Brief (1)
SB 579 amends the crime of arson to reformulate the crime for penalty purposes on the basis of whether or not the building or property is a dwelling. The bill provides that arson of any building or property which is a dwelling is a severity level 5, person felony. Arson of any building or property which is not a dwelling is made a severity level 6, nonperson felony.
Background
The bill was supported by the Kansas County and District Attorney's Association. The Dickinson County Attorney testifying on behalf of the Association said that currently, under Kansas Sentencing Guidelines, it is a "nonperson crime" and a "presumptive probation offense" for a person with no past criminal history to damage or destroy any building or property of another person by arson so long as the value of that person's building and/or property is below $50,000 (and no person is "in" the property at the time of the arson). Should this same criminal be convicted of arson again at this or a lower level of monetary damage to another's building or property (so long as the criminal is not on probation), the criminal offense would again be "presumptive probation." Should the criminal subsequently be convicted of a third similar offense (so long as the criminal is not on probation), the criminal offense would once again be "presumptive probation" under the sentencing guidelines.
Only if a criminal inflicts arson to a building or property with a loss in excess of $50,000 does the first-time criminal offender face the potential of being sentenced to prison. Even under this circumstance, it would not be a "departure" from the sentencing guidelines for a judge to grant the criminal probation.
In addition, current law provides no distinction between general building or property loss and dwelling and dwelling contents. So, should a first-time arsonist convicted of destroying or damaging a lower-middle class home or its contents with a value of under $50,000, the presumptive sentence is probation. However, should the arsonist damage or destroy a more expensive residence or the contents of that residence the criminal faces presumptive imprisonment. He said this "class distinction" was not intended by the Legislature.
1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html