Death penalty recommended for Calif. arsonist

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Show me that his goal was to kill people, or that there was a reasonable expectation that someone might die via the fire THEN I might agree with you. But so far all I see is a guy who started a fire that killed some one.

All of this was proven to a jury, that is why he was convicted.

Don't you just love how poeple want to arm chair judge and don't know the factuals of the case and law pertaining to it.
Intent under California law does not have to be expressly implied. It can be reasonably implied, Setting fire to a structure or an area with people in it can be reasonably implied that the fire will cause death or serious bodily harm.

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.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
It's felony murder, which is a nice little clause that helps white people execute black people

Nice except there are more white people on death row in California than there are blacks.

 

[spittledip]

Death penalty seems to harsh to me. Then again I don't know enough to make that decision. I would have had to sit in on the trial to get all the info I need to make the decision. He might be a sociopath freak who wanted to kill people in the fire, who knows?

 

[BoberFett]

Bunch of savages out there in California. Figures that a bunch of Democrats want to kill the guy.

 

[Ns1]

I see no reason not to kill him

 

[theeedude]

Play with fire, get burned.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: SunSamurai
What the hell is with the people citing the juries decision for their own decision? Form your own opinion based on your believes, not on following a jury like some stupid-ass sheep. The jury is made people like you and me!

We forum-dwellers only get news articles, which are often biased or just plain lacking in facts. Juries usually get more of the facts of the case, and live witness testimony which (hopefully) aids in establishing credibility or lack thereof.

I think the OJ Simpson case was a prime example. Many people vilified the jury for their decision, yet they weren't the ones who sat through hundreds of hours of testimony.

Of course, juries are usually composed of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. I think George Carlin said that.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Personally I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous killers of society, those who really are in a category all by themselves. In this case, I think the murder conviction is appropriate since he set the fires intentionally, so there's the reasonable expectation that someone could get hurt or killed by doing so. Still, he did not actually mean to kill anyone, it was a byproduct of his felony. Life in prison seems appropriate, death penalty should be reserved for someone who intentionally kills others with the intent of doing so.

^This

Yeah, he's caught up in the felony murder rule (i.e., 1st degree) but IMO death sentance not warrented here. Give him life or whatever CA law calls for.

Fern

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
this is manslaughter tops, certainly not a death penalty case by any means.

Or accessory to murder... maybe. But that is a stretch.

 

[soulcougher73]

Id vote death penalty. The consiquences of starting a fire (or multiple in his case) means people may die from it. So in a way it was his intention to kill people. Intentionally or not it was one of the consiquences of starting them. I dont really want to pay tax money for this guy to rot away in jail either. Just off him and be done with it.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

I am all for people being responsible for their own actions, but I think there needs to be a limit. Manslaughter? Sure. Murder? Not really.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: SunSamurai
What the hell is with the people citing the juries decision for their own decision? Form your own opinion based on your believes, not on following a jury like some stupid-ass sheep. The jury is made people like you and me!

I would say I think he should rot in prison, but we do not yet have self-sustaining (not funded by taxes) prisons. Thus I say kill him. Im not paying to try and rehabilitate this even if the guy went on to help create some great thing for humanity. Fuck him, humanity will create those things better off without them being stained in blood.

People cite the jury decision for their own because it is a fact that the jury (a) had more evidence than we have, (b) were professionally advised on the elements of law that apply and (c) took more than 60 seconds to think about and weigh this.

Yes, everyone can have their own opinion but there is nothing bad in relying on a properly-executed decision from our justice system over a snap judgment based on one article.

 

[SunSamurai]

Uh, the fact that the jury had more evidence than we is a point to NOT blindly follow them, because we then are the ones lacking in enough information to make that decision. Kinda of an obvious point. Basically, stop being a stupid-ass sheep.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: SunSamurai
Uh, the fact that the jury had more evidence than we is a point to NOT blindly follow them, because we then are the ones lacking in enough information to make that decision. Kinda of an obvious point. Basically, stop being a stupid-ass sheep.

So you're saying that the smart person goes with an uneducated guess rather than an educated opinion? That the jury has more evidence is why we SHOULD have confidence in their decision. It doesn't make them infallible, but it does make their opinion de facto more relevant than ours.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If you are a drunk driver and kill someone are you a murder?

If you are speeding and kill someone are you a murder??

If you are talking on the cell phone while driving and kill someone are you a murder??

Where do you stop?

Show me that his goal was to kill people, or that there was a reasonable expectation that someone might die via the fire THEN I might agree with you. But so far all I see is a guy who started a fire that killed some one.

1) no, in CA it's either gross vehicular manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter
2) may be vehicular manslaughter (speeding is probably an unlawful act)
3) may also be vehicular manslaughter (talking on the phone may be an unlawful act)

 

[Craig234]

Something I did't see anywhere in the posts I read is the basic, common sense issue of the fact that he clearly very likely has some pyschological issues. That goes to 'intent'. He clearly had some compulsion to light the fires that was stronger than his concern for the damaged caused or the threat to his own freedom.

Rather than debating the punishment, seems to me it'd be a lot better outcome to have prevented the crime in the first place - which takes a small fraction of the cost of the crime and the criminal justice system to have had a chance to prevent, but that's 'big government' so 'oh no, can't spend that'. This crazy ideology of mixing up the legitimate requirement of 'personal responsibility' with people who are clearly having problems being able to act as they should is a formula for what we see, a lot of crime and punishment.

As for his crime - the arguments I see some making for capital punishment are basically flawed in not recognizing any type of murder below capital, first degree murder. These people are just ignoring the other types of murder, from second degree to manslaughter and even non-capital first degree murder (which requires "special circumstances" to have capital punishment). Plan to walk up to a guy you want to kill and shoot him in the face - no capital punishment. But this guy deserves it?

These people's argument for capital punishment in this case could be used to argue why any other type of murder should get capital punishment. They don't seem to get that.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
As for his crime - the arguments I see some making for capital punishment are basically flawed in not recognizing any type of murder below capital, first degree murder. These people are just ignoring the other types of murder, from second degree to manslaughter and even non-capital first degree murder (which requires "special circumstances" to have capital punishment). Plan to walk up to a guy you want to kill and shoot him in the face - no capital punishment. But this guy deserves it?

Craig,

The 'felony murder' statutes (if someone dies during the commission of a felony, even if unintentional and accidental, even if by a heart attack etc) MANDATE the charge be 1st degree. There is no option.

I suppose that he prosecutor could decline to exert the felony murder statute rule, but if (s)he does so it automatically a 1st degree charge.

So, no need to discuss the others (2nd degree, manslaughter etc).

Fern

 

[Bitek]

I am generally anti-death penalty, but in this case... fuck that guy.

He could have killed many many more. How about a house catches fire and burns down with the kids inside? Etc etc. If he is setting multiple fires he well knows what could have happened, let alone all the lives he put in danger as well as all the property (people's houses and life's work.) Fuck him.

 

[Kadarin]

I say kill the useless piece of shit. Fuck him, he deserves nothing.

 

[Hacp]

I feel sorry for the guy, but he needs to die. He needs to be set as an example. No matter what his sob story his, no matter how touching his reasons were, if we don't punish him, others will follow.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: SunSamurai
Uh, the fact that the jury had more evidence than we is a point to NOT blindly follow them, because we then are the ones lacking in enough information to make that decision. Kinda of an obvious point. Basically, stop being a stupid-ass sheep.

So you're saying that the smart person goes with an uneducated guess rather than an educated opinion? That the jury has more evidence is why we SHOULD have confidence in their decision. It doesn't make them infallible, but it does make their opinion de facto more relevant than ours.

Im saying stop being a stupid-ass sheep. Pretty simple! You're making alot of assumptions. See my first sentence. No, it makes them without a real opinion. Blindly following because others say they know. Thats fine, but dont pretend you put more thought than "follow them" behind it.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: SunSamurai

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: SunSamurai
Uh, the fact that the jury had more evidence than we is a point to NOT blindly follow them, because we then are the ones lacking in enough information to make that decision. Kinda of an obvious point. Basically, stop being a stupid-ass sheep.

So you're saying that the smart person goes with an uneducated guess rather than an educated opinion? That the jury has more evidence is why we SHOULD have confidence in their decision. It doesn't make them infallible, but it does make their opinion de facto more relevant than ours.

Im saying stop being a stupid-ass sheep. Pretty simple! You're making alot of assumptions. See my first sentence. No, it makes them without a real opinion. Blindly following because others say they know. Thats fine, but dont pretend you put more thought than "follow them" behind it.

My train of thought:

We in this thread know ah heck all
They in the jury, while not more intelligent or educated, know all the facts
We in this thread know little or nothing about the state law involved
They in the jury, while knowing as little as we, were recently told the law
We in this thread gave 30 seconds of thought to our opinion where our opinion has no impact on anyone
They in the jury gave days or weeks of thought to their opinion where their opinion will cost a man his life
We in the forum are at liberty to prescribe any form of punishment or treatment
They in the jury are constrained to prescribe only punishments previously set down as lawful for the crime of which the perpetrator is found guilty

Ergo

The jury has a more valid opinion than anyone in this thread.

That is not "follow them" thought. It is a reasonable conclusion that pretty much everyone but you will arrive at. It does not necessarily make the punishment right, but it does mean that the punishment has decided according to the law and the facts. For the record, I'm anti-death penalty.

So do you want to argue some more because you failed basic logic and think an opinion is only valid when reached in the absence of any fact?

 

[IGBT]

his behavior resulted in the death of fire fighters. he should be fast tracked to the juice room.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: IGBT
his behavior resulted in the death of fire fighters. he should be fast tracked to the juice room.

Why?

Seems to easy.

Let him sit in a cell for 100 years, with no chance of freedom, getting beat up and raped like we know goes on in prisons.

(If our prisons weren't so shitty that they were a worse punishment than I'd say yeah, juice room.)

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: IGBT
his behavior resulted in the death of fire fighters. he should be fast tracked to the juice room.

Why?

Seems to easy.

Let him sit in a cell for 100 years, with no chance of freedom, getting beat up and raped like we know goes on in prisons.

(If our prisons weren't so shitty that they were a worse punishment than I'd say yeah, juice room.)

and risk the possibility the ACLU could shop a secular progressive activist judge and cut him loose?? no way. get it on and get it overwith. and have another in line ready and waiting.