Deliberate fire setting - Intentional? Reckless? Behavioural? A fine line indeed

Arson is a very emotive word and one commonly used and abused to sell papers and TV programmes: It grabs the attention and the imagination. It conjures up images of steely connivance and heartless villainy.
Arson is in fact the offence of deliberate, intentional or reckless fire setting that results in injury or criminal damage.

But the difference between intentional, reckless and accidental acts is often difficult to assess because it takes only a slight difference in circumstances to tip the balance in favour of either. A candle placed too close to the side of a TV set - is it a deliberate, reckless or ignorant act?

In the world of criminal law it is not too difficult a decision because the burden of proof is one of "Beyond reasonable doubt" and persons who commit an act of arson rarely do it in a manner of careful planning. It is a crime often of passion and anger. The "Red mist" negates all reasoning and the assumption is often made that the fire will destroy the evidence anyway.
Like all crime the influence of drink or drugs is generally not considered relevant in terms of guilt; A person who abuses drink or drugs is held to have done so knowingly thus they are fully responsible for any act done as a result. But what about drink and drug addiction? is it rational?  Is it reasonable that such persons have control and responsibility?

The fine line between intent and recklessness is particularly interesting. For example: Two youths were seen on CCTV to be playing with something at the back of a bus and shortly after they left the bus there was a fire that destroyed the bus.They were charged with intentional arson and with intent to endanger life (more about that subject another time).
They admitted they had been playing with a lighter to see if chewing gum stuck to the back of the seat shell in front of them would burn. Their intention was to burn the chewing gum. Not the bus. It was proved that, from their description of the behaviour of the chewing gum under flame, from the ability (unknown to the youths) of chewing gum to sustain combustion in an undramatic manner and the fact that they had left the bus only because it was actually their off stop they they had indeed not intended for the bus to burn. They were convicted of reckless arson. Intentional arson would have carried a custodial sentence.

Juvenile fire setting behaviour is widely held to be an aberration that is understood, accepted and can be treated very successfully. This is a good thing but is it right to regard it as entirely age related? Many persons beyond teenage years have mental disabilities that render their understanding and perceptions to be similar to juvenile years. It seems highly appropriate that such persons should be considered in the same way as juveniles. Indeed such persons are entitled to the services of an "Appropriate Adult". Perhaps the mental ages of the youths in the above example could have been assessed. It would not have changed the result of the trial but may have further altered the punishment.

In civil matters the burden of proof is one of probability. Fraudulent arson is very difficult to prove and many Insurance agencies wisely engage specialist teams or agencies to tackle it. Of course if the evidence available is strong enough for criminal charges then the matter is reported to the Police for action. But where the evidence is less clear then it would seem a very heavy onus to lay upon a policyholder that "on the balance of probabilities" he or she set the fire or caused the fire to be set.
In reality, and with the assistance of a judges ruling, the balance of probability for fraudulent arson has been set somewhere between the two.

And what about contributory negligence? I examined a few of the same fleet of buses from the above incident in the same company and found nearly all had cigarette lighter damage to the rear of the seat shells at the back of the buses. Some of the holes created had been filled with chewing gum and some by epoxy resin filler. Clearly the company were aware of the problem but had taken no action to negate it. This was an incident waiting to happen. If it had resulted in a death then I for one would have been making some representation to the coroner in regard to the clear awareness and lack of action by the transport company and bus manufacturer.

PS - I wrote to the company expressing my concern and received no reply!