Arson - A Spreading Cancer

• NCJ Number: 80701
• Journal: Australian Police Journal Volume: 35 Issue: 3 Dated: (July 1981) Pages: 164-174
• Author(s): M R O'Brien
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 11 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: Australia
• Note: Presented at a seminar on Arson, an education program conducted by the Insurance Institute of New South Wales, August 21, 1980.

Annotation

Types of arson, the motives of arsonists, and arson investigation procedures are discussed in reference to the situation in Australia.

Abstract

Arson is a growing problem in Australia, which is compounded by the difficulties of investigating and gaining a conviction in arson cases. There is an alarming increase in school fires, which are frequently the result of vandalism and theft. Domestic and business arson may be motivated by the intent to defraud an insurance company, to destroy evidence of stock shortages or financial misappropriation, or to replace old premises or machinery which are overinsured. Arson investigations are particularly difficult because of the problem of establishing that arson has occurred, not to mention the difficulty of accumulating enough evidence for a conviction out of an incident where evidence is likely to be destroyed. Because an arson investigation depends largely on the observation and impressions of the first officials on the scene, most often fire officers and uniformed police, these persons should be trained to observe and record signs of arson. Fire officers should also keep records of the fire brigade's actions, such as forced entry, so that any actions of an arsonist may be distinguished from those of the fire brigade. For example, the police in New South Wales rely heavily on their Scientific Investigation Section for compiling and interpreting arson evidence. Investigating detectives work in cooperation with the members of this scientific team to collect, interpret, and preserve any evidence of arson. Cooperation between police and insurance investigators can be particularly fruitful. Investigators should keep in mind that the burden of proof in criminal and civil courts differs, such that evidence insufficient for conviction in a criminal court may be sufficient to counter a fraudulent insurance claim in civil court. One footnote is provided.