Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the Court that "[w]ere we to adopt the Government's expansive interpretation of section 844(i), hardly a building in the land would fall outside the federal statute's domain." (Supreme Court Case; "Oyez Project -- Jones v. United States."
Trends and Conclusions -- in each case over the last two decades that has reached the Supreme Court with an element of arson attached, we note that it is the nature of the arson that seems to trip the balance from slightly serious to quite serious. The high court takes arson very seriously, likely due to a number of factors: arson can rapidly destroy property at all levels, not just the intended victim, but the community as a whole. Fighting arson is an expensive societal cost, involving many people who often risk their lives in the pursuit of taming the fire. So many other criminal activities, too, can be attached to arson: burglary, breaking and entering, assault, attempted murder, and murder itself. Thus, for the Supreme Court, the idea of arson is as a pentultimate crime.
In the United States, arson remains a serious problem, it is the primary cause of all fires, and annually kills or maims hundreds of people, injures thousands more, and causes over $5 billion in damage to property. For many years, though, the general population saw arson as an insurance crime -- a paper loss with limited impact on anyone other than the insured and insurance companies. but, for the fire and police personnel who have been injured or killed protecting the citizenship from arson, the toll is even more serious. In the 1990s, arson fires, for instance, were responsible for almost twenty percent of all fire deaths, making it the second leading cause of fire deaths and ranking only behind careless smoking habits as the most deadly causation of fire (Hall, 1996).
Within the governmental system, then, there is a hierarchy of what needs to happen to mitigate these arson losses -- to diminish the fires themselves as well as decrease property and human loss. At the local level, for instance,...
This may mean additional investigative training, but also means the local District Attorney needs to take an ever harsher stance on the subject. Increased political support for arson control and abatement at all levels of government would enable state and local systems to hire more people, train those people better, and serve and maintain the very expensive vehicles. One must also never forget than in the days of city budgets being cut, a closer brand of synergy between police and fire departments would be quite helpful.
Thus, better information, more training and technology, and stronger linkages among public safety agencies must concur to reduce the incidence of arson within our communities. Without the commitment to education and safety; we will never succeed in mastery over this terrible, but all too common, criminal activity (Tridata, 1997).
REFERENCES
Clay v. United States. (2003). Cornell University Law School. Cited in:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1500.ZO.html
Decker, J. And B. Ottley. (2009). Arson Law and Prosecution. Carolina Academic Press.
Ford, J. (2005). Explosives and Arson Investigation. Mason Crest Publishers.
Gandolfi, J. (September 1, 2007). "Suspect in Burning Man Arson Decries Event's Loss
Of Spontaneity." The San Francisco Chronicle. Cited in:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/01/MN8LRTBBN.DTL
Hall, E. (1999). "The Science of Wildland Fire." NIFC.GOV. Cited in:
http://www.nifc.gov/preved/comm_guide/wildfire/fire_4.html
Hall, J. (1996). U.S. Arson Trends and Patterns. National Fire Protection Association.
Harris, T. (2009). "How Fire Works." How Stuff Works. Cited in:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/fire.htm
Tridata Corporation, (1997). Arson in the United States. Tridata Corporation and FEMA.
