Law

The Worcester Cold Storage case occurred in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  In the aftermath of the horrible fire, the public demanded that justice be served for the six firefighters who lost their lives.  The Prosecutors for the Commonwealth answered this call by charging the defendants with manslaughter, but these charges were dismissed due to lack of evidence.  Would a conviction have been more plausible if the charge had been arson  Would the issues have been the same.
     
The crimes of manslaughter and arson are both felony offenses.  The defendants in the Worcester Cold Storage case would have been convicted if the charge had been arson instead of manslaughter.  According to the General Laws of Massachusetts, the crime of arson states that one who, causes to be burned, or whoever aids, counsels or procures the burning of a building which has been erected for public use, or a banking house, warehouse  and whether occupied, unoccupied or vacant, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years, or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years .   (Crimes Against Property, 2009)  The fact that the defendants were living in the vacant building raises the issues of criminal trespassing.   The voluntary act was established when the defendants chose to leave the building and not report the fire.  The mental state of the defendants was established easily since the physical altercation that created the fire was reckless.
     
A charge of arson would have guaranteed a conviction against the defendants, but a conviction would have been more impersonal to the fallen firefighters. The sentence would only have carried a ten year jail term.  A conviction of manslaughter would have allowed vindication for the firefighters and their families.  The issues would have been very much the same, but the outcome would have been more satisfactory in reference to the public outcry for justice.