You said it yourself....it was not his intention to be cruel.
Just because his intent was not to be cruel, does not mean it wasn’t cruel.
He has to face the punishment for his actions.
If I discharge a firearm at a wall, and it pierces the wall and harms or kills someone on the other side, my intent may not have been to harm anyone, but I am absolutely legally culpable for the result.
Those condemning him as though he is a psychopath, I think are likely out of line, because I really doubt an 88 year old who has no history (that we know of) of violence decided he wanted to be cruel to a racoon... just wanted to kill it. Obviously if evidence shows up that he did this purely for reasons of being cruel, I will change my mind.. but honestly by what is known right now, but gut is this guys intentions were probably nothing more than, okay, now how do I kill this thing.. and didn’t think burning it alive was going to be a cruel and gruesome as it was...
That doesn’t mean he should not face justice for his actions, or that he did, as you stated “nothing wrong”.
This was animal cruelty, flame is a very very gruesome way to die, and it is not remotely quick.
If my assumptions are correct, the man will likely face probation, or something light for his actions... provided as I said before, no evidence that his goal was to be cruel surfaces, or a history of cruelty exists. My guess would be a plea bargain and probation/community service and at worst some short term house arrest.... No sane judge or prosecutor wants to put an 88 year old man in jail for a one time lapse in judgement.
Provided he doesn’t have a history of such behavior, or evidence his actions were with the pure intent to be cruel, its likely not going to wind up being too much, but he has to and should face justice for his actions. To claim “he did nothing wrong” is just eh flip side of the extremist position others here have stated that he should be burned alive himself.