Distinguish common law to modern day arson

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

At common law, arson was limited to dwellings, requiring four elements: 1) The malicious 2) Burning 3) of a dwelling 4) of another. "Malicious" did not need to mean intent per se, only the creation of great risk that something would burn. At common law, any burning of a dwelling sufficed for an arson conviction. There was no requirement that the property be totally destroyed, only that it be burned (as opposed to, say, discolored by smoke) to some degree. Yet arson was limited strictly to dwellings, defined as any structure used as a residence on either a permanent or part-time basis. Not limited to homes, arson could have occurred if any outbuilding, barn, or similar structure was burned, so long as it was used as a residence in some form or fashion. The fourth common law element of arson limited the crime to the burning of others' property. It was not possible, therefore, to commit arson against one's own property. Arson laws have undergone substantial changes over the years, in response to the dual realities that (1) a person can maliciously burn much more than a single dwelling, causing extensive damage and perhaps loss of life; and (2) insurance companies could not possibly stay in business if their insured could burn their homes with little fear of reprisal.