Arson

7 Key excerpts on "Arson"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Serial Crime

  Theoretical and Practical Issues in Behavioral Profiling

  • Wayne Petherick(Author)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  English common law, on which most American law is based, defines Arson as the willful and malicious burning of the dwelling house of another. This made Arson a crime against the security of habitation (because loss of habitation could well cost the lives of its dwellers by exposure to weather or enemies). It required certain elements to be present—the structure had to be a dwelling, it had to belong to another, and it had to be burned as a deliberate or intentional act. As the common law concept of Arson became inadequate, statutory law (passed by government bodies) expanded the definition to include other buildings and property. By omitting the dwelling or occupancy requirement, other property such as shops, factories, prisons, public buildings, forests, fields, boats and cars are now included in most Arson statutes.

  The definition will also depend heavily on the criminal statutes of the country or area in which the fire is lit; in some states of Australia, it is referred to as Arson, whereas in others it is termed “malicious damage by fire/explosion.” In Scotland, it is officially referred to as “willful fire-raising,” and in the United States there are very fine parameters used to define what actually constitutes an Arson event. Arsonists are quite often referred to in texts on psychiatry or psychology as “malicious fire-raisers” or “fire-setters,” among other common terms.

  A prime example of the difficulties faced by Arson investigators is contained in a California newspaper article titled “The Life and Death of a Serial Arsonist” (2007) . The article tells the story of a typical family man, married with adult children, who was charged with setting fires over a 3-year period. His wife said,

  There was nothing in his past suggesting he could be an Arsonist. He had no interest in firefighting, no fascination with the many campfires they enjoyed over the years, no recognizable twist of personality that hinted at Arson. The whole thing makes so little sense that I can't help but think that investigators made a terrible mistake.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Psychology and Crime

  An Introduction to Criminological Psychology

  • Clive R. Hollin(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Arson is generally taken to be a crime in which a fire is deliberately set in order to cause damage to property and that may also endanger life. In Scotland, the legal understanding of the act of Arson is the same as for the rest of the UK but the offence is known as fire-raising. As Arson is a crime against property, incidents such as fires in abandoned cars and other vehicles with no registered owners, and fires in derelict buildings are not covered by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Firesetting is another term frequently found in the literature: it is often used to refer to the acts of juveniles below the age of criminal responsibility who deliberately set fires (e.g., Fineman, 1980). The term firesetting will be used here to refer to the acts of juveniles below the age of criminal responsibility, while Arson is used denote acts of firesetting within the scope of criminal law. Prevalence In England, the official statistics for Arson are recorded by both the Fire Rescue Services (FRS) and the police. In the statistics, the distinction is made between primary and secondary fires. A primary fire is defined as one that involves buildings or non-derelict vehicles, storage facilities or plant machinery; there may be casualties and the extent of the fire requires at least five fire appliances to bring it under control. A secondary fire is typically a small fire, generally occurring outdoors as with a fire in an abandoned vehicle, which does not involving casualties and is attended by four appliances at most. The definitional issue can lead to procedural problems within the criminal justice system. As shown in Table 5.1, a report published in 2005 by the ODPM noted that the police consistently recorded up to half fewer offences of Arson than the FRS

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Criminal Law

  • Joycelyn M. Pollock(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Perhaps the most difficult task of a prosecutor in proving the common law crime of Arson is to show that the burning was willful or malicious. Mere accident, carelessness, or simple negligence is not enough to constitute the common law crime of Arson. If the prosecutor introduces evidence to show that the person intentionally started the fire that resulted in the burning, this is a clear-cut case. However, it is more difficult to prove malice when the acts amounted to a wanton burning without justification or excuse. In the latter situation, the requirements of Arson could be met if evidence indicated that the actor performed an intentional act that created a very high risk of the burning of a dwelling house.

  Also, there is sufficient intent or malice to constitute the crime of Arson if there exists general malice or intent to burn any dwelling. The concept of

  transferred intent

  applied to Arson in that if one intended to burn the house of person A, but mistakenly burned person B’s house instead, it would be still be Arson. Similarly, if a person didn’t care whose house they burned, they just wanted to burn any house, it would still meet the mens rea required for Arson.7

  B. Model Penal Code

  Under the Model Penal Code, Arson is enlarged to include exploding as well as burning and buildings other than dwellings. The crime of Arson is graded partly according to the kind of property destroyed or imperiled and partly according to the danger to persons. The most serious type of Arson is a felony in the second degree and is most similar to common law Arson. Under this definition, Arson occurs when a person starts a fire or causes an explosion, either to destroy a building or occupied structure of another, or his or her own or another’s property to collect insurance for such loss.

  § 220.1 Arson AND RELATED OFFENSES (1) Arson. A person is guilty of Arson, a felony of the second degree, if he starts a fire or causes an explosion with the purpose of: (a)  destroying a building or occupied structure of another; or

  (b)  destroying or damaging any property, whether his own or another’s, to collect insurance for such loss. It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution under this paragraph that the actor’s conduct did not recklessly endanger any building or occupied structure of another or place any other person in danger of death or bodily injury.

  (2) Reckless Burning or Exploding. A person commits a felony of the third degree if he purposely starts a fire or causes an explosion, whether on his own property or another’s, and thereby recklessly:

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  An Introduction to Criminal Psychology

  • Russil Durrant(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Criminal Psychology Through Film 9.1 ). Unfortunately for some, this fascination can bring them into contact with the law as their fire lighting leads to the damage of property and loss of lives and hence becomes the criminal offence of Arson. Arson, then, involves the intentional lighting of fire with the purpose of damaging property or other objects of value (e.g., forested areas) (BushFIRE Arson Bulletin, 2004). The cost of intentional firesetting in society is substantial especially when we recognise that Arson can lead not only to the damage of property and forested areas, but also to the loss of life. Dry regions, prone to bushfires, like California and much of Australia, have a particular interest in furthering understanding of the causes of Arson and how best to prevent it. In Australia alone there are an estimated average of 54,000 bushfires a year of which around 30 per cent are suspected of being deliberately lit (BushFIRE Arson Bulletin, 2004).

  Both vandalism and graffiti, like Arson, involve the illegal damage to, as opposed to acquisition of, property. Vandalism is the broader label and includes a diverse range of acts from littering to the intentional destruction of valuable items and thus includes much of what is considered graffiti (Nordmarker et al., 2016). The term graffiti is much contested in the literature, and it is important to recognise that this label encompasses a potentially diverse range of acts that have a long history in society (Rowe & Hutton, 2012). Very broadly, graffiti, as it is discussed in the criminological literature, refers to ‘the marking of other people’s property without their consent’ (Morgan & Louis, 2009). This definition obscures many of the variations in the practice and products of graffiti from the seemingly ubiquitous urban ‘tagging’ through to mural art, and political protest (see, for example, the work of Banksy: http://banksy.co.uk/out.asp ). This variation was nicely captured in a study by Rowe and Hutton (2012) involving an online survey of 773 New Zealanders (with additional focus groups for smaller numbers) who responded to questions about attitudes towards graffiti. As illustrated in Figure 9.3

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Optimize Criminal Law

  • John Hendy, Odette Hutchinson(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  We can see that it was D’s intention or that D was reckless as to whether life would be endangered by setting fire to the house. It is this factor that is relevant here – not the construction of the house or that no one was actually hurt.

  Now let us look at the case of

  Dudley (1989)

  , and trace the steps in the diagram below:

  A summary of the points we have covered in this section is:

  Arson

  We are now going to consider the offence of Arson. According to s 1(3) of the

  Criminal Damage Act 1971

  :

  An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged with Arson.

  It is important to note that Arson under s 1(3) is not a separate offence in its own right, but simply refers to where D commits an offence under s 1(1) or s 1(2) by means of fire (i.e. damaging the property by fire).

  Simple Arson is a triable-either-way offence punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Aggravated Arson is an indictable offence also punishable with a maximum term of life imprisonment.

  Actus reus

  The actus reus for the offence of Arson will depend on whether it is a simple or aggravated form of criminal damage.

  The added requirement here is that D must destroy or damage the property by fire. It is worth noting that in

  Miller (1954)

  the House of Lords held that Arson was capable of being committed by omission in cases where the fire had initially started accidently and the defendant had taken the decision to do nothing about the fire (such as by failing to call the emergency services).

  Mens rea

  If D is charged with simple criminal damage by fire, it must be shown that D intended to damage or destroy or was reckless as to destruction or damage. If D is charged with an aggravated offence by fire, it must be proved that D intended to endanger the life of another, or was reckless as to whether life would be endangered.

  Aim Higher

  Remember that Arson applies to all types of property, so could include a house, a garden fence, a handbag, a car or even somebody’s rubbish. So consider what we have discussed earlier in the chapter in relation to the definition of property, and apply this to the offence of Arson.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Forensic Psychology

  • David A. Crighton, Graham J. Towl, David A. Crighton, Graham J. Towl(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  34 Arson and Fire Setting: A New Conceptualisation Faye Horsley

  CHAPTER OUTLINE

  • INTRODUCTION
  • PART ONE
  • THE PSYCHOLOGY OF Arson AND FIRE SETTING
  • THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
  • PART TWO
  • THE CONTINUUM OF FIRE USE (COFU)
  • IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS
  • CONCLUSIONS

  INTRODUCTION

  Arson is a legal term, defined by section 1 (3) of the Criminal Damage Act as any deliberate damage to property caused by fire (Daykin and Hamilton, 2012 ). A multitude of terms relating to the misuse of fire appear in the psychological academic literature. In addition to Arson, some favour fire setting to describe a deliberate act, which is ‘not recreational in nature’ (Gannon and Barrowcliffe, 2012 , p. 2). Other terms, such as fire raising (Prins, Tennent, and Trick, 1985) and pathological fire setting (Geller, Fisher, and Bertsch, 1992), feature along with pyromania. The latter relates to a specific mental disorder but is often misused and misunderstood (Doley, 2003 ). The aforementioned terms are contested in part two of this chapter. Unhelpfully, they are not always clearly defined within the psychological literature and are used interchangeably. In this chapter, fire setting is the predominant term used because it describes a broader construct. However, at times, fire setting and Arson appear concurrently because this directly reflects the existing literature.

  Fire setting is a worldwide problem (Tyler, Gannon, Ó Ciardha, Ogloff, and Stadolnik, 2019). According to official statistics for England in the year ending December 2019 the fire and rescue service (FRS) attended just over 72,000 deliberate fires (Home Office, 2020a ) with 60 fatalities and 983 non‐fatal casualties reported (Home Office, 2020b ). Despite the scale of the problem, the literature base on Arson and fire setting is sparse, when compared with other offence types (Sambrooks and Tyler, 2019

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Criminal Law

  • (Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Straightforward Publishing Digital

    (Publisher)

  This offence is committed where a person destroys or damages property, either his own or another’s, intending danger to the lives of others. The danger to life must come directly from the damage to the property and not another source. This was illustrated in the case of Steer 1988 where the defendant had quarrelled with his former business partner and had gone to his bungalow in the early hours with a rifle. He woke the occupants by ringing the bell. They looked out to see who it was and he fired one shot in the direction of the occupants plus two further shots, hitting the window and the front door. The occupants were not injured and it was not suggested that the defendant had fired the gun directly at them.

  The defendant was charged under s1(1) and s1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act and also with possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. He appealed against his conviction under s1(2) arguing that the danger to life in this case was from the rifle shots and not damage to property. The House of Lords agreed and his conviction was quashed.

  Arson

  A person can be charged with Arson under s.1 (3) of the Criminal Damage Act, in addition to s.1 (1) and s.2 (2) if there is damage caused by fire. The maximum sentence for Arson is life imprisonment should it be committed in its aggravated form.

  Damage to computer programmes

  The Computer Misuse Act 1990, s.3 (6) provides that ‘For the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 a modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition’. Instead, a new offence of ‘unauthorised modification of computer material’ has been created by s.3 (1) of the Act.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book