<p>Re Post #17.</p>
<p>I have seen no proof at all to indicate that this wasn’t the case.</p>
<p>Hanna:</p>
<p>I agree with you. I was responding to your saying “I’m sure they didn’t intend to set fire to the building.” I really don’t think that matters much except in deciding premeditation. I definitely think that not alerting people should ramp up the punishment, but I think the act itself was criminally reprehensible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, well there you have it then. In order to implicate someone, we needn’t have positive proof that something happened, we need for the accused to prove a negative.</p>
<p>kluge:</p>
<p>Of course I’m biased. This is an issue that depends on underlying values. Do you have a sense that we can somehow test this in the laboratory?</p>
<p>As for your assertion that I’m responding to the deaths of young college students, I find that offensive. Are you sure you’re not responding to the fact that the perps are white and also college students?</p>
<p>I would feel the same way about anyone who set a fire in a hotel and killed people they “didn’t mean to kill.” Setting fire in an occupied building is criminal, as I see it, and it deserves a long sentence.</p>
<p>“In order to implicate someone, we needn’t have positive proof that something happened, we need for the accused to prove a negative.”</p>
<p>This appears to be the case in Durham. I agree. The students in question were implicated without positive proof of anything.</p>
<p>Ah. No. In Durham, they actually had an accuser who was there, so there was positive evidence, however false that evidence may turn out to be.</p>
<p>But you are suggesting that any accused must prove a negative.</p>
<p>The hero of the fire was a remarkable resident assistant who continued to alert sleeping students as her own head was on fire!</p>
<p><a href=“http://domapp01.shu.edu/depts/affairs/Setonian.nsf/d5b2806150d5195f85256adc006592cd/a22ba70b5b5e5fce85256bc60071baa1?OpenDocument[/url]”>http://domapp01.shu.edu/depts/affairs/Setonian.nsf/d5b2806150d5195f85256adc006592cd/a22ba70b5b5e5fce85256bc60071baa1?OpenDocument</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://politics.nexcess.net/pressrelease/2006/03/assemblymen_stanley_conners.html[/url][quote]Christmas”>http://politics.nexcess.net/pressrelease/2006/03/assemblymen_stanley_conners.html
</p>
<p>This fire was so tragic, & the arsonists cowardly behavior so egregious, I think most who followed the story closely are outraged. Their families covered for them & are getting a pass — no accessory charges. I’m fairly certain the prosecution did everything possible. Risking a not guilty was too much of a chance to take.</p>
<p>I agree with Hanna that their fleeing, rather than making even a minimal effort to report the fire & wake fellow students, is outrageous.</p>
<p>Tarhunt,
We will agree to disagree then. This will be my last post, because I do not want to detract from the original thread topic.</p>
<p>"so there was positive evidence, "</p>
<p>Not really. There was no evidence in Durham. The accuser’s statement does not constitute “evidence”. If that were true, the courts would be full of more cases than they are now based on false accusations. DNA is evidence. A weapon is evidence. A dead body could be evidence. An accusation is just an accusation.</p>
<p>Have a good day.</p>
<p>1sokkermom</p>
<p>There’s really nothing to disagree about. You just rewrote the basic rules of logic set down 2400 years ago or so. That would make you a first-order genius on the level of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.</p>
<p>Congratulations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, there was a man released just recently released from a long prison term for a “voice” identification. DNA proved him not guilty. I’m puzzled about why you don’t seem to care about him.</p>
<p>" If that were true, the courts would be full of more cases than they are now based on false accusations."</p>
<p>What state do you live in? ;)</p>
<p>
According to a lengthy article in Court TV’s “Crime Library” one of the defendants did alert the RA when the couch caught on fire and before the fire spread out of control. (It’s not clear but apparently he pounded on the RA’s door and then ran away.) The RA called the fire department but couldn’t figure out how to work the fire extinguisher that was on site or else the fire would have been extinguished without anyone getting hurt. The fire alarm sounded, it’s not clear how it was triggered. If the dorm wasn’t “grandfathered in” it would have had sprinklers; but it was built before they were required. The fire was contained in the common area of the dorm, and was extinguished almost immediately when the fire fighters arrived and doused it with water, but that was delayed due to a frozen fire hydrant. It’s not clear from the stories why the smoke and fire were so bad from the relatively limited blaze, but synthetic materials used in the dorm may have been a factor.</p>
<p>If the RA had known how to use a fire extinguisher. If the students had been trained in what to do in the event of a fire. If the hydrant wasn’t frozen. If there were sprinklers. If the fabrics used in the dorm furnishings had been different. If, if, if. A million things would have led to a different outcome. Reading the whole story one comes away with the impression that what infuriates people more than anything else is not that the defendants lit the banner on fire, but that they didn’t confess. But failure to confess doesn’t make it “murder.”</p>
<p>From one of the burned students:
</p>
<p>Kluge:</p>
<p>As I have said before, I believe “intentional” does matter, but only in degree of culpability. I would say that what these young men did is at the extreme end of criminal recklessness.</p>
<p>There’s a man just convicted in one of the Rocky Mountain states (I forget which) of driving with road rage, pulling in front of someone and slamming on the brakes. The person behind him swerved to avoid hitting him, lost control, and went into oncoming traffic, killing two people. The perp then told a tow-truck driver that the dead man “got what was coming to him.”</p>
<p>I believe that the perp was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how I feel about the sentence. It may be too severe. By the time the perp reaches 60 or so, he should be able to drive reasonably safely, one would hope. But I DO believe he deserved a very long sentence for what he did. He drove in such a way that his vehicle became a weapon, and he killed someone doing that, even though he probably didn’t mean to. To me, “not meaning to” matters, but not as much as it seems to to other people. I believe that we all have a responsibility to act in a manner that makes it unlikely that we will kill or maim others.</p>
<p>As another example from some years ago, a man from an East Asian country (Japan I think) was visiting New Orleans. He was going to a Halloween party and got the wrong address. He went up to the door of a house, knocked, and made enthusiastic noises. Someone inside the house shot him dead.</p>
<p>The person who shot him was never charged with anything since he had been “afraid.” I’m one who thinks that, if you own a weapon, your responsibility to use it wisely and only when necessary actually INCREASES. If you own a weapon, you had better be right when you kill someone, or the circumstances surrounding the shooting must be so clearly threatening that any reasonable person would have shot to kill.</p>
<p>We seem to live in a culture where many think no one should be held accountable or responsible for their insanely reckless behavior.</p>
<p>Though I have no sympathy for the convicts, I am extremely surprised that here, on a college forum, there is not more outrage directed at Rutgers University; which by popular press accounts–and the testimonials of many students–is abysmally inadequate in administering its responsibilities and mandate as a caretaker and educator of college undergraduates.</p>
<p>Where’s the outrage?</p>
<p>Please.</p>
<p>…see Kluge’s post, #31, above.</p>
<p>When I heard this verdict on the news the other day, I thought, “Why should the taxpayers feed and house these guys for 16 mo. or more? Make them work and give their paychecks to the victims’ families.” I don’t think the guys who set the fire are a danger to society–at least not any more than the millions of people with similarly callous attitudes. I don’t think they are likely to do anything like this again. This was a drunken prank gone bad. It makes me sick that they ran away and even when sober tried to deny responsibility–and their families helped them. What does that tell you? Their main “defect”
was their disregard for others. Maybe learned from their parents who put “CYA” above honesty. If they feel no guilt for the deaths of those other students 16 mo. in jail will never cure that. Put them to work and make them pay.</p>
<p>BTW, many years ago my S and I escaped an apartment fire because the babysitter of the kid who set the fire ran through the building screaming and pounding on doors. I used to be angry at her for her irresponsibility that allowed the fire to be set, but now I realize that she had a choice at that moment–to run or make sure others got out. She did the right thing</p>
<p>Dorothy Parker:</p>
<p>I’m unaware of what happened at Rutgers University. What was it?</p>
<p>atomom:</p>
<p>I think one can make a good case for an alternate form of punishment. Prison is pretty much what we have, by law, these days. The young men can still be made to pay, I suppose, in a civil suit if they have any money.</p>
<p>
kluge, you’re in California, right? You can’t read one story & truly have an understanding of the anger New Jersy citizens feel. I live a few miles from Seton Hall. The kids did nothing to save fellow students from death and injury. They covered their own behinds, long after the “panic mode” they were thrown into had passed. Their smug attitudes were reported on for years in our local papers. I can’t think of two thugs who ever got off easier. Perhaps to understand you need to have seen the empotional graduation ceremony of Dana Christmas. Or read about her efforts to have sprinkler legislation passed. Or have seen the agony of the victims’ families and friends.</p>
<p>Oh, you can be sure Rutgers (actually their insurance company) is coughing up the big bucks, just as colleges and universities do every time there is a drinking death. Cases never make it to trial.</p>
<p>As for the kids? They had good private attorneys, and used them to the max. 16 months can be a pretty long time, if it isn’t served in one of the country club prisons (where I expect they will be sent, for their own protection.)</p>
<p>Why Rutgers? I thought this was about Seton Hall?</p>
<p>My mistake (see what living 3,000 miles away will do?) Doesn’t change the gist.</p>