It's purty difficult to judge people's intent, as so much of the individual lies in places that can not be seen except by the individual. Let's look at three different types of destructive fires that were caused by individuals. Some where clearly accidential events, others were seemingly purposeful with an individual choosing acts that caused destructive events to occur.

We all know the danger that fire poses. When fire escapes the control of man can burn down the woods, grasslands, fields and farms. It has in the past destroyed lives. Yet, three fires in recent news are vastly different surrounding circumstances. We will look at a recent case of a Jews' house being burned down by a neo-nazi group in the midwest, the so-called terrorist acts of the Environmental and Animal Liberation Fronts, the Bapist Church Fires started by some drunk kids, and one of the major fires out west started most likely by a spark from a kid riding an four wheeler in the woods.

Neo-Nazis Burn Down a Jew's House in a So-Called Hate Crime

Several years back, in a small midwestern town a Neo-Nazi burned down a Jew's house after using lighter fluid to paint a swastika in the door. It was a terrible act, and most people assume it was done from the hate of one group to another one. The person was later convicted and sentenced for a long period of time under hate crime laws.It caused about the same amount of damage as other fires we will discuss later in this article. Yet, it somehow brought out a far bigger public reaction then other events. People simply have an adverse reaction against people how hate for no clear reason except race or sexual orrienation. Somehow it's beyond the pale of political acts as was seen with the ELF/ALF fires.

Yet, the damage was relatively limited to compared to these other fires that did far more damage.It's easy to question hate crime statues on grounds that they are not propotional to the act. So many other acts are far more destructive then this limited case that only effected one family. Yet it seems so terrible. We feel almost compelled to do something more in this case.

ELF/ALF So-Called Terrorist Acts

The Environmental Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front committeed acts of arson to make a political statement against what they felt was the injustice of society towards animals and the environment. Many of us can feel sympathetic towards their causes of protecting our world from suburban sprawl, massive suburban assualt vechicles (SUVs), and those whose businesses do not treat animals with the respect they deserve.

Yet most of us don't like their tatics of burning SUVs and suburban tract housing or otherwise destroying property.Burning down people's houses, destroying cars, and other property damage causes pollution and destroys things of value. It simply wastes otherwise useful resources—though one could argue that the damage is small to the symbolic value of their protest. Yet, it's nothing more or less then that. People could have gotten hurt or killed in these acts, but nobody really did.Our government has chosen to treat these so-called crimes as terrorist acts. They want tough punishment against such people.

Yet, it's just property that was destroyed. ELF/ALF members have a lot of passion and maybe they were misdirected towards negative action rather positive action like most environmental groups. Most of judge what they did as wrong, but should be worst then other fires that destroy property?

Baptist Church Fires as a So-Called "Mindless Senslessness"

Some college students down south burnt a church one evening after getting drunk. To cover up they're tracks, they continued to burn down more and more bapist churchs in an attempt to throw off investigators. It was stupid, particularly trying to hide by burning down more churches. These kids as far as we know had no specific political motivation—they didn't hate baptists or want to argue for a ideology, they just wanted to cover their tracks.

A lot of churches were destroyed. Churches are scared places, and it particularly hurts when a congregation has no place to meet for worship after their destruction. It was terrible, and it might be what their college called "mindleses crulety". Yet, we have to also feel sorry for the kids who did this, and hope that they can somehow turn around their lives once they eventually get out of prison.There was no clear intent to do malace here. Their damage was significant to property and ultimately community.

These kids did as much damage as all of the other acts described here, but somehow it was different. Yet, do we somehow judge these kids different then all of the bad acts on this page? I do not know.

Spark from ATV Starting a Major Forest Fire

One of the big forest fires out west was caused by some kids riding an ATV without a spark arrester in a relatively flamable forest. This started a major fire that not only burned many thousands of acres of forest, but also killed several hundred head of cattle and destroyed farms and houses. This was a horrible thing. Assuming we found out later that the spark came from a specific person, what should we do?

It was horrible. That kid should have either skipped riding in the dry brush or at least had some kind of guard against the sparks from the muffler. The damage caused by this fire could have easily exceeded that of the other fires described above. It was clearly a horrible accident, but how much do we want to punish for a spark from an ATV? Being accidental, should their be no punishment at all?There are no easy answers.

Clearly if the law had said that the kid should have had a spark arrester, or if even we could have made a case of due dillegence saying a need for such a spark arrester, then there is a good case. Otherwise, to punish one for such an act the same way punish one for burning down churches or SUV dealerships seems increadibly draconian.

Bringing it All Back Home

Does intent really matter, or should we focus more on the destruction? Intent should be a secondary to judging the substantive damage. We don't want our houses burnt down or our air polluted, and that's the real crime. The crime is not that somebody was drunk, political, or foolish. All of those things are perfectly legal, and don't do any damage on their own.

The right to free speech in our country guarantees that people can be political and do political acts. It also allows us great freedom to make fools of ourselves. Yet, as long as we aren't doing destruction in our acts, then no crime has been committeed. The act of burning down houses and destroying property is the crime, and the intent should all but be ignored. Maybe the kid with the quad shouldn't be punished the same way as the neo-nazi, but at the same time niether should get away with destroying property.