Firesetting and firesetters in the Netherlands : Individualization, identification and treatment

Although firesetting can have severe negative consequences and knowledge on this offence and its offenders can contribute to much needed prevention, the firesetting phenomenon has received little attention in research. This study aims to contribute to the current body of knowledge by answering the central research question: How can Dutch firesetters be identified and individualized, and how can treatment be tailored to these persons? The first part places firesetting within a historical, contemporary and theoretical context. An extensive review of historical medico-legal literature regarding pyromania and firesetting from 1800 to 1950 shows that the views on firesetting as a culpable crime or an excusable expression of pathology changed over time, resembling a pendulum movement. In the first half of the nineteenth century firesetting was considered a pathological act caused by pyromania, whilst in the second half of that century punishment of firesetters was favoured over treatment; and in the first half of the twentieth century underlying pathology influencing firesetters was again emphasized. A more contemporary analysis of pre-trial forensic mental health assessed Dutch firesetters from 1950-2010 shows that having a mental disorder has become less important and the risk of being a danger to society more important in the forensic mental health advice given to the judiciary over time, indicative of a current societal movement emphasizing risk management more than treatment of mentally disordered firesetters. A theoretical background is provided for by the development of a multidisciplinary explanatory model of firesetting incorporating criminological, psychological and pathological perspectives to give insight in the question why a person sets fire. The second part comprises literature reviews on characteristics of firesetters, categorizations of firesetters and treatment of these offenders proving an up-to-date overview of the current body of knowledge. Results show that firesetters are a heterogeneous offender group that must be differentiated. In addition, although evidence based treatment is scarce, some promising interventions exist. These literature reviews constitute the starting point for the empirical study that is described in Part III. This empirical part is based on various populations of Dutch firesetters who underwent pre-trial forensic mental health evaluation and/or were convicted for firesetting. First, these populations are described and differences explained. Then, populations of firesetters are subdivided resulting in the following six subgroups: vandals, disordered firesetters (of which psychotic firesetters are a distinct component), disturbed-relationship firesetters, opportunists, desiring firesetters and multi-problem firesetters. Following, subgroups based on the population of convicted firesetters are compared based on characteristics that can aid identification of offenders by the police resulting in guidelines for both criminal investigation and interrogation. And finally,a new model of differentiated treatment of firesetters is introduced linking subgroups of firesetters to specific treatment needs and promising interventions. Differentiating firesetters can contribute to prevention of firesetting in two important ways. First, guiding the identification of firesetters by the police enhances the chance of apprehension. Second, enabling treatment to be tailored to the specific treatment needs of a firesetter enhances treatment efficacy