Oblation is Entirely Cred while the People Benefits from Low Offence - Essay Example

ESSAY Critiсаl еvаluаtion of the imрасt of the rесеntly рublishеd ‘Drug Тrеаtmеnt Оutсоmе Rеsеаrсh Study’ NAME: UNIVERSITY: COURSE: INSTRUCTOR: DATE: © 2013 INTRODUCTION Over a long period of time, research findings have variously indicated that individuals are involved in criminal activities due to a number of reasons (e.g. Canter & Youngs, 2009). For one reason or the other, the same offenders are liable to re-offend sooner or later after intervention measures have been successfully instituted. Researchers for example, Davies & Beech (2012) have identified a myriad of causes responsible for these offending behaviours both in first-time offenders and repeat-offenders but all tend to agree on one commonality: “drugs and substance misuse contribute more towards criminal activities on a larger scale”. This position tends to draw a lot of attention from researchers (e.g. Davies & Beech, 2012) who have gone ahead to explore the various outcome behaviours exhibited by drug users and addicts after undergoing treatment interventions. Most of their study findings and reviews have been archived in major government documents such as the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) for UK’s Home Office; the Drug Abuse Reporting Programme (DARP) in US; and the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) as well as the Treatment Outcome Prospective Study (TOPS) as reported by Sapouna et al (2011). All these studies carry reports of possible impacts of treatment measures given to drug users and abusers. The foregoing is clearly demonstrated by the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) report, which attempts to give an account of the changes observed in ‘offending behaviour after drug-misusers’ have gone through a treatment session. It is on the basis of the findings of the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) that the present essay is written. The essay on the one hand seeks to describe and critically evaluate the imрасt of the recently published findings of the said study. Firstly, the essay gives a descriptive analysis of the findings of the study, followed by a critical evaluation of the resident impacts and finally presents the concluding remarks. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS Almost all studies exploring the relationship between offending behaviours in individuals and substance use, a very intimate association has been reported (for instance, Canter & Youngs, 2009). Individuals who misuse illegal drugs and other forms of substances have a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal activities than those who don’t (McSweeney et al, 2008). Similarly, those who have been hooked into drugs find it hard to abstain and end up implicating themselves with more crimes as illustrated in extant literature (Davies & Beech, 2012). Luckily, more studies have been conducted on other rehabilitative measures apart from prisons and have reported a raft of other successful treatment interventions. These new treatment interventions are reported by Holloway et al (2005) to result in acceptable changes in offending behaviour, called “outcomes” which seem to be saving a good majority of the population that would otherwise be lost to drugs. This hopeful position is particularly emphasised by the findings of the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS), among others in major states of the world. The present essay describes the findings of the DTORS report using the format outlined below. (i) Drug misuse and Crime From the recently published Drug Treatment Outcome Research Study (DTORS), it is clearly indicated that there is a very strong relationship between drug misuse and crime (McSweeney et al, 2008). This relationship is similar across all members of the society and gets stronger depending on the kind of drug misused. Take for example those people misusing lesser serious drugs like Cocaine and probably Cannabis sativa, their involvement in crime is not as serious as in those misusing hard drugs like Heroine (Donmall et al, 2009). This argument is strongly supported by study findings reported by Canter & Youngs (2009) who argue that people misusing drugs may be involved in petty crimes like shoplifting in order to be able to continue acquiring the drugs. As the misusers graduate into misusing hard and expensive drugs like heroine, they then find themselves progressing into hardcore criminals to sustain their expensive lifestyles. In this respect, they find themselves involved in burglary and robbery which seem to have huge returns in monetary terms. The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) continue to add that these drug and substance abusers are more exposed to arrests as they constantly find themselves on the wrong side of the law. In this claim, I’m totally in agreement based on the findings of Donmall et al (2009) who indicate that a common “problem associated with drug misuse is constant arrests of the perpetrators, thus raising the economic burden upon the user and the society at large”. The problem is further compounded by the fact that first-time offenders tend to re-offend soon after being released from correctional facilities such as the prisons which are variously considered as unfit methods of dealing with drug users (Canter & Youngs, 2009). In fact, one study by McSweeney et al (2008) demonstrates that use of prisons as intervention measures for drugs and substance misuse serves to make the offenders more criminals, and expose them to health hazards. This is especially so for drug users who abuse drugs through injections and hence end up sharing needles and syringes in the prison cells (Davies & Beech, 2012). The use of correctional facilities has therefore been highly discouraged in the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) but instead advocates for the use of other treatment interventions. Apart from the foregoing types of drug misuse: crime interactions, the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) also mentions other unrelated scenarios. It is common for an offender to be found in possession of drugs not for the purposes of consuming but for selling. Harper & Chitty (2005) in the DTORS report refers to this relationship to as “dug selling; peddling; or trafficking” probably for the purposes of getting upkeep money. This is a very serious offender in the eyes of the law because he or she can destroy a whole generation. The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) report fails to provide treatment interventions for this category of offenders. Even other studies on drug treatment outcome have fallen short solving this predicament. (ii) Drug misuse, Gender and Crime In reporting on the key findings of the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS), Davies & Beech (2012) further illustrated the relationship between substance misuse and crime in terms of gender. Here, it was observed that significant differences existed between men and women in the types of crimes they committed (Van Wormer, 2010). More women were involved in lesser serious crimes such as shoplifting than men. Conversely, the reported further indicated that men were more likely to get involved in more daring crimes like burglary and robbery than women (Holloway et al, 2005). While more men than women were involved in selling drugs, the DTORS also noted that a larger proportion of the women studied indicated to have engaged in prostitution as compared to men probably for acquiring upkeep money rather than to buy drugs. This behaviour has been extensively mentioned in other outcome studies that portray women as having limited alternatives when it comes to solving their “drug-related problems” (Van Wormer, 2010). From the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) report, a deviation from the mainstream reporting by other such studies is noticed. All the studies have maintained that crime and drug misuse are closely related but DTORS deviates from this observation by stating that: “more than half of the clients had not committed any of the serious crime before their admission into programme while another three-quarters of the clients had not sold drugs during the same period (Van Wormer, 2010). This argument in my view tends to be lopsided because virtually all studies implied by extant literature are on the contrary (Donmall et al, 2009). I for once tend to disagree with this position because clearly, drug abuse begets more criminal behaviour. (iii) Drug misuse, Age and Crime The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) further reported that there were significant differences in the types and intensities of crimes committed by young drug misusers compared to the adult misusers. This information is in agreement with that found in study indicating that young people commit more violent crimes than adults while under the influence of drugs such as alcohol (McSweeney et al, 2008).Sapouna et al (2011) further highlight that this offending behaviour is common in both male and female in the two age groups. More studies have also reported that young people found perpetrating criminal acts defend themselves by saying that they were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and were largely motivated by monetary gains (e.g. Canter & Youngs, 2009). This significantly differed from reasons given by adult offenders. It is also noted that those young people involved in extensive misuse of substances reported more delinquency cases as compared to their adult counterparts (Sapouna et al, 2011). This is the reason why most correctional facilities and health institutions handling mental health victims have more young admissions compared to adult admissions as noted by Van Wormer (2010). When asked if they could leave their offending behaviour on their own volition, young men and women as well as adult women cited coercion while adult men said they could leave the habit out of their own will. This indicated young people’s commitment to drug misuse and by extension criminal activities. (iv) Drug misuse, Crime and Community interpretation No one single person has ever wanted to be associated with a drug addict and a criminal for that matter. When reporting about drug treatment outcomes in the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS), Sapouna et al (2011) underscore the discrimination and indignation with which drug misusers are accorded by the community. This on the whole serves to aggravate the offender’s problems by sinking further into criminal activities. The individual feels a sense of isolation and resorts into self-denial and neglect before submerging into the abyss of drug dependence and solace (Van Wormer, 2010). Davies & Beech (2012) in the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) suggests drug treatment interventions as the only possible solution. This is a valid argument and I find a lot of comfort in it. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE IMPACTS From the foregoing description of the findings of the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS), it is possible to critically evaluate the impacts identified in the report. Firstly, the report indicates that there is an overall reduction in offending behaviour among problem drug users after commencement of drug treatment in them (Canter & Youngs, 2009). These were confirmed by having follow-up procedures for a specified period of time, say about five years. This is true because even in practice, administration of drugs in mentally indisposed individuals due to substance abuse have served to rehabilitate them most successfully. Additionally, the DTORS report has also noted that these drug treatments were administered to patients in two different ways. One category of patients underwent residential maintenance and had better outcomes than those who left sooner after commencement of the interventions (Van Wormer, 2010). This is also in line with what is found in practice because residential settings offer maximum care and attention. The issue of crime reduction also differed significantly depending on the type of crime and drug misuse was in question. Offending behaviours driven by ‘softer’ drug misuse like shoplifting and prostitution for example reduced more easily than those motivated by misuse of ‘hard’ drugs like Heroine. Donmall et al (2009) illustrate that Heroin users constantly receive greater pressure from the criminal justice system and even when they commence drug treatment, their outcomes are usually worse compared to what is observed in other individuals misusing other kinds of drugs. But all in all, drug treatments have resulted in a general reduction in crime among drug misusers in the society, leading to a marked reduction in operational as well as preventive costs. This cannot be very far from the truth because general costs of facilitating court processes for arrested offenders are avoided when we have fewer crimes. Although the preceding indicates of a crime reduction dependent on the type of drug misused, the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) report underlines reduction in crime across all members of the society. Accordingly, offending behaviour was found to reduce on a large scale in both men and women after applying drug treatment. Although the levels of criminality were similar before commencing treatment, Van Wormer (2010) observes that reductions in offending behaviour were lower among women. This illustration implies that female drug misusers are more susceptible to criminal involvement than their male counterparts (Canter & Youngs, 2009). The situation is further worsened by the fact that women experiencing ‘drug problems’ do not have a lot of other options of getting money for their upkeep. For this reason, majority of them engage in petty criminal activities such as ‘shoplifting and prostitution’ to be able to survive financially (Donmall et al, 2009). This may not be necessarily tied to drug and substance misuse. On the economic aspects, the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) report indicates that a reduction in crime translates to substantial and immediate benefits to the offender and the society at large. The offender on the one hand avoids regular harassments from being arrested by the police and as such saves a lot of money that would have been otherwise spent in attending to court sessions. The increased monetary savings that would have gone into fighting crime are channeled towards development projects in the society. Likewise, members of the society are free from fear of criminals and can therefore concentrate in self-development projects. The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) reports alarming drops in crime costs “from £5.8m before treatment to £1.8m at one year follow-up” for example (Van Wormer, 2010). Again this presentation is supported by other “cost-effective” and “cost-benefit” studies that have been conducted elsewhere in the US indicating that crime reduction have led increased ‘cuts’ to overall costs (Davies & Beech, 2012). Effectively, the same has reduced costs used in purchasing treatment drugs for fewer patients are being treated. Finally, the issue of the drug misuser’s health status after treatment was reported in the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS). It emerged that after an individual is discriminated against by the community on the basis of drug misuse and hence offending behaviour, cases “vulnerability and social exclusion” increases (Van Wormer, 2010). This causes the person to become despondent and desperate as hopelessness sets in leading the person to develop chronic health problems including contraction of terminal diseases. But on commencing drug treatment interventions on such individuals, Donmall et al (2009) contend that the individual’s health status is greatly improved with a decrease in economic costs. These reduced economic costs are due to reduced “deaths, medical and drug treatment programs” due to improved health status. CONCLUDING REMARKS The description and critical evaluation of the impact of the recently published Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS) carried in this essay has demonstrated the richness of most drug treatment outcome studies conducted across the globe. The report has clearly demonstrated that after offenders are taken through drug treatment, their situations undergo remarkable improvements. This according to Donmall and colleagues (2009) is particularly observed in offenders who are placed under residential setups. Complete recovery is witnessed as opposed to those who go through outpatient programs. In conclusion therefore, the current report has underscored the importance of treating drug abusers until they have recovered fully. This importance is double edged in that the victim is completely cured and while the nation benefits from reduced crime and increased economic gains. REFERENCES Canter, D., & Youngs, A. (2009). Investigative psychology: Offender profiling and the analysis of criminal action. UK: Wiley & Sons. Davies, G & Beech, A. (2012). Forensic psychology: Crime, justice, law, interventions. UK: Wiley & Sons Donmall, M., Jones A., Millar T., Moody, A., Weston, S., Anderson, T., Gittins, M., Abeywardana, V., and D’Souza, J. (2009). The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS): final outcomes report. [UK] Home Office Harper, G & Chitty, C. (2005). The impact of corrections on re-offending: A review of ‘what works’ (3rd Ed). London: Home Office Research Study 291. Holloway, K., Bennett, T & Farrington, D. (2005). Systematic review of criminal justice and treatments programmes in reducing drug-related crime. Home Office On-line Report 26/05. McSweeney, T., Turnbull, P & Hough, M. (2008). The treatment and supervision of drug- dependent offenders. A review of the literature prepared for the UK Drug Policy Commission Sapouna, M., Bisset, C & Conlong, Anne-Marie (2011) What Works to Reduce Re-offending: A Summary of the Evidence. Justice Analytical Services, Scottish Government Van Wormer, K. (2010). Working with female offenders: a gender sensitive approach. USA: Wiley & Sons Read More