Impact of arson on firefighters

¶ … Arson on Firefighters

Factors the Court Relied on to Find a Duty to Report

The main factor, among others, that both the initial judge -- and the Supreme Judicial Court after a short-lived reversal by the Superior Court -- relied on, was whether the defendants displayed wanton and reckless behavior in not reporting the fire, regardless of other circumstances.

The finding was based on several other court cases, including People v. Kazmarick (N.Y. County Ct. 1979) which states that "one who creates, by his own conduct...a grave risk of death or injury to others has a duty and obligation to alleviate the danger." The argument in Commonwealth vs. Thomas S. Levesque was that this was not a situation where a passerby observes a fire and fails to report it; the defendants started the fire and increased the risk of harm from that fire by allowing it to burn without taking steps to control or report it.

The question was whether or not this behavior on the defendants' part constituted wanton or reckless conduct. If so, and a duty to act was proved, then manslaughter charges could be found. Though recklessness must involve an intentional act or omission, a finding of recklessness is based on the intent to engage in the reckless conduct, and not the intent to bring about a harmful result.

The Commonwealth presented adequate evidence of the defendants' choice not to report the fire by providing testimony as to their actions after the fire was accidently set, including going to a mall, having a meal, not using a working cell phone, and not using numerous pay phones that were convenient to them, etc. Therefore, there was little question that the defendants' actions were reckless. So, despite the other factors considered, the primary ruling that the defendants' actions were wanton and reckless led to the finding for manslaughter.

Arson?

The defendants in this case were not charged with arson, which is defined as intentional and malicious. In Levesque, the man and woman were charged with accidently starting a fire and then fleeing the premises and not calling 911 to report an emergency. There was no indication that they intentionally and maliciously set the fire, as, at the time, it was their own "residence" that went up in flames.

However, if they had not been charged with accidently starting the fire, it would change the outcome of the case, I believe. The reason they were found guilty was because they were found wanton and reckless in not reporting the fire which they accidently started. Absent that charge, there would be no cause to find them guilty even though they left the premises. Actually, absent being charged with accidently starting the fire, there would be no basis for a trial at all, even if the building had burned down and the firefighters had been killed by the fire.

Not charging them with starting the fire would leave the case wide open for someone else to have started it. Whether the defendants were there at the time someone else started it, might help determine their guilt. I don't believe they could be found wanton and reckless for just leaving the building. But if they had witnessed someone else start it, they could be charged even if it was accidental on the other person's part. They could then be found wanton and reckless as they were present when another person started it, and left and didn't report it.

If they were aware of the fire, though they didn't set it, and then left the building, I believe the outcome should be the same -- guilty.

The whole charge of manslaughter depends upon them setting the fire and not reporting it. So, if they witnessed someone else accidently start the fire, they could also still be charged with manslaughter as they were in their trial.

Mental State

A person's mental state is important because we should know if a defendant knows right from wrong, or if he or she is competent. When a defendant is on the witness stand or sitting in a courtroom, we usually have no way of knowing their mental state. A person can look perfectly normal, but have big problems.

Their mental state must be a factor in determining whether or not they are guilty. There are serious mental illnesses that people suffer from that are real and that affect their mental capacity to make normal decisions.

Though most of us don't like the idea of someone getting away with a crime because they are found "insane" or "mentally incompetent," in some cases it is reality. And, given, that they are examined by a competent, independent psychiatric expert, we, as a society must give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, we are all innocent until proven guilty, and one who is truly mentally unstable deserves our understanding. They do not deserve our forgiveness or a verdict of innocent. Punishment and rehabilitation should be the goals.

The only alternative would be to try a person whether mentally incompetent or not, but have a different set of penalties for it. However, the problem with that is that, in our system, the person must be competent to stand trial, to face their accuser, and to comprehend what is going on in court, as well as to communicate with their own attorney.

If, indeed a person is truly mentally incapacitated, we must somehow show understanding of that fact.

An Intentional Act Involved in Every Act of Recklessness

Any voluntary act of a thinking human being is intentional. It has to be, or we wouldn't do it. Our intent is to commit the voluntary act. Blinking of your eye is a reflex. Kicking someone is a voluntary act.

Reckless means giving little thought to danger. It also involves a "rash," thoughtless, or irresponsible act. Reckless may apply to someone who jumps in their car when they are extremely angry and drives too fast, not paying attention to other cars and rams into another car injuring someone. That's reckless, but it was also a voluntary act. So it is an intentional act.