Originally Posted by raymor

I'm sure there are cases that seem prove your point, though the missing details make this kind of thing silly.
I'm not sure what your point is with those two cases though. Two hours each burn down a building, or try to, and get similar sentences for their similar crimes. Your point is what? That the one guy should have gotten a longer sentence because he did a better job of arson? Your thinking is that one arsonist shoulda get a lesser sentence because he screwed up his arson?

Any idea of the criminal record of either of the arsonists?