Peering into the Mind of an Arsonist, Science or Sham?
By Scott Fischer and Ed Nordskog, SWAIT Contributors
The article, Delving into the mind of an arsonist by KNEWS, appeared recently on the internet. While some news articles can be thin on the facts of the case, there is always something to learn from studying your field of expertise. We urge all investigators to stay abreast of current information, trends, and studies involving the field of arson, serial arson, and serial wildland arson. Continually educate yourself in your profession so you can be a better investigator and expert witness. Be cautioned to look at everything with skepticism and do not just blindly accept the details as accurate facts. In the article you will see we do not agree with some of the opinions of the cited experts, but there is some teachable information contained here.
First and foremost, the title of the article is "internet clickbait". "Delving into the mind of the arsonist,” one would expect a deep analysis by multiple experts looking at a very complex subject. But it is not. The article perpetuates the prevailing myth about somehow "getting into the mind" of an offender. The title itself is generic and deceiving as it lists the word "arsonist” and does not differentiate between an “arsonist”, "serial arsonist" or "serial wildland arsonist", all of which are very different sub-types in the complex world of arson. The common major flaw of most research in "arson" is the researchers classify all the many sub-types of arson and serial arson under a single category of "arsonist". This leads the public and many investigators to falsely assume all arsonists are wired in the same manner. They are not.
The article is focused on the actions of a 27-year-old Cypriot man who was apprehended after being suspected of multiple wildland arson fires due to "personal disputes". If true, based on setting multiple fires in the wildland, he would be considered a serial wildland arsonist. Those are the only verifiable facts in the article, as the rest is filled with opinions from a criminologist and a psychiatrist.
A professor of criminology is cited who provides the standard answers to the more common motives for arson and not recognizing the differences between the many sub-types. The same professor shows their lack of knowledge in the field when they include the term "Pyromania" in the motives section. It is our position no credible arson investigators, analysts or profilers should use the term “pyromania,” as it is a word created by the psychiatric community decades ago, with almost no real-world case information to back it up. Today, many psychiatrists disagree "pyromania" is a real thing. As a professional investigator, the word should be stricken from your vocabulary.
A doctor of psychiatry is cited in the article and gives out the standard, overly vague assessment of "arsonists"...."difficulty with self-restraint and impulse control, low self-esteem, and a desire for intense emotional experiences..." These descriptions have been used for decades and are so generic they could fit most humans at various times in their life. They are useless in classifying offenders and even more useless when attempting to identify and apprehend a serial arsonist.
The doctor of psychiatry believes more research and education for the public will "prevent arson". We wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment. Arson, like sexual assault and serial murder is generally a lone, predatory crime that occurs at the whim of the offender, who can choose their victim at their convenience. It is impossible to "prevent" these predatory crimes. Based on case studies, serial arsonists can light from 20-200 or more fires in their life. Since serial arsonists often offend their entire lives, sometimes going dormant for days, weeks, months, and even years, the single best way to "prevent" arson is to incarcerate them. Incarceration is an effective "arson prevention" tool that will at least prevent fires for a period from the offender. When a serial arsonist is identified, the best plan for your investigation is to attempt to prosecute them for every single act of arson they have committed.
In the article, the criminologist states the role of the courts is important as they need to impose stricter sentences as a deterrent. Despite the destructive potential and cost to society, serial wildland arsonists, and arsonists in general, tend to get somewhat light sentences in court.
The article mentions the suspect confessed to the crimes and stated they started the fires over personal disputes. With out further information, we can only speculate as to the actual motive for the crimes. Is this just an excuse the suspect used to justify or downplay their crimes or do they have a connection with the victims? Examining motive too early can be detrimental to an investigation by potentially sending investigators down the wrong path, identifying the wrong suspect and expending limited resources. Motive cannot be guessed. In many cases, motive may only be know if the suspects tells a reliable witness or investigators. Investigators can focus on motive once a suspect is identified and being interviewed. One exception for examining motive too early is looking for a victim connection. Serial wildland arsonists generally do not have a connection to the victim but could. Any connection between the victim and suspect could assist investigators with identifying a suspect earlier in an investigation. The primary goal of an unbiased investigation is to follow the evidence. Regardless of motive, the suspect committed acts of arson and should be charged appropriately. Understanding a person’s motive(s) is not required to be known to prosecute the crime of arson. Although, knowing a suspects motive may assist in the intent portion of many arson charges.
Every case is different, every arsonist is different, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem. In your work, continue to educate yourself, train to be a better investigator, and consult with people who are true experts in this field.