

If it is done by the state in accordance with the law, it is not murder.

when it comes to playing fast and loose with precisely defined terms.
"No...no...it means what I want it to mean!"

You are correct that it is now legal in most states.

At one time women weren't allowed to vote. That was the law. It was bad law.

The death penalty is also bad law. In any case where a miscarriage of justice has occured and an innocent man was put to death - you can be assured the state committed murder. No state or government should be allowed to murder it's citizens. Plain & simple... the state must not be allowed that kind of power over those it serves.

There are other ways of containing criminals and sociopaths effectively.

Or holding people against their will?

Regarding holding people against their will... do you mean a convicted and incarcerated criminal?

Because I don't have a problem with imprisonment after trial and sentencing.

If so, then I can see the DP might be applied.

PC 189.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

Arson itself is one of the most serious crimes in California, for obvious reasons.

people died, then yes. I remember hearing, when some of those fires started accidentally through combustion of severe dryness & high winds, there were some arsonists who apparently thought it was cool to start some of their own to just make it all bigger.

There's a big difference between a dumbass who THOUGHT he had his campfire out, left the park, and the fire restarted , and someone who intentionally sets fires!

with a slingshot. He meant to start the fires, then manipulated his private parts with glee while watching his handiwork.

Not only that, but he was arrested days before for the same thing.

He should be placed in the cab of an old, unused fire truck, then roasted like his victims.

We lived in fear of that one burning us out.

The Old Fire was a wildfire that started on October 25, 2003 in the San Bernardino Mountains of the U.S. state of California. It was one of at least a dozen wildfires burning around Southern California at this time (which included the Cedar Fire, the largest fire in California history). Fanned by the Santa Ana winds, the fire burned 91,281 acres (369.4 km²), destroyed 993 homes and caused 6 deaths. The final cost of the fire was $42 million.

"Bear Valley" which comprises Big Bear Lake, Big Bear City, and other small communities such as Fawnskin and Sugarloaf has a population of about 16,000. There are only three roads down the mountain, all two-lane, and two of them were closed. I didn't live here at the time, but all you have to do is mention "The Old Fire" in a large group and the horror stories will last for hours. Here is a really cool link that shows the progression of evacuations:

http://www.geog.utah.edu/~cova/evac64.swf

I moved up the mountain shortly before the "Butler Peak" fire in 2007 and it's cousin the "Butler II" fire which was a reflash that happened two weeks after the first fire was put out. We saw flames from our kitchen window. I was never really afraid of wildfires before, but now every whiff of burning wood has me frantically searching the skyline for smoke. Here is a youtube link to footage of the beginning of the "Butler Peak Fire":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlpC3qoIb3Q

I hate arsonists. For me they rank immediately below murderers and rapists and one rung above thieves on the cherokeeprogressive Scumbag Scale.

The person referred to in the OP, definitely.

but I am against killing people. If somone killed someone I care about, I would kill them, but I would be sorry.

That doesn't mean it isn't a heinous crime, or that they shouldn't be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
My opposition the death penalty is that it almost always amounts to a kind of revenge or vengeance. However "natural" the desire for vengeance might be, it's a base instinct in humans. I look upon humans as constantly trying to become better humans--what Yiddish Jews call a "mensch," and there is no way I can see that state sanctioned killing helps advance that goal.

The unliberal media always leaves out that important detail. How many trees were murdered by this action?

It's a fireman's JOB to be "brave" and a "hero". Being brave and a hero is someone who does things out of the blue, like Joe Blow walking down the sidewalk who see's a house on fire and runs in to save the baby. Cops and fireman are really neither, because they are PAID to do THEIR JOB. I knew a cop once who was written up in the Los Angeles Times for saving a man from a house on fire and he just shrugged it off and said it was "all in a day's work and don't buy me any more drinks." Sadly, said cop, has teriminal cancer now.

At any rate, no death penalty. Think of all the preverts who kill kids and don't get the death penalty, but get out of jail after 5 years.

but if I was for it I'd say yes.

If the guy just thought it would be funny to burn a tree down then it should be 5 counts of manslaughter as well as arson charges. If the intent was to kill five people or it to burn the forest in as an act of terrorism, then it's first degree murder.

But I'm against the death penalty either way.

See PC 189 at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

You continually respond to posts as if the question of the OP is whether the law of California provides a way to prosecute a case for first degree murder under the facts given. That is not the issue.

The issue is WHETHER the death penalty should apply. The answer is "No, it shouldn't."

In my view, the death penalty is an ugly mark on the face of American justice. It's appalling that we still execute people. Even if we are certain that they did it, certain that it was reprehensible, and certain the perp is a very bad person, we shouldn't execute. It's a silly ritual based upon revenge by proxy, and it has no other purpose.

I already stated my personal opposition to the death penalty in my first and only reply to the OP. I did answer "Yes" in the poll because of what the law says. Any arson-caused death in California is automatically a first degree murder case. Any first degree murder in which a police officer or firefighter dies while on duty is automatically a capital murder case. That's a slam-dunk regardless of how you or I feel about the death penalty.

I am picking out responses in which people say that a charge of first degree murder is inappropriate for deaths that result from an arson fire. That interpretation is clearly not correct.

executed as expeditiously as possible.

Three guys go into a bank and rob it, one of them kills someone - execute them all.

Execute the guy outside who was driving the getaway car.

Execute the driver's sister, who loaned him the car for the day.

Execute the driver's sister's husband who gave her a ride to work so she could lend her brother the car.

KILL EM ALL!!! KILL EM ALL!!! KILL EM ALL!!!

This guy lit the fires with incendiary devices - EXECUTE HIM.

Execute the guy who sold him the chemicals to make the devices.

Execute the teacher who rapped his knuckles as a student, making him mad at the world.

KILL EM ALL!!! KILL EM ALL!!! KILL EM ALL!!!

Sheesh, talk about your strawmen...

Ever.

Can't be weak kneed in the face of evil.

murder. This is probably involuntary manslaughter.

I used to hunt when I was in high school but I quit because I didn't like the killing. I wonder what is in some people that killing is no big deal. I saw a story about some kids that killed one of an elderly couple and then ran around with the other in the trunk of a car. I believe that person was also killed or died from the ordeal. They looked and talked like ordinary kids. What puts a group like this together? What are the chances that a group of four get together capable of heinous crimes?

I can't believe 22% of DUers think the death penalty is OK, period.

That's so 19th century.

:argh:

The death penalty exists not because of heinous crimes, but because of the sense of undeserved devout rightness which exists in the countries where it is used.

We are supposed to be a civilized nation, but we remain one of a handful of nations in the world that maintain a death penalty.

No. Death. Penalty. Ever.

You dont trust the state to tax properly or run a business, but we can trust them to kill people?

nt

And he shouldn't be convicted of anything more than involuntary manslaughter.

Section 189.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

If somebody set a building on fire and some person was trapped in side, I could see second degree murder.

If somebody set an empty building in side, and a bunch of people ran into the burning building knowing full well they were putting their lives at risk? Manslaughter.

I'm talking about justice, not the letter of the law.

Other than my opposition to the death penalty, I'm perfectly OK with an arson-caused death being defined as first degree murder.

Otherwise, it doesn't really make much sense.

Would you feel differently about that than about someone who starts an arson fire and someone dies?

I see those two situations as analogous.

Some guy out shooting tin cans off of a fence, kills somebody in the woods behind them. Manslaughter. Even if somebody purposefully runs into his field of fire knowing that he's shooting, and they're putting their own lives in jeopardy.

I mean someone who closes his eyes, spins around until he's dizzy, then fires a gun in some random, completely unknown but generally horizontal direction; and hits and kills someone.

Is that heinous enough for first degree murder for you? (It is in California PC 189.)

I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases. And in this case too, whatever the law says.

:hi:

I thought if you killed someone in the commission of a felony you could be charged with felony murder. I may be remembering it wrong though.

Welcome to DU, btw.

Fire personnel, including overtime. Police and EMTs, including overtime. Medical bills. Property damage (private and public). Funeral bills. Lost wages, including potential wages to the estates of the deceased. And anything else I haven't thought of.

Every. Single. Fucking. Penny.

I believe the man who started the Cedar Fire in 2003 got fined $250,000 plus a felony conviction. He was lost and disoriented, panicked, and lit a signal fire that got out of control.

descrbied in the OP. He was getting high on power and terror, and knew exactly what he was doing.

The other guy just fucked up. Very seriously, but he still fucked up.

You can't give the death penalty to one person, no matter how heinous the crime without opening it up to everyone else.

The death penalty should be abolished because it will only lead to innocent people being executed and de facto there is no equal protection under the law for the process.

so I picked "No".

I might vote for the death penalty in that case if there was a reasonable expectation that people would have died as a result (not merely could but would)...

Doug D.

I don't believe in the death penalty even for murder, but for arson no way. Now, if it was to cover up a murder, or set knowing it would kill, then it would be murder that he's being sentenced for. If it is just arson, serious as it can be, it really can't be a death penalty crime.

all of those were caused by intentional actions.

and I'm honestly not sure about that one way or the other, then arson that kills firefighters is certainly an eligible defense.

and if he cannot stand them 2...he can kill himself with a pill...

I can understand people's anger and desire for revenge, but no, people should not be put to death as a response to causing the death of others.

death penalty under any circumstances.

It's wrong.

I'd reserve death penalty for direct murders.

Days before being charged in Esperanza Fire, Oyler had been arrested and charged with two counts of arson in a June 2006 fire in the Banning Pass area.

I'd say life, but you've got to make sure he stays.

Period.

But nobody should get the death penalty

That's a little extreme.

If you mean to kill people with them, on the other hand, that's another story.

Have no idea why, but most arsonists do their thing for fun, so this guy killed 6 firefighters, destroyed 40 some homes and tens of thousands of acres just for the hell of it.
He is not facing death for artson but for 6 murders.
Put the death penalty on the table, and let this asshole take his chances like the firefighters did.

Fuck him.

mark

...if he enjoys fires so much.