This comment discusses prosecutions for arson, and more specifically the lack of successful prosecutions of "arson-for-profit," arson that is motivated by an intent to defraud an insurance company. The comment discusses the difficulties in proving arson under both common law and statutory schemes, and various ways to strengthen prosecution of arson fraud. Ultimately the comment concludes that cost may be the most significant obstacle to effective prosecution of the crime of arson, and the power of reform lies with the budget officers of the agencies and elected public officials.
Anne Winslow Murphy and Andrew Maneval,
Arson Fraud: Criminal Prosecution and Insurance Law,
7 Fordham Urb. L.J. 541
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol7/iss3/2