Underneath
The practice of criminal profiling is frequently seen as being
applicable to crimes of serial arson, although there appears to be little
empirical research that examines serial arson offense behaviors in the specific
context of criminal profiling. The present study seeks to develop an empirical
model of serial arsonist behaviors that can be systematically linked with
probable offender characteristics. Analysis has produced a model of offense behaviors
that identify four discrete behavior patterns, all of which share a
constellation of common nondiscriminatory behaviors. The inherent behavioral
themes of each of these patterns are explored in this chapter with discussion of
their broader implications for our understanding of serial arson.
The practice of and research into criminal profiling has predominantly been
focused on crimes of sexual violence, such as murder and rape. Although comparatively
little research has actually been developed, profiling is nonetheless frequently
cited as being also applicable to the investigation of arson crimes. six broad motive categories for arson.
The first category identified, vandalism,
is described as being motivated by wanton destruction. Offenders are typically
juveniles and their crimes demonstrate little sophistication. The second
category, excitement, deals
with motives of psychological stimulation and includes crimes committed for
histrionic/ heroic desires, to satisfy sexual fetishes, or as a result of
psychotic delusion. Offenders in this category tend to be older and such crimes
are typically characterized by perpetrators remaining at the crime scene,
engaging in masturbation, and the ignition of low-risk targets such as
dumpsters and vegetation. The third category, profit, deals with arsons motivated by some material gain and
frequently involves fraudulent insurance claims by the offender–victim. As the
title implies, the fourth category, revenge,
is committed “in retaliation for some injustice, real or imagined, perceived by
the offender”. A prior relationship between
the victim and the offender typically characterizes these offenses and there is
often evidence of premeditation and planning combined with the use of
accelerants. Offenders are typically adult males in blue-collar jobs. The fifth
category, crime concealment, identifies
arson as a means of concealing the evidence of another crime. The sixth and
final category, extremist,
refers to fires that are set to further some social, political, or religious
objective.
The first pattern, labeled instrumental
person, is described as being the result of some form of dispute between
the offender and victim and is reminiscent of a revenge motivation scenario.
Characteristics of this pattern include a pattern of threats and arguments
between the offender and victim, premeditation in the commission of the
offense, and a specific target selected for attack. The second pattern, labeled
instrumental object, is an
opportunistic style of offense with no coherent purpose for the commission of
the crime. Behaviors characterizing this pattern include theft of property and
fire occurring in an external, visible location typically on a weekday. This
pattern was found to be strongly associated with multiple juvenile offenders. The
third pattern entitled expressive
person is characterized by some form of histrionic goal of the offender
with fires being set to “alleviate distress by seeking attention”. Characteristic
behaviors in this pattern include the presence of suicide notes with the
offender frequently presenting as a victim. The final pattern, labeled expressive object, is distinguished
by multiple offenses believed to be committed to achieve some form of emotional
relief. Behaviors inherent to this pattern include multiple offenses being
perpetrated on hospitals, businesses, or public buildings with offenders being
triggered into offending by a nonspecific event and remaining at the crime
scene to observe the fire.
Irrespective of the crime modality, the majority of profiling studies
fail to recognize and account for possible commonalties in criminal behavior. That
is, previous studies typically employ categorical typologies that do not allow for
the discrimination of a specific pattern of offense from behaviors that may simply
be typical of the crime. Additionally, these categorical constructs typically
do not provide any impression of the overall relationship between varying
categories or any possible co-morbidity of motives between patterns. These are
important issues because the actual practice of profiling for criminal investigation
purposes does not adopt such static approaches. The published literature on
which the practice is supposedly based does not concord with these rigid
constructs.
A number of interesting theoretical implications emerge when considering
the significance of the behaviors located in the common behavior cluster. The
common presence of planning and evidence in the commission of most offenses is
at odds with the basic tenet of the organized–disorganized behaviour dichotomy.
The main premise of the dichotomy is the categorical distinction of behaviors
by their offense sophistication. The presence of planning is suggestive of an
organized offender with its absence indicative of a disorganized offender.
However, given that planning is located in the common behavior cluster
indicates that generally all serial arson offenses will typically involve this,
which therefore questions the validity of such a categorical distinction.
Similarly, the common presence of evidence at most serial arson crime scenes is
not congruent with the concept of the organized–disorganized dichotomy, which
cites the detection of evidence as a key indicator of a disorganized offender.
The constellation of behaviours suggests that the inherent psychological
nature of serial arson is a somewhat brazen crime that does not concord with
common behavior patterns observable in other crime modalities, such as murder
or rape, in which offenders are typically deterred by a greater degree of risk
of apprehension or a diminished capacity to complete their crime.
The perpetrators of such crimes in the current sample tend to be foreign
nationals who are bilingual and consequently tend to possess a noticeable accent.
They also hold a certain degree of financial stability because they possess and
use a vehicle for transport. Finally, burning the target does not appear to
hold any deeper psychological meaning other than to inflict harm; consequently,
they typically decamp from the crime scene once the fire has been lit. Consequently,
an offender in the anger pattern
may not actually harbour any previous animosity toward or grievance with the
target, but may instead attack because of some perceived familiarity or
recognition. This distinction is further highlighted because the anger pattern describes the actions of
serial arsonists, whereas the revenge motive and instrumental person are both
primarily conceived as relating to a non-recidivistic offense that finds expression
in a very specific target. Both types of offenders exhibit a behavior pattern
involving the expression of an unfocused internal rage on a target. The sexual pattern embodies an offense style in which the
offender associates the ignition of fires with sexual excitement and/or
gratification. The most distinguishing behavioral element of this pattern is
evidence of sexual activity by the offender at or near the crime scene. The
common targets in this offense pattern are state-owned (public), easily
accessible premises, such as trash receptacles, post boxes, public toilets, or
any other publicly accessible facility. These arson attacks are relatively minor
in size and do not typically escalate into major fires that cause serious
destruction.
The key feature is the holistic depiction of all potential behavioural
patterns, both common and discriminatory, that are not inherently formulated on
the inference of potential motives. This empirically based model serves as a
practical tool for the practice of profiling in the context of a serial arson
crime series because behaviours can be assessed using the model to provide
insight into both the style of the offense and the offender’s unique personal
characteristics.
Acknowledgements:
1. Criminal
Investigations – Crime Scene Investigation.2000
Komentarze
Prześlij komentarz