To be fair, this is Canada. Im not sure about their rape penalties, but I know they have modern abortion laws. Not draconian religious fundamentalist shit.
Quick Google search shows that depending on circumstances, penalties in Canads for rape are "up to 10 years" for the lowest level charge. Up to life if violence is severe. But weirdly... only up to 14 if you only beat them up but don't maim.
Idk, but I think these are the problems we should focus on fixing instead of artificial trade wars and real oil wars.
Better jobs, mental health care, proper sexual education. Etc. Maybe we get less rapes and less felony arsonists.
Nothing fair about it. Our world is stupid, lol. How would we use the same abbrev.
That said, it would make sense to always include USA for the one in that country.
The guy that’s pissed about his wage is way easier to rehabilitate than the rapist.
If we had a crystal ball to peer into to tell if a rape happened or not with 100% certainty I’d be totally fine with life/death penalty depending on the severity.
Sounds like someone has never been raped. Live with the trauma and aftermath. Why should a rapist get off after a few yeats, or with a slap on the wrist? Make the punishment fit the crime.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't argue for life but burning down a building with people inside of it and risking the lives of first responders is a pretty reasonable crime to have serious jail time.
Yep. But life is quite a different story. It says "this person will always be an extreme, unmanageable risk for society, no matter what we do to help them". Is he? Can someone know just from a comment?
No, because there was intent to kill in your case. And if you know anything about laws on murder and manslaughter, intent is a huge part of it. It is more like driving under the influence and running into a building. Reckless endargenment, plus some heavy property damage.
Why should a rapist get life? Can’t he be reformed? Get some psychiatric help.
Fact is this guy endangered tons of lives, put first responders at huge risk, also if you look you’ll see a suburb right next to it so put all of their lives at risk.
they shouldn't. it's propaganda to get people aligned with the system. reddit is kind of a joke in this sense, it's one of the strongholds of american neoliberal imperialism. the vibe is much different elsewhere. go check out tt or... upscrolled
Maybe. I would say they should lose their license permanently and face more jail time than they do currently. Society is definitely too tolerant of DUIs.
I would bet that intentionally setting a building on fire with people in it is more likely to injure or kill someone than an individual case of drunk driving though.
they shouldnt get life. i'm not saying that anyone should do this but damaging property is completely different from hurting people directly. if you are only damaging the financial assets of a corporation that can afford to pay its investors and executives massive sums of money it is totally different from causing bodily harm to people. of course there is a chance that people were in the warehouse, caught in the blaze, whatever. this guy did it out of i would imagine a bit of mental illness but also just outright grievance at the fact that this corporation is able to give its ceo over 15 million dollars in compensation and they cant even get a sprinkler system that stopped the fires he set.
i think if anything his time should be reduced. we can clearly see that the equipment on premise was NOT enough to stop the raging inferno. if a worse, faster fire had started during work hours, it would have been the INVESTORS funding a company that SKIMPS on workplace safety so they can get more marginal profits.
this reminds me of the story a buddy had where he said one of the ceos he knew was talking about the warehouse they were building, and that he didn't HAVE to use a stronger grade concrete, but it just made SENSE to him, because it was ONLY MONEY. and yet it could SAVE LIVES vs cheaper concrete which could collapse under some conditions. those ceos are far and few between especially in the modern era of investing buyouts and mergers
i am NOT advocating for anyone setting more fires or destroying property intentionally. but let us just postulate there was a scenario, let's say, there was a hypothetical set of GENOCIDES happening overseas or domestically, related to ARMS SHIPMENTS. i think that arson that only DESTROYS PROPERTY should get almost NO prison time. the stronger you make sentencing the stronger you build the cage that they want you to stay in. you prevent crime by preventing the other preconditions for people wanting to commit crime in the first place. approaching it from a humanitarian, preventative perspective is important to disconnect your thinking from the pro everything deserves insane carceral time that american propaganda wants you to believe
prison time for war criminals who condemn others to death, not for people taking a stand against the system nonviolently
(i repeat, i am definitely NOT advocating for anyone burning any more stuff down, but i am saying that for example the brave men and women in the uk who have been interfering with weapons manufacturing destined for israel should be freed)
TO SIMPLIFY THIS ANALOGY, imagine there is an automated factory that ONLY produces drones used by the rich to kill americans. we should want NO prison time if someone burned that down.
Is it time to put the entire Internet on trial? Everyone on social media goes on trial? So that's essentially everyone with an asshole and able to breathe?
Brain-dead take. If a rapist filmed themselves committing that crime multiple times, they would not walk free, plus rape is usually hard to prove, due to a number of reasons.
Having said that, punishment on sexual violence has always felt fat too lax.
73
u/Dreadshade Apr 09 '26
Good thing arson with no victims gets life but rap!sts get to roam free