Arson Battle Gains as Tactics Improve
The Editor’s Opinion Page
The fire service always faces problems of one sort or another, not the least of which is the problem of arson. Indeed, arsonists had a boom year in 1978. National estimates for that year put the toll at 700 lives and $1.3 billion in property loss. Figures for 1979 are not yet available, but apparently they will be just as high, if not higher than 1978.
This, of course, should not be, as witness the number of cities—notably Dallas—that have cut their arson losses way down (see Fire Engineering, September 1979). What these cities did was to institute agressive and comprehensive anti-arson programs that worked. Since the methods varied from city to city, not all the successful programs can be adapted intact by other cities or communities. But a common thread runs through all the programs—a strong determination on the part of the authorities involved and the local citizenry to root out the evil that plagues them.
This is where all good anti-arson programs begin, but it is only the beginning. On the technical side, the program starts with the fire fighters at the scene of a suspected arson fire. It is their skill in recognizing the tricks—and the results—of an arsonist’s trade and the diligent protection of evidence that provides the first step for this criminal down the path to prison.
The second step, equally important, Finds the well-trained arson investigator sifting through physical evidence that may either be destroyed, concealed or altered in some way that makes its collection difficult, if not impossible. Because of this difficulty, an arson investigator should have readily available to him the services of a forensic laboratory and its technicians who have the scientific know-how needed to sift the “impossible evidence.”
The third step, swift prosecution, puts the package together. History shows that arson conviction rates fall far below other comparably serious felonies. And that in many areas of the country, arson indictments are few and convictions rare. But, happy to say, prosecutions and convictions are rising in this country and arson investigations are no longer “unfamiliar terrain to prosecutors.
Actually, what has developed over the last several years is t he concept of the “arson team” which includes the on-scene fire fighter, the arson investigator, the prosecutor from the district attorney’s office and the police. The increasing success of this “team” offers proof of its effectiveness. It is a concept that should be adopted by all involved in the arson fight.
Much has been written on the psychopathic arsonist, but arson for fraud is quite profitable and, until recently, encompassed little risk. It is this latter motive that accounts for most arson losses. Binning down the fraud fires, therefore, represents the biggest challenge to our “arson teams” and a challenge that all lire departments should give high priority to as we enter the New Year.
