There is nothing politicians like more than to look for someone to blame for a disaster. In the case of a clearly emotional Kevin Rudd yesterday, those responsible for the tragic Victorian bushfires are guilty of “mass murder”. Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland, the nation’s first law officer, even suggested foolishly, that any person accused of deliberately lighting a fire should be charged with murder.
While it is understandable and human for our political leaders to be sharing the pain of those whose loved ones have died in these horrific fires, or who have lost all of their worldly possessions, they must be very careful not to create a witch hunt atmosphere, that pressures police and prosecuting authorities to take short cuts and lay charges against people without sufficient evidence.
At this stage it is not clear that these fires were deliberately lit — that is still a matter for investigators. And even if they were, what has to be established is a causal connection between the lighting of a fire and the death of individuals. This again is a matter for investigators and eventually prosecuting authorities.
Even if the police arrest and charge an individual with offences relating to these fires, the presumption of innocence must prevail. Mr Rudd’s comments about mass murder are very unhelpful in terms of creating an atmosphere of calm and fairness so that due process can take place. One hopes the Police do not feel political pressure to arrest someone so that they can satiate the media, politicians and the public’s thirst for blood. This is not a farfetched and unfair proposition — recent history is littered with examples of wrongful arrests and prosecutions in climates such as the one which exists today.
The law in this area is not as straightforward as Mr McClelland suggested yesterday. In Victoria, the charge that would be successfully brought against an individual who is alleged to have deliberately lit a fire is that of arson causing death. It carries a maximum 25 year term of imprisonment. A charge of murder in circumstances where a person lights a bush fire is possible but more problematic. To prove that the accused is guilty of murder in such a case, the prosecution would need to show a deliberate or reckless intent on the part of the person lighting the fire to cause death.
The law in Victoria is such that if a person is charged with arson causing death and say 50 deaths can be shown to have been caused by the death, the prosecution could lay multiple counts of that charge and a sentencing judge could hand down cumulative sentences, which would mean someone would be imprisoned for life in any event.
If there are people to be arrested and charged in relation to these fires they need to be accorded the same fairness as any other accused. Comments by the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General yesterday will simply encourage an unscrupulous media and police to create an atmosphere surrounding an accused that would make it very difficult if not impossible for them to get a fair trial.
You are wrong to criticize Rudd for his “mass murderer” comment. It was both appropriate as a means of bringing to any arsonist/s, and others who might be tempted to follow thier example, the absolutely horrendous reality of what they have done. While the onus will always lie on the prosecution (unless you are an inmate at Guantanamo) in practical terms:
(a) the morning media made it clear , front page headlines and radio bulletins, that the day that lay ahead was full of high level danger from a bushfire perspective, and that there was a total fireban throughout the state;
(b) subject to the age and a medical assessment of an accused’s mental health, any person of average, or even below average, intelligence would realise that starting a fire in the open, not in a BBQ, or fireplace, but in the uprotected open, had the ready potential to quickly grow and spread, and cause massive property loss and death.
To light a fire in those circumstances would have to be considered gross negligence, or more likely reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions. That is sufficient to found a charge of murder.
In ordinary times Rudd might have chosen his words more cautiously – but he had to respond on the spot having just witnessed some of the damage and trauma caused by the fires, in circumstances where the killer (a less emotive and less legally loaded description than ‘murderer’) was in all likelihood watching the results of his/her actions on TV, or would ultimately see the interview in a replay of the day’s top news stories. In such a situation there may be all sorts of options open to Rudd – but;
– scaring the shit out of the arsonist, and along with other media reports
– giving him or her the concern that the police net was closing in on them, and
– scaring the shit out of anyone who may have been tempted, for even a moment, to follow the arsonists example
certainly ranks high as a credible and appropriate response.
Graham
It’s the arsonists. Or it’s the systemic failure(s) of the government(s). Or it’s the greenies. Or it’s the loggers. At those temperatures and wind gusts it could be a piece of glass, a cigarette butt, god knows maybe even a falling rock sparking. Or maybe wet lump of ground litter spontaneous combustion like in some compost heaps. Dry lightening is possible too.
But my guess it’s the government’s fault, and until I see or hear real evidence to the contrary I will stick with that. The press has been discussing mega fires on and off for years ever since the 2003 ACT fire. So you can’t say it’s off the radar. Only out of their depth.
And no, PM Rudd speculating out loud is not evidence. It’s blame shifting. And he knows it. As does Rees. As does Brumby.
It is a little more complicated than the more sensationalist media would have it. Many bushfire arsonists appear to be motivated by a fascination with fire. This is a fascination most of us have in the sense that we enjoy looking at a campfire or a fire in a fireplace. The difference, of course, with arsonists is that fascination is uncontrolled and pathological.
Their motivation may well not be murder at all – it may be that deaths are to them an unintended consequence of gratifying their flaming desires. The closest parallel may be with the driver who goes well over the speed limit. That driver does not intend to murder anyone but he is putting other lives at significant risk. However, if that driver does kill people he is unlikely to get a life sentence. Does it make sense to give a firebug a life sentence? Ever higher sentences appear to be having no deterrent effect.
The South Australian system where potential firebugs are monitored and frequently warned may be more effective and more just than an endlessly escalated punitive model.