It’s not explicitly what the arsonist personally had in mind — his personal motive — it’s the terror he sought to sow further than firebombing of a plot of property. That’s the difference, and it’s an amplification of the crime not against property but people. You know this.
Otherwise you’re reconciling that burning a church to terrorize churchgoers is not a bit different than an arsonist who burns a hay barn for insurance purposes. It’s all a question of money at the most?
Come on man.
Nope,what I'm saying is that I don't care if someone sets an *occupied structure* (A hay barn? C'mon,man!) alight because he hates the people inside or because he just likes firemen.Doing so,regardless of the underlying motive,puts people at risk and therefore must be considered to be a *very* serious crime.
By your reasoning you could be sentenced to extra time in prison for having assaulted me because I have red hair rather than because you were having a bad day.It flies in the face of the concept of "equal protection".