Swift Prosecution A Must for Arson
features
The Editor’s Opinion Page
Over the last three months, we have discussed the marshaling of forces against arson—policemen, fire fighters, citizens, media and the insurance industry. But no matter how effective these forces are, in the long run the battle can only be won in the courts by effective prosecutors.
The biggest deterrent to arson for profit is swift prosecution. However, arson is one of the most difficult crimes to establish as a crime and correspondingly the most difficult to prosecute. As a consequence of this difficulty, we have heard complaints from arson investigators that prosecutors have given a low priority to the crime of arson. In turn, some prosecutors have blamed the investigators for not developing enough evidence to justify prosecution—even for overlooking evidence.
As is pointed out elsewhere in this issue, “arson investigations are unfamiliar terrain to most prosecutors for whom burglaries, robberies and homicides are second nature.” The answer to this problem is readily apparent. Somebody in the prosecutor’s office, an assistant prosecutor perhaps, should be assigned to work closely with fire investigators, to familiarize himself with at least the basics of fire investigation, and to be on ready call for whatever legal assistance investigators might need. By the same token, investigators should familiarize themselves with the legal requirements under which prosecutors must act. We then would have a two-way learning process that can only be beneficial to both parties.
Of further benefit to both parties would be a top-notch arson laboratory which is lacking in many parts of this country. The scientific analysis of evidence is frequently farmed out to private laboratories, a process that can be time-consuming at best and ineffective at worst.
High-quality photography is another valuable aid to the investigator and the prosecutor. Pictures of an arson crime scene tied in with a conclusive laboratory analysis of materials taken from the scene often spell the difference between success and failure in courts.
Adequate laboratory and photographic facilities are expensive and therefore hard to come by. They also receive a low priority on most fiscal budgets. But where a prosecutor lends his voice and prestige in a call for these facilities, action is frequently taken.
Ideally, the prosecutor should be the top man in a task force composed of the groups we mentioned at the top of this page. Call him chairman or whatever, but he should be running a coordinated program for the various groups, who in the past have frequently wandered off on their own.
