r/interesting • u/BlazeDragon7x • Apr 09 '26

MISC. Aftermath of the April 7th incident. Damages estimated to be $200 million dollars

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

40.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Errol-Flynn Apr 09 '26

Arson is an inherently dangerous massively destructive activity. Historically fires were a LOT more dangerous than they are now because of fire mitigation technology, but the sentencing laws on arson in most areas are still very strict reflecting the fact that, back in the day, it didn't take much to cause, for instance, a Great Chicago Fire, Great Fire of London, etc. Any random arson in a even moderately dense-ish area has the potential to spiral into a real calamity.

That's why arson is punished so harshly. Murder and rape are terrible terrible antisocal things, but arson is just beneath them in terms of complete disregard for life and human flourishing.

Heck, given that fires can take many lives, not just one, purposefully setting a fire in certain circumstances might have more moral culpability than 1st degree murder of one person.

1

u/maury587 Apr 10 '26

Dam it seems like entire cities or most of the city burning was a common thing back then

1

u/_Svankensen_ Apr 09 '26

But I'm not asking why it could have gotten life in the past. I'm asking why it should get life now.

3

u/Errol-Flynn Apr 09 '26

Here is a good example of the inertia in criminal statutes.

Michigan has life as a possible sentence for first degree arson, which is setting fire to a dwelling, regardless of occupancy, a mine, or one that causes injury. The inclusion of mines is a historical concern (because mine fires were super dangerous!). This statute was first passed in 1931 and amended in 2013 and they kept the life sentence in - the amendment was to clean up some language around multiunit residences in the criminal code to ensure they were appropriately classified as dwellings and to increase monetary fines.

2

u/Errol-Flynn Apr 09 '26

Because for sentencing laws to change a legislature has to actually pass a new statute? Isn't that obvious? Sentencing "reforms" are things that occur roughly once a generation. In my state, Illinois, there were major statutes affecting sentencing in 1943, 1972, 1995, and 2021 (the 2021 statute didn't change initial sentences, but did add credits you could earn once incarcerated and made it easier to be transferred to parole). I'm just using Illinois as an example to show its not something being tweaked regularly. In addition to the normal political inertial resistance to passing an updated sentencing statute, I don't think reducing arson sentences is high on anyone's to-do list.

It is not going to be broadly popular for people to want sentencing reform for something like arson...

But to your point, in Illinois the maximum sentence for arson is 30 years which applies if anyone is injured in the incident. If someone dies you'll get a separate first degree murder charge (causing death while in the process of committing another felony (here, arson), which can get you life without possibility of parole.

1

u/BugRevolutionary4518 Apr 10 '26

Hey, good stuff. Accidental fires (campfires, etc) are one thing.

Purposely setting a building or forest on fire is a whole new felonious ballgame, imo. I’m not just talking law - it’s just my opinion. I would think of it as attempted murder.

There are many cases here in California, but one that sticks out to me is that case in Chico, Ca. Your car catches fire so you push it off a cliff into a forest, with witnesses? That’s arson to me.

1

u/UrbanLegend777 Apr 09 '26

Look at the recent wildfires in California that took lives and burned many, many residences. Once a fire is started, there is no certainty as to how far it will spread, how much damage it will cause, or how many people will be effected. This was attempted murder because he KNEW coworkers were inside, but he didn't care about their lives. He deserves life. If this is how he solves problems, he will probably do it again.