In the earlier blogs that I have done. I have discussed some of the various uses and techniques used to understand the psychology of crime in general. In this next series of blogs, I am going to discuss some specific offence types.
In some of the earlier blogs that I have written, I have written about the differences between the way the police examine offending and how psychologists do. The police focus on offence types that can be prosecuted. These give clear meaning and clarity to the law or laws that the offender has broken. However, psychologists must focus beyond the label of the crime.
As this blog is discussing arson, here is a hypothetical example of the difficulties psychologists face when only using labels of crime:
Joe Blogs was arrested at 2 am outside his workplace on April 1st 2020. He was found to have a canister of petrol, a box of matches and the keys to the building on is person. The workplace was on fire and destroyed by the blaze.
When the police look at this offence, it is simply categorised as arson. However, from a psychological point of view, it is a very broad category. There are too many unknown variables and we need further information. Joe Blogs might just enjoy setting fire to buildings and watching. He may have been seeking revenge for something. He may have robbed the place and set it alight to destroy any evidence.
Criminal and Investigative psychologists must think about, and examine, crime according to the behaviours which are carried out by the offender rather than the label of the crime. A man who burns a building down for pleasure is psychologically very different to a man who sets it alight for enjoyment. Therefore, one category of crime cannot differentiate between arsonists. However, it is still possible to draw some general conclusions about arsonists overall.
In general, arsonists are a fairly distinctive group of offenders. Fritzon, Lewis and Doley (2011) found that the majority of young arsonists are part of severely disrupted family environments. They found that young arsonists had experienced parental separation, illegitimacy, death of a close family member, or brought up in a children’s home.
Several researchers have found that arsonists are not likely to be conventionalist. They are most likely to have several convictions for property crimes and had spent a significantly longer time in institutions before the age of 14 than other types of offenders. They are also likely to be less intelligent and less attractive than other types of offenders (Hurley & Monahan, 1969; Rice & Harris, 1991).
The target of the fire is an important factor to consider. An arsonist may intentionally target building or places where they know there are not likely to be many people. Others may be focusing their intention on harming people. Some researchers have described arson as being focused on objects (Hill, Langevin, Paitich, Handy, Russon & Wilkinson, 1982) or people (Barnett, 1992; Lewis & Yarnell, 1951). They also found that arson had been defined as having a retaliatory as well as a non-retaliatory response (Pettiway, 1987). Other studies into arson have suggested that offenders had set the fires for some internal gratification. Whereas some had suggested that offenders would set the fire or external gain such as destroying evidence (Geller, 1992; Pettiway (1987); Sakheim, Osborn & Abrams, 1991; Feshbach, 1964).
Therefore, Canter & Fritzon (1998) designed a study to determine the psychological aspects of arson. They gathered police records of 175 solved arson cases where the offender had been convicted. The contents were examined by taking information from police and court records, interviews, and witness statements.
Canter & Fritzon found that the behaviours within arson could be identified as being targeted towards an object or a person. The Object category includes behaviours such as the fire being committed in public, theft of objects/goods, or materials being brought to the crime scene. The Person category includes behaviours which suggested that the person was of most significance to the offender at the time of the offence. This included variables such as threats made, arguments with others, or a suicide note is written.
They also found that the behaviours could be defined as being set for internal or external gains. The internal gain category means that the fire was set for a gain which was internal to the offender. This would include aspects such as the fire being set for revenge, enjoyment, or carried out at their own home. These were labelled Expressive gains. The external gains category reflects behaviours which are not emotional. These external gains would be behaviours such as theft or to conceal evidence. They labelled these Instrumental gains.
This allowed the researchers to say that there are 4 classifications of behaviour in arson. Instrumental Object would mean that the arson was carried out for an external gain and an object was targeted. Expressive Object would mean that the gain was internal to the offender and an object was targeted. Instrumental Person means that the gain was external to the offender and a person was targeted. Finally, Expressive Person means that the gain is internal to the offender and a person was targeted.
In-depth research such as allows one offence type to be differentiated according to various psychological components. Breaking down arson into these subcategories has meant that researchers can determine the most likely characteristics of offenders. Canter & Fritzon then went on to examine which types of individuals are most likely to carry out which set of behaviours. I have included a link to this research article below.
References
Barnett, W. (1992). Psychology and psychopathology of firesetting 1955-1991-A review. Fortschritte
Canter, D. & Fritzon, K. (1998) Differentiating arsonists: A model of firesetting actions and characteristics. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 78-96.
Fesbach, S. (1964). The function of aggression and the regulation of aggressive drive. Psychological Psychiatry, 1, 185-212.
Fritzon, K., Lewis, H., & Doley, R. (2011) Looking at the characteristics of adult arsonists from a narrative perspective. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19(3), 424-38.
Geller, J. L. (1992). Communicative arson. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 43, 76-77.
Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E. & Cormier, C.A. (1991) Psychopathy and violent recidivism. Law Hum Behav 15, 625–637.
Hill, R., Langevin, R., Paitich, D., Handy, L., Russon, A. & Wilkinson, L. (1982). Is arson an aggressive act or a property offence? A controlled study of psychiatric referrals. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 27, 648-654.
Hurley, W. & Monahan, T. M., 1969) Arson: The criminal and the crime Hurley, TM Monahan Brit. J. Criminology 4-16
Lewis, N. D. C. & Yarnell, H. (1951). Pathological firesetting (pyromania). In R. G. Vreeland and M. B. Walker (1978) (Eds), The Psychology of Firesetting A Review and Appraisal (National Bureau of Standards, grant no. 7-9021). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1980.
Pettiway, L. E. (1987). Arson for revenge: The role of environmental situation, age, sex and race. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 169-1 84.
Sakheim, G. A., Osborn, E. & Abrams, D. (1991). Toward a clearer differentiation of high-risk from low-risk firesetters. Child Welfare, 70, 489-503.
Photograph by Rowan Freeman https://unsplash.com/photos/QEXRDPjAAfk
