Introduction

In the USA, one in 100 adults has a self-reported lifetime history of deliberate firesetting and, for 38% of these firesetting persisted beyond the age of 15 years (Blanco et al, 2010; Vaughn et al, 2010). These statistics, findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), represent the first attempt worldwide to gauge the extent of intentional firesetting in a general adult population. If it is accurate, then, based on US population figures (US Census Bureau, 2010), there are roughly 1 million US adults who have deliberately set fires since age 15. In the UK the figure would approach 200 000 (Office for National Statistics, 2005). This chapter critically explores the current evidence base on the prevalence of firesetting behaviour and examines these new findings in the light of previous research on arson and firesetting among more highly selected offending and clinical populations. The key questions addressed relate first to the credibility of this new evidence, and the extent to which it supports the current knowledge base about the correlates, characteristics and psychopathology of arsonists and firesetters. Second, the chapter synthesises the current knowledge of the characteristics of those who deliberately set fires, and addresses the sociodemographic factors, psychopathological features, co-offending behaviours and developmental characteristics associated with deliberate firesetting (see Table 1.1). The chapter provides practitioners with state-of-the-art information on which to base clinical decision-making in this difficult and sometimes misunderstood area, and highlights gaps in knowledge, where future research is needed.

‘Arson’ is a legal term which defines the specific criminal act of intentionally or recklessly setting fire to property or wildland areas; an arsonist has, by definition, been convicted of the crime of arson. A firesetter displays a behavioural phenotype, the deliberate setting of fires, which may not have been prosecuted, for a number of reasons: the fire has been insufficiently severe to cause damage or has not been detected as a deliberate fire; it has not been possible to identify who set the fire; there is insufficient evidence to gain a conviction; or the young age of the firesetter. ‘Firesetting’ is therefore applicable to a wider range of people who deliberately set fires than the narrow legal definition represented by the term ‘arson’.

This chapter reviews in detail the long history of exploration of firesetters’ motives and underlines the importance of revenge, vandalism and excitement. However, as fire is inherently somewhat unpredictable, research has only recently begun to identify the centrality of firesetting behaviour in the prediction of future firesetting risk. The courts rightly value the identification of recklessness and intention to endanger life, and look to mental health professionals for guidance. We conclude that the future direction of clinical assessment and research should centre on behaviour, intention and the prediction of risk.

It has long been established that the typical firesetter is young and male (e.g., Lewis & Yarnell, 1951), but in reality firesetters are a heterogeneous group who cut across categories of gender, age and intellectual ability. The characteristics of these groups (men and women, juveniles and adults, those with and without intellectual disability) are worth detailed, individual attention to identify different approaches to risk assessment and treatment. The advantage of such groupings is that they emerge from naturally occurring dichotomies and require little conceptual elucidation. Historically, however, research has not followed this approach. A favoured approach to firesetter differentiation, one that drove a considerable amount of enquiry from the 1970s to the 1990s, has been motivational typing. Motivation can be defined as: ‘the driving force or forces responsible for the initiation, persistence, direction and vigour of goal directed behaviour’ (Colman, 2009). More recently, motivational classification has been viewed as flawed (Prins, 1994; Gannon & Pina, 2010), primarily because clear motives (such as revenge) are often confused with characteristics (such as institutionalisation), but also because entirely different cases of firesetting, such as fires endangering and not endangering life, can be conflated under one heading, such as revenge (Soothill, 1990).

This chapter critiques the chequered history of motivational classification, before examining firesetting behaviour through a prism of forensic risk. We seek to examine what the literature on firesetting recidivism and destructiveness can tell us about identification of the most dangerous firesetters. Throughout, we use the term ‘firesetting’, but when talking about individual studies of people convicted for their intentional firesetting behaviour or when referring to legal issues, we use the term ‘arson’.

Arson and other types of deliberate firesetting have major human and financial costs. People with mental disorder are disproportionately involved, and mental health and criminal justice practitioners are often required to assess, treat and manage this troubling group. The literature on juvenile firesetting is advanced relative to that on adult firesetting but around half of all deliberate fire-related damage is caused by adults, so it is surprising that professionals who want to learn more about adult firesetting have been so poorly served, with no specialist single-subject text until now. This volume aims to provide a fresh, focused look at firesetting, at its interface with mental health and mental disorder; and to bring together research evidence, theory and practitioner advice from multiple perspectives in one accessible volume.

Medico-legal interest in deliberate firesetting can be dated, at least in the United Kingdom, to 1829 when Jonathan Martin the York Minster arsonist was declared not guilty on the grounds of insanity (Balston, 1945). However, interest and research on the subject has been sporadic. Although this means that there are considerable opportunities for future research on the topic, it also means that the existing literature is limited. In the current volume we have taken a decision that individual chapter authors be allowed to develop their ideas using the whole of the available literature. This means that, inevitably, there is some repetition between chapters when referring to theories, definitions and so on. However, this approach has also facilitated a situation where individual chapters all stand on their own merits and without repeated reference to one another.

Terminology

Both firesetting and arson are commonly used terms in the literature. In brief, firesetting describes a particular behaviour (the deliberate setting of fires), while arson is a legal term that varies across jurisdictions in its precise meaning. Although we have preferred firesetting in our title, our approach in commissioning chapters has been to give authors the freedom to use their own preferred terminology, with the proviso that they specify and justify their own definitions.

In any society a small proportion of people with mental disorder present with behaviour that transgresses norms and violates the rights of others. Concurrently, the same people are often vulnerable themselves – to violence, to abuse or exploitation by others – or at risk of neglect or selfharm. High rates of mortality are well documented. Long conceptualised as a ‘forensic’ population, they interface between mental health and criminal justice systems, and require containment for a time in secure services to manage risk. In recent years a growing realisation has been that both protection of the public and the personal recovery of these patients must be championed by progressive, specialist clinicians. The label ‘forensic’ is an insufficient descriptor of this group of services which provide care and treatment for mentally disordered offenders, but also for a range of individuals who have not been diverted from the criminal justice system. Many clinicians who work in secure services do not self-identify as ‘forensic’ practitioners. This book provides an overview of the clinical populations, professions, assessment and treatment approaches used in a wide range of specialist secure services. It does so with the intent of providing the broadest possible perspective and so we have opted to title our book the Handbook of Secure Care.

The aim of secure services has shifted over time from primarily containment to active programmes of therapy and rehabilitation within care pathways, which aim for less restrictive placements through levels of security, leading to open and community care and reintegration into wider society. Concurrently, services have grown, with an increase in the past decade in the number of secure mental health beds in many countries. In the 21st century this expanding sector has seen new super-specialisms (i.e. subspecialties) whose more bespoke skills reflect the needs of diverse niche groups. This diversity is expressed across diagnostic boundaries, from mental illness and intellectual disability to autism, brain injury and degenerative disorders. Distinct secure care pathways have evolved for men, women, adolescents and the elderly. Dedicated facilities also now exist for younger adults and the pre-lingually deaf.

Introduction and aims

It is in all likelihood a by-product of human evolution, and of the complexity of the human brain and of society, that there have always been dysfunctional individuals who present overtly with a mental or behavioural disorder. They may cause significant harm and disruption to others, as well as to themselves. The most seriously affected depend on the concerted efforts of those around them to provide a safe and supportive environment, or risk neglect, rejection, homelessness and even persecution. Perhaps there always will be such problems in our communities, and thus a continuing need for secure mental health services, at least until science and society have advanced greatly from their present position.

Mentally disordered offenders and others presenting serious challenging behaviour are more often successfully categorised and labelled by local juridical and medical practice, and subject to other processes of social stigmatisation, than they are helped towards recovery. In many instances temporary or indefinite containment is achieved, which may serve to protect the public, but alone this acts as a poor substitute for well-being and social recovery. Those with knowledge of social exclusion and those who work closely with this group will grasp both the immense long-term cost of this failure to society, in terms of morbidity and mortality, crime, social dependency and family breakdown, and the strategic value of early and late intervention. Governments, however, need to be persuaded that the investment involved will reap longer-term benefits (Sugarman, 2012).

It is important to appreciate how the very human need for secure containment of disturbed individuals transcends boundaries of time and place, of gender, age and developmental stage, and of diagnostic and criminal justice status. Very similar challenges of care, control and rehabilitation are seen in different cultures and in different groups. While the international psychiatric community is moving on with active information-sharing on areas such as service models (Maj, 2008), a fundamental debate is just beginning about how societies around the world can best catalyse effective mental health service development (Sugarman & Kakabadse, 2011). We believe that local diversification in provision accelerates improvement in secure and forensic care, focused on service user need rather than organisational goals, with hospitals centred on the care and recovery of the most challenging and needy individuals, and on the promotion of excellence through teaching and research.

Introduction

In the USA, one in 100 adults has a self-reported lifetime history of deliberate firesetting and, for 38% of these firesetting persisted beyond the age of 15 years (Blanco et al, 2010; Vaughn et al, 2010). These statistics, findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), represent the first attempt worldwide to gauge the extent of intentional firesetting in a general adult population. If it is accurate, then, based on US population figures (US Census Bureau, 2010), there are roughly 1 million US adults who have deliberately set fires since age 15. In the UK the figure would approach 200 000 (Office for National Statistics, 2005). This chapter critically explores the current evidence base on the prevalence of firesetting behaviour and examines these new findings in the light of previous research on arson and firesetting among more highly selected offending and clinical populations. The key questions addressed relate first to the credibility of this new evidence, and the extent to which it supports the current knowledge base about the correlates, characteristics and psychopathology of arsonists and firesetters. Second, the chapter synthesises the current knowledge of the characteristics of those who deliberately set fires, and addresses the sociodemographic factors, psychopathological features, co-offending behaviours and developmental characteristics associated with deliberate firesetting (see Table 1.1). The chapter provides practitioners with state-of-the-art information on which to base clinical decision-making in this difficult and sometimes misunderstood area, and highlights gaps in knowledge, where future research is needed.

‘Arson’ is a legal term which defines the specific criminal act of intentionally or recklessly setting fire to property or wildland areas; an arsonist has, by definition, been convicted of the crime of arson. A firesetter displays a behavioural phenotype, the deliberate setting of fires, which may not have been prosecuted, for a number of reasons: the fire has been insufficiently severe to cause damage or has not been detected as a deliberate fire; it has not been possible to identify who set the fire; there is insufficient evidence to gain a conviction; or the young age of the firesetter. ‘Firesetting’ is therefore applicable to a wider range of people who deliberately set fires than the narrow legal definition represented by the term ‘arson’.

Arson and other types of deliberate firesetting have major human and financial costs. People with mental disorder are disproportionately involved, and mental health and criminal justice practitioners are often required to assess, treat and manage this troubling group. The literature on juvenile firesetting is advanced relative to that on adult firesetting but around half of all deliberate fire-related damage is caused by adults, so it is surprising that professionals who want to learn more about adult firesetting have been so poorly served, with no specialist single-subject text until now. This volume aims to provide a fresh, focused look at firesetting, at its interface with mental health and mental disorder; and to bring together research evidence, theory and practitioner advice from multiple perspectives in one accessible volume.

Medico-legal interest in deliberate firesetting can be dated, at least in the United Kingdom, to 1829 when Jonathan Martin the York Minster arsonist was declared not guilty on the grounds of insanity (Balston, 1945). However, interest and research on the subject has been sporadic. Although this means that there are considerable opportunities for future research on the topic, it also means that the existing literature is limited. In the current volume we have taken a decision that individual chapter authors be allowed to develop their ideas using the whole of the available literature. This means that, inevitably, there is some repetition between chapters when referring to theories, definitions and so on. However, this approach has also facilitated a situation where individual chapters all stand on their own merits and without repeated reference to one another.

Terminology

Both firesetting and arson are commonly used terms in the literature. In brief, firesetting describes a particular behaviour (the deliberate setting of fires), while arson is a legal term that varies across jurisdictions in its precise meaning. Although we have preferred firesetting in our title, our approach in commissioning chapters has been to give authors the freedom to use their own preferred terminology, with the proviso that they specify and justify their own definitions.

The future

In the UK the number of deliberately set fires fell year on year from 2002 to 2007 (the most recent annual figure at the time of writing); and the frequency of fatalities and non-fatal casualties has also decreased in recent years (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2009).