Why do some people commit arson - Essay Example

? Interrogating the Motivational Factors of Arson Introduction Defining Arson Who Are Arsonists? The Making of Arsonists Preventing Arson Conclusion Introduction It has been observed that “arson is an extremely serious offence which has become an increasing problem in Britain and Amercia in recent decades’ (Clarke, 1996, p.107). Arson is a widespread form of disruption in the advanced Western countries. In the United Kingdom too, many cases of arson has recently been reported. Arson is not only legal crime but also hindrance for good governance. Arson occurs in both organised and individual forms. Some cases of collective arson are spontaneous and committed by loosely attached groups. On the other hand, there are cases of arson which involved well organised and strongly co-ordinated groups. Arson could also be either purposeful or purposeless. In other words, arson is essentially heterogeneous, i.e. there are many types of arson. And, different types of people involve in the crime of arson for different reasons. Arson has been identified as a threat to businesses in Britain, especially the insurance sector. Commercial buildings, school property and community assets in the United Kingdom are easily being prey to arsonists. It is also detrimental for the free growth of schools and communities. Also, the high human cost of deliberate firesetting is arming. Annually, there are nearly 100 deaths and 2,500 injuries caused by arson (Arson Control Forum, 2006). Moreover, it adds an extra burden on the emergency services and thereby putting an extra weight on the taxpayers. Who is Affected? Businesses Schools Communities Innocent Individuals Emergency Services Nature Defining Arson Arson is a difficult term to define. It is noted that “the confusion about the true extent of arson has been compounded by the different terminologies used to describe arson, terms that are not commonly understood by all stakeholders. The Fire Data Report (FDR1) form used to record primary fires attended by UK Fire and Rescue Services, had three categories which, when combined, made up the arson measure – deliberate, doubtful and malicious. The lack of a commonly understood terminology meant that local agencies with which the Fire and Rescue Service could potentially work in partnership did not always fully appreciate the extent of illegal firesetting and thus did not dedicate sufficient resources to address the problem” (Arson Control Forum, 2006, p.12). Arson is even different for various agencies which are in place to deal with issues related deliberate firelighting. The practices of recording, measurement and terminology used with relations to arson might vary from agency to agency. The general lack of common measure of arson has led widespread disparities between multiple agencies. From 2000 onwards, legally, the terms such as ‘malicious’ and ‘doubtful’ have paved way for the more accurate term ‘deliberate’ regarding arson. Types of Arson Vandalism Fraudulent arson Arson as Cover-up of Crime Revenge Mental Illness Youth Disorder Arson as Attack on People and Property Arson is one of the alarming problems the contemporary British society faces on. It is the predominant cause behind the fire in the business premises. Most of the major fires that occurred in the last fifty years are a result of arson, the rate would be around 45%. Rarely, a business thrives after an attack of arson as it results huge losses. Opportunist vandalism is the main form of arson prevalent in the United Kingdom. Increasingly, the number of arson attacks on schools too has become so common in the United Kingdom. According to Arson Prevention Bureau, there are on the average twenty arson attacks on schools. Arson Control Forum has observed that “those living in socially deprived areas are the most likely to be the victims of fire, whether accidental fires or deliberately set” (2003, p.9). The Extent of Arson as a Societal Problem About one in two fires from Arson Common cause of fire in business premises Loss of school records and other valuables Rehabilitation of arson offenders Who Are Arsonists? The classification of different types of firesetters is based primarily on both the mental state and motivations of the offender. It has been pointed out that “research carried out by the UK Home Office estimates that only 17% of individuals arrested for arson suffer from some form of mental disorder” (Almond, et.al., 2005, p.1). Therefore, one cannot simply dismiss all the arsonists as people with mental disorders. The fact is that arsonists involve all sort people. But, the concentration of arsonists could vary from place to place. And, if there are more arsonists traditionally in an area, more the chances for others, especially for the youngsters, to get reinforced by firesetting or involve in the crime of arson. Theorists have observed that “a large number of arsons charged by the police in England and Wales do not result in a conviction in court and that convicted arsonists are not necessarily representative of all arsonists” (Muller, 2008, p.2). It means the arsonists who have escaped from law could freely roam around and continue with their subversive acts. It also would add to making of more firelighters.Not only there are different types of arson, but also different types of arsonists too. For Instance, the arsonists who attack schools are observed to be in between the age of 10-18 years. Also, they are quite often come from the local area surrounding the school. In addition, arson on schools is extremely likely to be committed by an ‘insider’ that may be a student, ex-students and relatives or friends of (ex)-students. Consequences of Arson Loss of Innocent Lives Destruction of Private Property Destruction of Public Property Burden on Public Funds Burden on the Legal System The Making of Arsonists Broadly speaking, there are two ways of looking at arson, the individualistic perspective and the social perspective. In the former, perennial individual characteristics are explored in understanding arson and in the latter, social factors or environmental factors are pivotal. One thing must be remembered that there no definitive proven reasons behind arson. Doley has asserted that “to date there has been no definitive answer to the question of why people deliberately light fires” (2008, p. 1). Still, one can safely say that there are some common risk factors which are identified with firesetting behaviour. It is also a possibility that firesetting behaviour could be ignited by active interaction between social factors and individual stimulus. According to Almond, et.al., “firesetting has a long-standing link with mental disorder” (2005, p.1). There are lot of theorists who try to understand deliberate firesetting behaviour purely from the perspective of mental disorders. Moreover, it has been argued that “arson is also strongly linked to youth disorder and it is estimated that around 40% of all property and vehicle arson are linked to youth crime. Each year in England around 1,200 fires in schools are reported to the Fire and Rescue Service of which 60% are deliberate. Around a third of all deliberate school fires start during normal school hours which suggests that pupils set a significant number of school fires” (Arson Control Forum, 2006, p.6). This is coupled by the fact that a few of the culprits are identified and brought before the laws. However, to see arson, merely as law and order problem would be a huge mistakes. It is necessary to look at the various models and approaches to get a clear idea of the making of the arsonists and their backgrounds and thought process and the larger socio-economic processes which influence them. In the two tables given below, I would explain in brief the major streams in understanding deliberate firesetting behaviour which would provide different means to answer the question why people commit arson. The Action System Model (Almond, et.al., 2005, p.2). Modes of Action System Model Defining Features of Action System Model 1 Adaptive Mode Agent responds to external world in an opportunistic way, for instrumental gains 2 Expressive Mode Agent responds to internal psychological situation by arson. Action is symbolic and have emotional significance 3 Integrative Mode Involves attention seeking behaviour. The consequences could create alterations in the system and may cause physical danger to the agents themselves and others. 4 Conservative Mode Arson results from external source of frustration. It is self-defensive, either to restore dignity or prevent/repudiate loss. Approaches Explaining Deliberate Firesetting Behaviour (Doley, 2008, pp. 1-6) Time-Stable Individual Differences Social/ Environmental Theories Interaction Theories Existence of criminal traits in Individuals Lack of self-control and emotional stability Inability organise life for the future Impulsiveness, hostility, defiance and risk-taking Three Approaches a) Psychodynamic Interpretation Based on Freudian insights. Fire is related to enuresis and sexual desires Instinctual drives such as aggression and anxiety Adolescents with emotional disturbances Oral fixations Sexual Dysfunction in arsonists Sexual arousal associated with firesetting b) Psychiatric Disorders Firesetting as secondary symptom in a psychotic disorder Schizophrenia, alcoholism, personality disorders Substance abuse c) Neurophysiological Disorders Deliberate firesetting as a symptom of biological disorder Psychological atypical Brain dysfunction, chromosomal disorders, epilepsy and hypoglycaemia Based on social learning theory Criminal opportunity and rational choice Familiarity with the environment Target flexibility Peer group influence Lack of parental care Demographic features Geographical peculiarities Socio-economic backwardness Crime as self-help Relatively limited empirical support Combines key ideas of individual differences and social/environment theories Two Approaches a) Dynamic-Behaviour theory Psycho-social factors involved Different variables co-exist No single determinant factor b) Functional Analysis Model Tool of people who are not efficient to satisfy their various needs Individual’s attempt control the environment Desire produce change in the environment Role of reinforcement leads to repeated firesetting behaviour Socially isolated and inhibitive Preventing Arson Firesetting behaviour could be detected from the very beginning and tackled through proper channels. There are many simply and less-expensive ways in preventing arson. Twenty four hour security and sophisticated alarm systems are the best ways to deal with arson. Still, it could be too expensive for everyone to adopt. A proper housekeeping is one of the best strategies. Prevention of arson requires close collaboration between local governance bodies, government forums, businesses, insurance companies, police and fire and rescue services at all the levels. It was generally agreed by all stakeholders that “better local intelligence will lead to more accurate recording of arson by providing a backdrop against which coding decisions can be taken” (Office of the Deputy Prime minister, 2005, p. 15). Moreover, following good practices to prevent arson could also help to regenerate neighbourhoods and thereby future arsonists could be prevented from being arsonist at all. Conclusion When we try to understand firelighting behaviour, we have to take account of multiple factors, which are mutually dependent and closely inter-related. Theoretically, we need to be able to delineate behaviour leads to both initial attraction towards arson and what makes it to continue. Different schools have different frameworks to look at the deliberate firesetting behaviour. However, it is necessary to have a holistic approach towards analysing the firesetting behaviour which would combine the elements of individualist and social/environmental and interactive models. Bibliography Almond, L. et.al. (2005). Test of the arson action system model in an incarcerated population. Psychology, Crime & Law, Vol. 11,(1), pp. 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.liv.ac.uk/psychology/staff/LAlmond/Almond2.pdf Arson Control Forum. (2006). Annual report, pp. 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/154145.pdf Arson Control Forum. (2003). Annual report, pp. 1-27. Retrieved from http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/129708.pdf Clarke, M. (1996). Fraudulent arson: A war of position. Crime, Law and Social Change, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.107-131. Doley, R. (2007). Theoretical approaches to deliberate Firesetting behaviour, pp. 1-13, Retrieved from http://www.firefocus.net/docs/DELIBERATE_FIRESETTING_BEHAVIOUR.pdf Doley, R. (2003). Making sense of arson through classification. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 10(2), 346-352. Leong, G., B. (1992). A psychiatric study of persons charged with arson. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37(5), 1319-1326. Office of the Deputy Prime minister. (2005) Arson terminology. pp. 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/381228.pdf O'Sullivan, G., H, & Kelleher, M., J. (1987). A study of firesetters in the South-West of Ireland. British Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 818-823. Muller, D. A. (2008). Offending and reoffending patterns of arsonists and bushfire arsonists in New South Wales. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Australian Institute of Criminology, Jan, No.348, pp.1-6. Read More