ABSTRACT
In previous chapters I have looked briefly at the manifestation of fire in various forms, particularly when used unlawfully, its detection, and more closely at the motives, attitudes and management at the individual level of those who engage in fire-raising activities. As I draft this chapter fire’s potential for causing massive damage (and not a little controversy over who should foot the bill) is brought home to me sharply by the recent events at Windsor Castle. We know that the management of persistent fire-raisers presents considerable problems, particularly the question of how to predict further engagement in fire-raising by those who have already embarked upon it. Having said this, it is as well to recall, as indicated in Chapter 3, that arson constitutes a small percentage of all crimes of wilful damage in the UK; that said, it is also important to remember that a not inconsiderable number of cases of arson may go undetected. It is encouraging to note that only a small percentage of arsonists go on to repeat their crime, though, as with other criminal activity, we are not sure whether this is due to our interventive activities, or chance factors. However, it is also important to remember that a large proportion do go on to commit other offences. As indicated in Chapter 5, Sapsford et al. found that the reconviction rate of arsonists for any criminal offence was much higher than for other offenders
– 80 per cent for offenders serving long sentences and 44 per cent for those with medium-term sentences.1 In the survey of Social Enquiry Reports carried out by the Home Office Working Group on the Prevention of Arson, 13 per cent of the arsonists had been previously convicted of arson. As the authors of this report state: ‘This is not a significant rate of re-offending if compared with other offences such as burglary, vehicle crime and (non-arson) criminal damage.’2 However, before we take too much comfort from these figures, let us recall that arson can have the most devastating effects upon large numbers of victims and upon property. So far I have concentrated upon the perpetrators and said little, except en passant, about victims. The Working Group referred to above helps us to redress the balance; their views are worth quoting in full.
