Does Arsonist Deserve the Death Penalty?

By TChris, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 08:17:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Is anyone else troubled by the notion that an arsonist has been sentenced to death because firefighters died trying to protect property from the fire he set?

Raymond Lee Oyler set a number of fires (perhaps as many as 25) in and around Riverside County, California in the summer and fall of 2006. On October 26, he started a fire at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains that spread rapidly up the hillsides. Five firefighters from a U.S. Forest Service firefighting crew were engulfed in and killed by "a wall of flames" while trying to save an unoccupied house in a canyon.

Oyler's five murder convictions may be reasonable on the theory that he should have anticipated his actions could cause deaths. But death is not an inevitable consequence of arson, and the prosecution admitted that Oyler did not start the fires with the intent to kill firefighters (or anyone else). A compulsion to set fires isn't the moral equivalent of a compulsion to kill. Oyler's death sentence is unwarranted.

< Saturday Night Fever OpenThread | Rell Vetoes CT Bill to Abolish Death Penalty >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Does Arsonist Deserve the Death Penalty? | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

While a death sentence may be unwarranted (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by nycstray on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 09:19:36 PM EST

As a native CA gal, I can tell you, you do NOT set the hills on fire and expect there is no danger to firefighters or any other person in the vicinity. And anyone that sets wildfires should also get slapped with felony animal abuse.

he set 25 fires, after all (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by diogenes on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 10:27:55 PM EST

This was hardly a "crime of passion" or torching a building to get the insurance money. Setting multiple wildfires in a dry place like California is the consummate act of anarchy and should be punished to the maximum extent allowable by law in the slight hope that other calculated arsonists would be deterred.

An analogy with the "Rescue Doctrine" (5.00 / 0) (#5)
by Jacob Freeze on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 10:53:03 PM EST

There's probably nothing in criminal law as aphoristic as Cardozo's opinion in Wagner v. International Railway, but the principle is more or less the same...

"Danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief. The emergency begets the man. The wrongdoer may not have foreseen the coming of a deliverer. He is accountable as if he had."

Danger to firemen is a foreseeable consequence of setting a fire, and in this instance the arsonist Raymond Lee Oyler killed five firemen.

No diminished capacity defense in CA (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by oculus on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 11:19:08 PM EST

state law.

So (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 11:48:17 PM EST

But death is not an inevitable consequence of arson, and the prosecution admitted that Oyler did not start the fires with the intent to kill firefighters (or anyone else).

Likewise, death is not the inevitable consequence of firing a shotgun into a crowd, or for that matter shooting a pistol into someone's abdomen. This appears not much different.

: Hear, hear, Abdul (none / 0) (#20)
by wagnert in atlanta on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 06:54:37 PM EST

...the prosecution admitted that Oyler did not start the fires with the intent to kill firefighters (or anyone else).

But anyone of ordinary intelligence would know that a wildfire carries a strong probability of killing someone. Therefore, setting a fire shows a depraved indifference to human life (and wildlife, property and the environment). And Oyler set 25 fires. Essentially, he set fires until he did kill someone. In this case, I think a compulsion to set fires is the moral equivalent of a compulsion to kill.

I don't belive in the death penalty (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by cpresley on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 12:35:09 AM EST

But as the mother of a California firefighter what he did is not okay. He needs to be locked up for life. Firefighters have enough to deal with from mother nature and people doing stupid stuff. They don't need to deal with people starting fires for the h*ll of it.

: I agree (none / 0) (#12)
by TChris on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 02:11:11 AM EST

that what Oyler did was "not okay"; it was, in fact, reprehensible. I also agree that his actions and their consequences warrant a severe punishment.
I disagree with those who analogize starting wildfires with shooting into a crowd of people. In the latter case, death or serious injury is almost certain. Whether a wildfire will take a life is less predictable. The death of a firefighter or homeowner is foreseeable but not inevitable. The person who knows his actions will almost certainly cause death seems to me to be more morally culpable than the person who knows his actions create a significant risk of death.

Yes, I'm bothered by it. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Mikeb302000 on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 01:02:42 AM EST

I'm extremely bothered by it. In my yesterday's post I asked the question, have they never heard of pyromania. Is that not a recognizable compulsive disorder that might diminish his capacity? Or were they just so mad at him, was the revenge motive too powerful?

the death penalty doesn't become us. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by cpinva on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 01:35:41 AM EST

as a purportedly civilized nation, it smacks of revenge, not justice.

that said, anyone intentionally setting a fire knows, or should reasonably know, that firefighters will eventually arrive, putting themselves at risk to contain/douse the blaze. the arsonist's act is the knowing, direct cause of any injury/death suffered as a consequence, regardless of their "intent". to argue otherwise mandates a complete suspension of disbelief, on the part of a jury.

he should be locked up for life, w/out parole.

Without intent to kill... (none / 0) (#1)
by Romberry on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 09:17:33 PM EST

...I can't see where there is any justification for capital punishment. Surely this sentence will not stand.

In Tison v Arizona (1987) (none / 0) (#17)
by Peter G on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 04:25:29 PM EST

the Supreme Court decided, by 5-4 vote (per O'Connor), that a death sentence is not automatically unconstitutional, even where the defendant did not personally intend to cause any person's death, where the defendant's involvement in the conduct causing death was direct and substantial, and exhibited reckless indifference to the value of human life. Not saying I agree (I don't), but that's current Constitutional law according to the Supremes.


I think you would be an excellent (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 04:43:02 PM EST

addition to the FP of Talk Left.


Thanks, I think (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Peter G on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 04:55:48 PM EST

French Press? Family Plan? Faulty Polygon?


Front Page. (none / 0) (#21)
by TChris on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 07:40:54 PM EST

I agree, by the way, that Mr G would be an outstanding addition to the front page, and as I understand it, he has an open invitation should he ever have the time and inclination to join the team. Meanwhile, Peter's contributions in the comments are invaluable.


Yes, Peter G. has an open invitation (none / 0) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 10:22:55 PM EST

I suspect he's too busy but he'd always be welcome on the front page.


: Good. Thanks. (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 10:30:35 PM EST

Looks like more than one allegation (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 09:53:14 PM EST

supporting the imposition of death penalty is present:

Don't know what allegations were included in the information and as to those, on which the jury returned true findings.

TChris is right (none / 0) (#13)
by Lacy on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 09:49:07 AM EST

We should always question death penalties imposed when the villainy of an act is largely related to elements of foreseeability rather than specific intentions. Anyone should be able to see the difference between the deliberate arson of a home with kids upstairs with resultant death, and what happened here. The worst of penalties should always be reserved for the truly worst of criminal intentions. Some years back in NC a young woman set a small fire on a sofa on her ex-boyfriend's patio, and unusual wind gusts spread it to the apartment...several college students died. There was a hue and cry and threats of the death penalty by a zealous prosecutor. The terrorized, poor, and poorly advised accused took a plea that imposed multiple consecutive life terms without parole. The vengence crazed were appeased, but were the scales that measure equitable justice satisfied? All over this country grossly negligence acts that result in unexpected deaths typically receive sentences of 15 years or under...sometimes even probation. And do we need to hand another weapon to inquisitors to weasel out possibly false confessions from suspects?

Actually yes (none / 0) (#15)
by nyjets on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 12:23:20 PM EST

"The vengence crazed were appeased, but were the scales that measure equitable justice satisfied? "

Considering the fact that she killed several college students, yes justice was done.
If you want to keep the death penality off the table for these kind of murder cases, yes I agree. If we are going to have the death penality (and no, I am not a big believer in the death penality. I do prefer life without possiblity of parole.) these kind of murder should not merit the death penality.

HOwever, if you do kill someone because of arson, the punishment of life without parole is suitable and just answer.

"All over this country grossly negligence acts that result in unexpected deaths typically receive sentences of 15 years or under...sometimes even probation."
Sorry, but in many/most crimes of that sort, that is WAY to light. Espically probation.


The "sorry" suggests that you may not (none / 0) (#22)
by Lacy on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 07:45:13 PM EST

have understood what was being said. Of course probation would be too light, but that's irrelevent here because the subject was comparable sentencing among perpetrators whose actions cause unintended deaths, and not the equivalence of a crime and its punishment.

It's a fact that a drunk driver in Indiana can kill a number of kids who burn to death in their school bus and serve 16 years, while in other jurisdictions one can attack and kill someone, claim you didn't mean to cause death, and theoretically receive probation if you're convicted. That is what was compared to applying the death penalty for an arson that was not intended to hurt anyone, but had that result.

The vengeful will always demand pounds of flesh, but the objective, as TChris did, should ask the appropriate question when vengence enters the equation and dispenses a more harsh punishment for unintended deaths than for the overwhelming majority of intentional killings.


: It seems unlikely the jury would have (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 07:50:22 PM EST

returned true findings if the victims were not firefighters and peace officers.

: That will always be the case (none / 0) (#24)
by nyjets on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 08:23:58 PM EST

"It's a fact that a drunk driver in Indiana can kill a number of kids who burn to death in their school bus and serve 16 years, while in other jurisdictions one can attack and kill someone, claim you didn't mean to cause death, and theoretically receive probation if you're convicted."
AS long as you have muliple jurisdiction with different laws, that will always be the case. There is nothing that can be done to change that unless you want the federal government to have jursidiction in all criminal cases. (ANd I would have to agree that that would be a mistake.)

It'll be a cold day in hell... (none / 0) (#14)
by cwolf on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 10:59:03 AM EST

...before this xtian nation lets go of its eye for eye approach.

If we can (none / 0) (#16)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 01:48:32 PM EST

lock up people indefinitely without trial, why not the death penalty for arsonists? Aren't arsonists terrorists?

yes he does (none / 0) (#27)
by catmandu on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 12:40:26 AM EST

If he let a fire escape his control and this happened then he would not deserve it, but he intentionally set dozens of fires. How did he know the building he caused to burn wasn't occupied? The fire dept didn't know it.
If I were on the jury, I wouldn't have a problem finding him guilty of murder. Only an idiot doesn't know that fire can kill.

Is anyone else troubled by the notion (none / 0) (#28)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 12:45:14 PM EST

Not me.

People die in the [both natural and arsonist] fires that sweep through the CA hills every year.

He absolutely knew that what he was doing could kill someone.