A radical activist who helped set a $1 million fire to protest research on genetically modified crops was sentenced Thursday to nearly 22 years in prison _ even more than the prosecution recommended.
Marie Mason decided to "elevate her grievances beyond the norms of civilized society" through fire and destruction, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney said. The case _ which was prosecuted as domestic terrorism _ was "about an abandonment of the marketplace of ideas," he added.
…
At MSU, Mason and [her then-husband] Ambrose targeted a campus office that held records on research related to moth-resistant potatoes for poor parts of Africa. Computers, file cabinets and desks were doused with a flammable liquid. Vapors contributed to an explosion, and the fire got out of control.
Yeah, screw Africa, we’re trying to protect mother earth here!
I don’t see a problem with someone who tries to change public opinion through threatening and carrying out crimes of violence being sentenced under statutes designed to prosecute people who try to change public opinion through threatening or carrying out crimes of violence.
Pssh, don’t seperate this person from arsonists. She’s a common arsonist who just happens to have done her dead for political reasons. Am I the only one who thinks charges of terrorism are somewhat wrong and that extra sentencing for having political motives is harmful to the ideal of the notion of “blind justice.” It is, in my opinion (and this may be farcical since I’ve been drinking tonight) on the same level as thought crime. She is an arsonist, and should be nothing more in the eyes of the law.
I’m not an expert by any means and don’t have any notion of what a standard sentence for arsonism is but this does seem excessive, even if she is a strong risk for recedivism.
Did she have an uncontrollable urge to light fires? Doesn’t seem so, her intent wasn’t to just light a fire it was to terrorize so I see no harm in treating her like a terrorist. I have no problem with anyone else that causes fires with the intent to terrorize in an attempt to change opinions and actions being charged as a terrorist either.
Yes. They serve no purpose but to punish what shouldn’t be a factor in punishing. Take for example murder. It doesn’t seem to me that a murder should be punished more if it is committed against say - a Jew just because he is Jewish than a regular premeditated murder for just about any other cause.
Logically there should be some notions that will punish offenders more for certain thought processes such as premeditation, but the reasoning ie. “I’ll kill this guy cause he’s a Muslim” or “I’ll try and destroy this building because politically I don’t agree this nations political stances” should have no basis in ascribing harsher punishments.
Edit: Naturally since I’ve been drinking take these arguments with a grain of salt, though they generally are what I’ve think anytime.
Hate crime laws are stupid. If you kill old Ms. Rosenberg why should it matter if you did it because you hate jews or because you didn’t like the colour of her shoes? She’s equally dead. You can’t legislate against being a douchebag, only against acting like one.
Set fire to campus = Arson = Go to jail (do not pass Start, do not collect $200).
Was it terrorism? “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” aside, sure it was.
She caused 4 million dollars in damages, and set fires that consumed homes, campuses, and boats. She was a serial arsonist and a political terrorist, and as much as she admitted it was ‘pure luck’ she didn’t kill herself with her clumsy arsons that ‘got out of hand’, it’s also pure luck that she didn’t end up murdering someone with them. If you consider the damage done to the research data intended to help feed starving Africans, it’s entirely possible that her terrorism has resulted in deaths. Frankly, it’s hard to feel like this is out of line as punishment, unless you feel that there’s absolutely no difference between a terrorist and any other criminal.
A forestry worker deliberately starts a fire that causes 29 million dollars in damage, burning 300 buildings, and forcing thousands to leave their homes. It was the worst fire in Colorado’s history. She got 12 years and that sentence was thrown at as “too harsh”, as it was twice the maximum.
I’m not totally sold on the idea that intent (other than deliberate/negligent) should have a bearing on the sentence, but I certainly think that a sentence that is nearly 4 times the normal maximum is ridiculously too high, even taking intent into account.
