Let Arson = Terrorism

[Brucelles]

It's a simple statement. Arson should be treated as terrorism. The only significant difference between an act of political terrorism and an act of arson is the intent. A fire is essentially a slow bomb.

I was reading about the current Greek tragedy that is the inferno engulfing Greece and noted this little comment:

Greek police have arrested 32 arson suspects, as investigations continue into the origins of the blazes.

A 1m euro (£678,000) reward has been offered to help catch fire-starters.

Dozens of new fires continue to break out, fanned by hot, dry winds.

The BBC's Malcolm Brabant, in Athens, says the police and intelligence services will be keen to discover if there is any link between the suspected arsonists, and whether they are part of an organised scorched earth campaign.

Apart from my original "WTF?" reaction upon reading this, and wondering why one does this, I saw that the Greeks are considering "an inquiry into whether arson attacks can be considered terrorism, and prosecuted under Greece's anti-terror laws." According to the BBC Treating arson as a potential act of terrorism would give authorities broader powers of investigation and arrest.

Well, I get the point. At the moment 64 people are known dead, 2 for each of the arrested arsonists. That's good enough for a murder conviction, but the damage to property, wildlife, industry and tourism would be worth another few million Euros per head. This makes these attacks as dangerous as an ordinary, successful, terrorist attack.

It reminds me of a fire near Sydney about 4-5 years ago. A colleague lost his home in it, thousands of animals were killed, I believe that a colony of Koalas was wiped out. This one was started by a teenage girl, not for gain, just out of idiocy. I can't find a link, but I understand that she was going to be charged with each individual offence she committed, so Arson : 1, killing an endangered species : 2, destruction of property worth n-million dollars : 3. etc. You would hope that she would go down forever.

Starting a fire is like planting a bomb. Once you have done it the danger is inestimable; it could lead to hundreds of deaths or none. It is exactly like a terrorist attack except in intent. In fact it is a subset of the terrorists' weapons.

I think that arsonists, except those burning their own empty old buildings miles from anywhere in a concrete jungle should be treated as terrorists. The charge is terrorism plus arson, plus whatever damage is done and the sentence should be the sum of the sentences for the individual crimes. Every person killed is a manslaughter (Murder 2), every car torched is a grand theft auto, etc.

Send the bastards away forever.

[JPreston]

Apart from my original "WTF?" reaction upon reading this, and wondering why one does this, I saw that the Greeks are considering "an inquiry into whether arson attacks can be considered terrorism, and prosecuted under Greece's anti-terror laws." According to the BBC Treating arson as a potential act of terrorism would give authorities broader powers of investigation and arrest.

That's another question though; does 'terrorism' really exist as a separate level of crime and does it make sense to have special anti-terrorist powers? I would say no, because once you start saying a terrorist murder is of itself 'worse' a crime than a non-politically motivated random murder before you know it you descend into the idiocy of suspending habeas corpus like in the US, and seeking to prevent members of the RSPB from travelling on the Picadilly line in case they want to protest against Heathrow expansion etc.

Setting that aside, causation (and its directness) is the question here I think. If I set a bomb on the underground in order to further the aims (as I perceive them) of my particular bronze age apocalypic sect, then I very directly cause the deaths of anyone unlucky enough to be nearby. Similarly if I'm a solitary nutcase who goes on a stabbing rampage, then the same level of directness applies.

However, if I intentionally set a fire in dry brush on an uninhabited hillside in Greece - bearing in mind that fires are often started accidentally and sometimes entirely naturally - then can it be reasonably foreseen at the time I set it that this fire will cause the death of Mr Smith, 40 miles away and 3 days later? Not given the inherent chaos of a wild fire. So it's a tricky legal situation, but FWIW I agree that the penalty for this recklessness should be massively harsh.

As to who would intentionally start a fire (apart from an oddball misanthrope), in Greece I understand the planning laws are such that it is effectively impossible to be given permission to develop forested land. So anyone owning land that has both excellent views for holiday apartments and an abundance of trees, has a very strong incentive to get careless with his cigarettes. Perhaps a way around this would be for the govt to compulsorily purchase scorched land at it's value immediately previous to the fire, with the option for the govt alone to develop afterwards? But then there will always be someone to benefit economically from such a disaster - fire engine salesmen, news agencies, opposition parties, etc.

[Blitzen]

itself 'worse' a crime than a non-politically motivated random murder

Terrorism doesnt have to be politically motivated.