The sentencing of a Vancouver teenager for setting last year’s Eagle Creek Fire brings up complex questions about crime and punishment. While there is room for disagreement about the appropriate sanctions, the goals are rather simple: Fair application of the law; punishment that is reasonable rather than Draconian; and sentencing that extracts a price but leaves room for the teen to eventually lead a productive life that contributes to society.
On Friday, the boy — who was 15 at the time and has not been publicly identified — was sentenced in a Hood River, Ore., court to 1,920 hours of community service and five years of probation; restitution will be decided at a hearing in May. This followed a guilty plea to eight counts of reckless burning of public and private property, two counts of depositing burning materials on forest land, and one count each of second-degree criminal mischief and reckless endangerment of others — all misdemeanors.
The charges stemmed from the throwing of fireworks that sparked a 75-square-mile wildfire in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The high-profile nature of the blaze in a beloved part of the region has led to much discussion about whether or not the perpetrator deserved detention. Defense attorney Jack Morris said: “In my perspective, the law was applied here as it should. … You’ve been given a second chance; earn it. I can guarantee you that’s what my client will do.”
Defense attorneys are expected to advocate for their clients, but in this difficult case, we agree with Morris. Locking up criminals can serve two purposes: Punishment and/or protecting the public from a repeat of the crime. In this case, it is inconceivable that the boy will repeat the carelessness that led to the blaze. It even is unlikely that such a conflagration could be repeated; if the fireworks had been tossed during the spring, when the forest is damp, it is probable that a significant blaze would not have occurred.
