Death Penalty Not Justified for California Wildfire

A California man was recently sentenced to death after being found guilty of first degree murder for setting a wildfire that killed five firefighters. But the death penalty makes no sense in this case. He should have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter or perhaps second degree murder at most. The conviction and sentence he got don´t seem to match the crime. Sure, five people lost their lives, but that was not the intent of this man´s crime.

As a general rule, people who commit arson are not prosecuted for first degree murder unless they set a fire with the express intent to kill someone. For example, if someone burnt your house down, knowing you were in it at the time and it resulted in your death, one would expect that person to be charged with first degree murder and possibly be eligible for the death penalty.

However the man who set that wildfire in California had no way of knowing whether it would result in someone´s death. Obviously, he knew there was chance it would kill someone and he set it anyway. But that´s reckless disregard for human life, not premeditated murder. This kind of recklessness, when it results in a death, usually carries some kind of manslaughter charge, as well it should.

The arsonist in this case will obviously appeal his sentence, if not his conviction as well. I´m not sure what his chances would be of getting his conviction overturned, but I´m pretty confident that his sentence will be tossed out and replaced by something a little more apropos, like 15-20 years behind bars. The judge – shame on him if he did – apparently allowed the emotional testimony of the firefighters´ families to influence his decision in imposing the death sentence. That´ll be additional fodder that can be used in the appeal of this unjust sentence.