A California court has sentenced an arsonist to death for his part in the loss of five firefighters three years ago:
Raymond Lee Oyler was convicted of starting the so-called Esperanza Fire in Riverside County as well as numerous other blazes in the county.
The Esperanza raged about 90 miles (150km) east of Los Angeles.
A fire engine crew was overwhelmed as it went to protect an unoccupied rural house and five members died.
Riverside County Superior Court Judge W Charles Morgan found that the aggravating circumstances in Oyler’s case outweighed the mitigating circumstances.
“Mr Oyler set [out] on a mission… to wreak havoc in this county by setting fires by his own design for his own purposes and, as proven by the evidence, he became more and more proficient.
“He knew that young men and women would put their lives on the line to protect other people and property and he continued anyway.”
Not that he doesn’t deserve it from a karmic justice standpoint, but I would have presumed that the death penalty standard – in California, especially – would have included specific intent rather than knowledge that a loss of life might occur.
It’ll be interesting to watch where this one goes on appeal.
Criminal law at the hand of liberal–and conservative –legislators is constantly changing.
But the basic principle here is the old felony murder rule. If someone commits a felony–in this case arson–and someone dies as a result of that felony, then the person committing the felony is guilty of murder.
The classic law school example involves two guys who join together to commit an armed robbery–say holding up a convenience store. The conveninence clerk sees the two gunmen, pulls out his “Smith & Wesson insurance policy” from under the counter and neatly pots one robber between the eyes, killing him. The surviving robber can be charged with murder–a death occurs as a result of a felony in which he participated etc.
Now it’s much more lik ely that a Texas convenience store clerk will be so insured, and that a Texas jury will apply the felony murder rule–but that’s one of the hazards of committing a felony–you may wind up on the hook for murder.
Mike is correct in his explanation of felony murder.
But, I suspect that the death penalty in this case will be overturned because of a lack of specific intent to kill those particular firemen.
As I read the California law, the only specific intent required is to commit the crime that results in results in the deaths, if the crime is a felony and on the list of felonies that fall under the first degree murder statute, Calif Penal Code Sect 189:
Arson is on that list…
These days even first degree murder doesn’t automatically yield death upon conviction. The Fed courts ended that many years ago.
Given the nature of the crime, I would predict the sentence is overturned on appeal. He may get life without parole.
In practice, there is no death penalty in California. There is, instead, a lengthy appeals process that enriches lawyers and ensures that the perp has a high probability of dying of old age.
And, yes, if he is a good boy during the appeals process he could be out on the street again within a decade.
I have always felt that an arsonist should be placed on a hillside in front of a wild fire and if he can outrun it he then has earned the right to serve time in prison.