Individuals convicted of arson in the UK may be defined as dangerous offenders under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 if the court assesses them to pose significant risk of serious harm to members of the public by repeat offending. Under the Act, arson is designated a ‘serious specified offence’: one of a range of violent or sexual offences that would otherwise attract a maximum determinate sentence of 10 years or more. The major corollary of the formal codification of the category ‘dangerous offender’ is that those convicted of a ‘serious offence’ such as arson may only be released ‘when it is considered safe to do so’ (Sentencing Guidelines Council, 2004). The responsibility for determining dangerousness lies, of course, with the court. However, Prins (Reference Prins2005) notes that the courts are generally inclined to call for psychiatric reports in all but the most apparently straightforward cases. Psychiatric studies commonly find high levels of mental disorder in firesetters (e.g. Reference RixRix, 1994; Reference Puri, Baxter and CordessPuri et al, 1995) though, notably, Home Office research (e.g. Arson Prevention Bureau, 1998) suggests that only 17% of those arrested for arson have a mental disorder. It is possible that, as Prins (Reference Prins2005) further claims, even in apparently straightforward cases of arson as part of an insurance fraud there may well be an underlying psychiatric disorder. Clearly, then, firesetting and assessment of firesetter dangerousness is relevant to psychiatrists.

Identifying dangerousness in firesetters is problematic. Brett's (Reference Brett2004) review of the literature on dangerousness and recidivism among firesetters argues that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that firesetters are, as a group, dangerous recidivists. The review found differences in recidivism rates across studies from 4 to 60%, and notes that these vary across the populations studied, including different rates among the mentally ill, criminals and by gender. These figures are not especially helpful when assessing an individual patient, and Brett calls for further research on subgroups of arsonists. Some progress has been made. For example, an ‘action system model’ (Reference Canter and FritzonCanter & Fritzon, 1998; Reference Fritzon, Canter and WiltonFritzon et al, 2001; Reference Almond, Duggan and ShineAlmond et al, 2005) has been proposed to explain arson in relation to internal and external motivations for and targets of firesetting. The current authors have examined gender differences, confirming higher levels of psychiatric disturbance in female firesetters (Reference Dickens, Sugarman and AhmadDickens et al, 2007).

One area related to assessment of dangerousness in arsonists that has received little attention is the views of psychiatrists who may routinely come into contact with them. Clearly more research is needed on arsonists themselves, but we wanted to examine which historical variables psychiatrists believe are best able to predict future dangerousness.

Method

A questionnaire was devised comprising 11 candidate historical variables (Table 1) to indicate dangerousness in firesetters. Candidate variables were identified from the literature and were informed by the data collection phase of a previous study (Reference Dickens, Sugarman and AhmadDickens et al, 2007). Questionnaires were circulated at a national forensic psychiatry conference. Participants were requested to indicate on a four-point Likert scale how dangerous they rated each variable in terms of risk to others in the future. The four points on the scale were: 0, not dangerous at all; 1, slightly dangerous; 2, moderately dangerous; and 3, highly dangerous. Participants were also requested to state their position and profession.

Table 1.

Mean rating of candidate dangerousness variables by psychiatrists (n=54)

Dangerousness variables	Mean	s.d.
An apparent intention to endanger life	2.87	0.34
Setting fire to an occupied building	2.74	0.52
Apparent premeditation to firesetting	2.43	0.72
Using fuel or accelerants	2.37	0.71
Meeting ICD–10 criteria for pathological firesetting (pyromania)	2.35	0.71
Setting fire on more than one occasion	2.17	0.58
Setting fire at multiple points at one site	2.13	0.70
Setting more than one fire in a short period of time	2.00	0.61
Failing to call fire services after the fire takes hold	1.76	0.87
Making no attempt to extinguish the fire	1.76	0.70
A fire which causes extensive damage	1.67	0.75

Results

Completed questionnaires were received from 54 participants including consultant forensic psychiatrists (n=15), consultant psychiatrists (n=11), other non-consultant psychiatrists (n=17) and others (n=11). Five of the others had not indicated their job role and the remaining six specified that they were lecturers but did not indicate their professional status. In order to identify any systematic difference in ratings based on experience or status, we used the Mann-Whitney U-test to test for statistically significant differences between: (a) consultant forensic psychiatrists and other participants; and (b) between all consultants and all other participants; and (c) those whose status or profession was unclear and all others. No significant differences were found on ratings of any of the 11 variables for any of the groups.

Table 1 shows, in descending order, the mean (s.d.) rating for each candidate dangerousness variable. Figure 1 shows a dendrogram detailing the agglomeration of variables from the hierarchical cluster analysis. Examination of the dendrogram and agglomeration schedule suggested an inconsistent increase in the dissimilarity measure after eight combinations of variables, suggesting the clustering process should be stopped one stage prior to this, at which point three clusters of variables were apparent (Box 1). In addition, the sample was randomly divided into two groups and the cluster analysis repeated on each with similar results.

Discussion

We investigated 54 psychiatrists’ and others’ views on dangerousness related to arson. We found some evidence to suggest that there may be three clusters of historical variables that reflect psychiatrist's perceptions of the level of future dangerousness of firesetting behaviour. These are listed in Box 1.

Participants reported that the previous setting of fires that caused extensive damage was the item that they rated lowest in terms of indicating future dangerousness. This probably reflects the unpredictable nature of fire itself, and how a firesetter's intention about the seriousness of the fire may not correlate with its outcome. Conversely, participants rated as most indicative of dangerousness the item ‘intention to endanger life’, followed by setting fire to an occupied building.

Fig. 1.

Dendrogram of clustering of firesetter dangerousness variables (using Ward's method).

Much arson research concentrates on further classification of firesetters. This is laudable, and is undoubtedly necessary. However, those involved with arsonists additionally require tools to assist in rating future dangerousness irrespective of their category.

Conclusion

When asked to report on the relative importance of historical variables in the assessment of arsonists for future dangerousness, psychiatrists appear to place greatest emphasis on two particular items: apparent intention to endanger life and setting fire to occupied buildings. The extent of damage caused by previous fires has less bearing on perceptions of future dangerousness.

Declaration of interest

None.