NCJ Number
91756
Date Published
1983
Length
308 pages
Annotation
This study of patterns and strategies of arson investigation and prosecution was carried out in four major urban jurisdictions with large and varied arson caseloads: the Bronx (New York), Cleveland, Denver, and San Diego.
Abstract
Data collection included interviews with key actors in arson prosecution and investigation and examination of investigators' and prosecutors' files in 884 recent cases. Cases entering the process (i.e., fires determined to be arson) were studied in order to document arson caseflow from start to finish. Prosecutorial screening practices that decide which cases are declined and which are accepted for prosecution were analyzed, and factors associated with various case outcomes were identified. Findings indicate that prosecutors and investigators tend to give too little attention to the strength of evidence on incendiary fire origin, without considering the potential persuasiveness of that evidence in court. This suggests that the standards for evidentiary strength may be less stringent than the requirements for an effective court presentation. It was also found that only 7 percent of the randomly selected investigations included laboratory analysis of fire debris for the establishment of incendiary origin. The most critical and difficult aspects of arson investigation appeared to be identification of a suspect and linking the suspect to the fire. The investigator's decision to terminate a case without results or present it to the prosecutor seems strongly influenced by the presence of evidence directly linking the suspect to the fire. Systematic analysis of solvability factors and periodic review of all case files are recommended. Footnotes and tabular data are given. Study instruments are appended. (Author summary modified)