In truth, no amount of restitution can adequately make up for the damage caused by last year’s Eagle Creek Fire in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. But a judicial order for $36 million from the 15-year-old perpetrator brings up questions about how best to make the punishment fit the crime.
Hood River County Circuit Judge John A. Olson on Monday called for the Vancouver teen to pay $36,618,330.24 for damage caused when he threw fireworks into Eagle Creek Canyon on Sept. 2. The action sparked a wildfire that burned 50,000 acres, destroyed homes and other structures, and damaged the economy of nearby towns by closing the area to tourists. Equally important, it scorched an area that is beloved by residents and helps to define the Northwest.
Undoubtedly, punishment is warranted. In February, the teen was sentenced to five years of probation and 1,920 hours of community service with the U.S. Forest Service while also being ordered to write letters of apology to those impacted by his carelessness. Now, the judge has ordered restitution, to which defense attorney Jack Morris responded by saying, “It’s difficult to imagine anything more pointless than ordering an adolescent to pay $36 million restitution.”
Indeed. Most people could not pay that amount in 50 lifetimes, and Judge Olson acknowledged that the boy will never fulfill the obligation. A payment schedule will be worked out, and if the teen adheres to it and stays out of trouble, the debt can be considered retired after 10 years. The judge wrote that the figure “is clearly proportionate to the offense because it does not exceed the financial damages caused by the youth.”
That, however, brings up larger questions relating to crime and punishment. One benefit to the fine is that it impresses upon the public the serious nature of the offense and draws attention to the situation. The restitution order has drawn much public debate and has resulted in serious discussions about the line between symbolic punishment and realistic discipline.
But in the process, Judge Olson has done little to serve the notion of justice. By setting a wholly unrealistic fee, he has erred on the side of a symbolic fine rather than a literal one. If the goal was to send a message to the teen and to others, why not set restitution at $36 billion? Why not $100 billion? Those amounts would have the same effect of drawing attention while leaving no hope that it will ever be paid.
There may be legal reasons for that. Oregon’s restitution statute requires judges to impose the full amount of restitution requested by plaintiffs. In this case, for example, the U.S. Forest Service requested $21.1 million in compensation for damage and the Oregon Department of Transportation sought $12.5 million. But Morris, the defense lawyer, argued: “Kids are different. They are entitled to individual consideration.”
While that distinction is a matter for the courts, it calls for an examination of existing laws. The goal should be reasonable punishment that best serves the victims of a crime, the public, and the perpetrator. We would not advocate for being soft on crime, but unrealistic punishment that leaves no hope of a debt being repaid meets none of the necessary goals.
The teen who sparked the Eagle Creek Fire deserves harsh punishment, but that punishment must be meaningful. A fine of $36 million diminishes that meaning to the point of being irrelevant.
