[sakic]

The main elements necessary to prove arson are evidence of a burning and evidence that a criminal act caused the fire. The accused must intend to burn a building or other structure. Absent a statutory description of the conduct required for arson, the conduct must be malicious, and not accidental. Malice, however, does not mean ill will.

Intentional or outrageously reckless conduct is sufficient to constitute malice. Motive, on the other hand, is not an essential element of arson.

Then there is the matter of motive which according to some witnesses was a fire set to cover up a crime. Not sure if that is true. Its a point of dispute.

[Democratic-Republican]

Intentional or outrageously reckless conduct is sufficient to constitute malice.

Well I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night ...

And I say that is a load of crap. Any prosecutor worth his law degree would exercise discretion, or the judge or jury would toss that level of over-charging even if it were on the books in the first place.

A falling over drunk, as bad as he may be, is not going to be charged with intentional harm if they in fact cause some. Nor would an insane person, or a retard, or a (D)ummycrat ( as we all know is always the case ).

Even if English isn't your first language, or, even if you want to redefine plain words we all know ( MALICE == INTENT TO DO HARM ), you cannot possibly believe that is kosher in an innocent until proven guilty system of jurisprudence.

You were right about one thing though, in that intent was NOT necessary in this particular case of FedGov overzealousness.