Identify and Critically Analyze the Relationship Between Law Enforcement and Harm Reduction Aims - Essay Example

Topic: Identify and critically analyze the relationship between law enforcement and harm reduction aims. In addition, examine the ways in which law enforcement practice Introduction: This paper seeks to analyze and discuss the statement that “Law enforcement and practice, particularly at the street level, can have a negative impact upon harm reduction outcomes.” This will therefore identify and critically analyze the relationship between law enforcement and harm reduction aims. In addition, this paper will also examine ways in which law enforcement practice may exacerbate drug related harms. This paper maintains that law enforcement is one of the means to prevent drug related crimes but the process of crime prevention may result to unintended harm. Law enforcement however must not be an end itself but must work hand in hand with requirements of public health. Analysis and Discussion 2.1 The characteristic of drug problem in Australia Harm reduction as an aim in law enforcement is normally related to crime prevention particularly in drug related ones. Let me begin therefore about the characteristics of the crime which will cause a problem in harm reduction. The article “Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA)” (2003) talks of fluidity of drugs networks and displacement in Australia saying: “The hierarchical model of drug supply that many drug law enforcement initiatives traditionally relied upon has been questioned in the light of continued availability. Green and Purnell (1996) cite a strong body of evidence which indicates that drug networks are loosely formed and relatively fluid. Each part of the network exists independently and operates on an opportunistic basis with criminal network roles and personnel changing regularly.” With a situation like this in Australia, the probability of having Law enforcement and practice, particularly at the street level, can have a negative impact upon harm reduction outcomes. 2.1.1 The fluid and regenerative nature of illicit drug markets reduces the opportunity for enforcement activities to affect supplies in the long term. The article on “ADCA” (2003) continued, “Researchers argue that the fluid and regenerative nature of illicit drug markets reduces the opportunity for enforcement activities to affect supplies in the long term. Essentially, if one supplier or importer is eliminated, there are plenty of other organisations able to quickly fill the gap and therefore targeting one major organisation may simply enhance the opportunities for others (a summary of research cited in Green & Purnell 1996).” The article cited the view by Kendall (1996) who noted that while the market for illicit drugs can only be sustained if there is a demand for their consumption, organised crime groups are quick to capitalise on social vulnerability and to establish market niches over and above meeting existing demand. Kendall (1996) appeared to have attributed the claim with the increased availability of amphetamine-type substances in Australia over recent years. Hence the article inferred that under the given situation, it may be both unrealistic and naïve to consider that organised crime will dissipate if the market is diminished, citing Kendall (1996) (Paraphrasing made). The extent of as to cutting the supply of drug problem in Australia appears to have become beyond the control of the law enforcement. 2.2 Another view about the drug networks - Drug law enforcement to be considered in terms of overall harm rather than harm per unit The previous section is just one view by authors. Another view is the once made by Caulkins (2002) when the author agreed that drug markets are resilient and adaptable, but believed that this resilience can be turned to advantage by drug law enforcement when considered in terms of overall harm rather than harm per unit. The author gave the example of a street market that is operating in a residential area near a school, a treatment centre and a playground. The author said that one could argue that if, through law enforcement measures, this market was pushed to relocate and then reappeared in an abandoned industrial area not far away, the total harms reduced might be considerable even if there was no discernable reduction in actual use. Caulkins then justified that there may be an argument for using law enforcement measures to disadvantage those sellers who employ particularly noxious selling tactics such as violence, using children as ‘lookouts’ and evading enforcement by corrupting officials (The Article “ADCA, 2003) (Paraphrasing made). It must be observed from the above statement that Caulkins is still arguing that law enforcement are still necessary to use against sellers who employ particularly noxious selling tactics such as violence, using children as ‘lookouts’ and evading enforcement by corrupting officials. In other words, arguing how noxious criminals could law enforce will seem to be justified by looking at the bigger picture. 2.3. The impact of intensive street-level interventions within a prime drug market in Sydney- previously conducted their business on the street began to operate in shopping malls The article on “ADCA” (2003) further said, “Other researchers may counter that the effects of displacement are unlikely to be positive. In reporting on the impact of intensive street-level interventions within a prime drug market in Sydney, Maher and Dixon (1999) noted adverse consequences associated with a number of forms of displacement, including the displacement of drug markets. They reported that such movements by drug markets could make drugs available in neighbourhoods where they had previously been in short supply. They also showed that when police pressure was applied, some dealers that had previously conducted their business on the street began to operate in shopping malls and others that had once operated in the town centre moved their business within the vicinity of a primary school (Maher & Dixon 1999).” Based on the above, there is now an indication that law enforcement in the street level will only transfer the operation or selling area of these drugs. This is another indication that law enforcement done through street level intervention merely shifted the place of operation. The article on “ADCA” (2003) further said that while historically both Australian and international evidence indicates that supply control measures in particular have a very limited impact on the availability of drugs and associated harms, recent evidence suggests that this may not always be the case. It further said that the reduced availability of heroin in Australia which commenced in December 1999 resulted in reductions in opioid related arrests and overdose deaths and it argued that although researchers agree that the causes of the heroin shortage are likely to be complex, undoubtedly contemporary law enforcement interventions have played a role.” It is now obvious to notice the unintended harms but it would have been worse if there was no law enforcement. There following sections will discuss more about the topic. 2.4. Unintended harms The article “AD CA” (2003) said, “While the effectiveness of law enforcement supply side initiatives in reducing the availability of drugs has often been questioned, also of concern is evidence that law enforcement initiatives may result in unintended harms for drug users and the wider community, particularly in terms of increased crime and public health risks. Some researchers have argued that public health considerations should be a key determinant of police drug law enforcement activity and that until this is the case, positive outcomes of police interventions on drug markets are likely to be achieved at a significant cost (Maher & Dixon 1999).” What seemed to be a drug problem has become a health problem. Australia could not left its citizens unattended just because some are users of drugs, who in all angles are actually considered as victims of the drug trade. Finding that the law enforcement may me effective in preventing drug use in the street level such would not be enough if health problem will deteriorate because users would just happen to find other kinds of drugs because of increased prices or resorting to crime commission just to satisfy the need for drugs. 2.4.1 Example of increase in price as result of law enforcement The article “ADCA” (2003) cited “A case in point is law enforcement activities that precipitate increases in the price of illicit drugs at the street level. It is thought that the demand for illicit addictive drugs may be weakly price elastic; that is, increasing the cost of a substance may not proportionately reduce the demand. In this situation, increases in the cost of certain substances may serve only to benefit traffickers and dealers as users commit more crime to fund their addiction or move to other potentially more harmful substances (Weatherburn et al. 2003; Weatherburn, Lind & Forsythe 2000). That said, it should be noted that the evidence on price elasticity to date is limited and often inconsistent. Some studies show that, particularly in the longer term, drug prices may affect rates of use as they impact not just on those already using the drug but also on those who may consider using it (Weatherburn, Lind & Forsythe 2000).” With this situation that increasing the cost of drug would not stop drug use but users commit more crime to fund their addiction or move to other potentially more harmful substances is and indication o a big drug problem in Australia. It amount to admitting that the police authorities in helpless in solving the situation. It is in restricting supply that unintended harms result as indicated below. But if this argument is sustained it would be blaming be playing God that is blaming something for which one is not responsible. The drug users are free. Law enforcement would be a lame duck in such argument is sustained. It could amount into arguing that drugs in Australia should be legalized. In such case, if law enforcement is being blamed for this, could one validly that law enforcement be stopped? 2.4.2 Another unintended harm –turning to more dangerous injective practices problems in corruption ensue. The article on “Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia” (2003) said “Still, if certain substances are only weakly price elastic then restricting the supply of a drug and making it more expensive can be associated with a number of unintended harms. Increased price may impact upon public health as drug users turn to more dangerous injecting practices to maximise the effects of their purchases. Further, price rises have implications for drug related crime as people dependent on drugs try and meet the costs of supporting their use through activities such as theft and prostitution (Australian Drug Foundation 2002). Increases in price may also create an environment conducive to corruption (Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation n.d.). … Such as evidence fabrication and the use of unnecessary physical force (Cowdery 1997 cited in Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia 2002). There is the additional risk that the benefits associated with a shortage of one drug may be offset by an increase in the use of other drugs.” The article considered this as evidence by the apparent shift of many heroin users to the use of cocaine, amphetamine-type substances and pharmacotherapies following the reduced availability of heroin in Australia, citing (Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence 2002) (Paraphrasing made). 2.5.1 Statement concluding law enforcement sometimes increased the harms experienced by some sectors of the community. The article on further said, “In short, law enforcement has a reputation, deserved at least in part, for sometimes increasing the harms experienced by some sectors of the community. This highlights the complexities of the task before law enforcement and the need to weigh up the potential benefits and harms of law enforcement measures so as to ensure a net gain. Just because law enforcement can be employed in a way that increases harm does not mean that it cannot be pursued in ways that reduce harm (Caulkins 2002).” 2.6 How show enforcement be done in the light of possible non reduction of harm if not possibly exacerbating the same? If there is unintended harm and they are to be avoided how should we define the ole of law enforcement? The article on “Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia” (2003) said, “It is fair to say that the role of law enforcement in a harm minimization paradigm is not clearly defined and may never be so. Still, some commentators have addressed the issue including Caulkins who illustrates how some harm reduction perspectives are more receptive than others to a prominent law enforcement role.” The articled cited (Caulkins 2002) to have outlined five specific roles for law enforcement as follows: • Partnerships with treatment and other interventions • constraining supply • Time-focused intervention early in an epidemic • reducing control costs and associated harms • exploiting drug markets inherent adaptability (Caulkins 2002). The article on “ADCA” (2003) said, “Caulkins also discusses the concept of defining harm reduction in terms of goals rather than programs and shows that, generally speaking, enforcement is more likely to reduce total harm (macro harm) than harm per user or per kilogram consumed (micro harm). Further, Caulkins recognises that enforcement is more likely to reduce accountings of harm that include harms from all sources and suffered by all people than it is to reduce the harms suffered by users or caused by use.” The same article continued, “Some researchers would argue that any definition of the role of law enforcement should include the making of informed and well considered choices if practice is to reflect the harm minimisation approach of agency policies. Citing Scarman (1981), Maher and Dixon (1999) reiterate that exercising discretion is critical to successful policing and argue that public health should be one of the factors that are taken into account when making these choices.” 2.7 Why not target major offenders? Having then a problem not minimizing harm under the drug-related crimes in law enforcement, why would not the police concentrate on the major offenders or the big fish? The article on “ADCA” (2003) said, “Drug laws in Australia distinguish between those who use drugs and those who supply or traffic drugs. Cultivation and trafficking are considered to be major crimes while possession and use are considered to be the lesser offences (Australian Drug Foundation 2002). One of the specific aims of drug law enforcement in Australia is the targeting of major as opposed to minor offenders. However, doubts have been expressed as to whether this goal is reflected in practice.” For this reason, the same article cited Green and Purnell (1996) who undertook research to map the enforcement activities of Australia’s drug laws and found that it is comparatively minor offenders that feel the greatest impact of these laws. It found that the authors believe this is largely because the majority of drug related apprehensions are made at the street level, by non-specialist police officers. The same article thus said, “They suggest that specialist drug law enforcement agencies experience considerable difficulties in uniquely defining and targeting major figures in the illicit drug trade and that as a result their investigations often involve relatively minor offenders (Australasian Centre for Policing Research 2003). With the definition of a major offender likely to remain contentious, it may be useful to reassess whether the principle of targeting major offenders is sufficient to guide policy on illicit drug supply reduction approaches (Green & Purnell 1996).” In further explaining, the article on “ADCA” (2003) said “Other researchers support the findings of Green and Purnell in showing that most illicit drug arrests are related to simple possession or use of drugs rather than provision (for example, Wardlaw & Deane 1986). Also of note is that while the community remains primarily concerned about drugs such as heroin and cocaine, the vast majority of drug offences in Australia actually relate to cannabis. The most recent figures available at the time of writing show that 72% of all drug offences in Australia in 2001-02 were cannabis offences (Australian Crime Commission 2003).” 2.8 Is not the cost enforcing drug related laws in Australia in such a way to minimized the harm affordable by Australia? When every law making body appropriate funds to implement a law there is money coming from taxpayers. Seldom a project that has not cost. This is confirmed by the article on “ADCA” (2003) when it said. “The enforcement of Commonwealth, state and territory laws relating to the production, importation and distribution of illicit drugs represents a significant investment for Australian society. However, not a great deal is known about returns achieved (Sutton & James 1996).” It is admitted by ADCA (2003) that while some inroads have been made in evaluating law enforcement effectiveness and efficiency (for example, Weatherburn 2000) considerable work remains to be done in the development of indicators and collection of data.” It appears that without the measures, there is no way to evaluate the extent of intended harms and there in no way to tell if benefits acquired in making street level intervention is worth the harm or the harm is greater that efforts and resources should instead be re-channelled. 2.9 The presence of drugs that causes the problem. Why not just reduced supply significantly? The article on “ADCA” (2003) said, “Reducing the supply of drugs is one of the key components of Australia’s harm minimisation approach to the use and misuse of licit and illicit drugs. Supply control strategies involve legislation, regulatory controls and law enforcement and, as such, are an area in which law enforcement agencies and personnel make a major contribution.” Against unintended harms, supply reduction is plausible. This is also on the premise that if there is not drug there will be no health problems that area related to drug. However, the article said “ADCA” (2003) “In the case of illicit drugs, supply reduction strategies aim to disrupt the supply of substances entering Australia as well as the production and distribution of illicit drugs within the country. … State and territory police services are the lead agencies in implementing supply reduction measures within each jurisdiction and the Australian Crime Commission also has a role in reducing the supply and production of illicit drugs in Australia (Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy 1998).” 2.10 Why not the demand for drugs that should be reduced? The article said, “In isolation, supply reduction initiatives have a limited capacity to reduce drug related harm. However, their potential is increased when part of a range of Balanced and evidence-based measures. They can also enhance the effectiveness of other approaches. As noted by Palmer (1998), interventions to reduce demand are unlikely to be as effective in an environment of uncontrolled supply and there is general consensus that the most appropriate way to target drug problems is through a balanced program of measures which addresses both supply and demand.” Given such situation as the above challenged every law enforcer to understand the issue and which really point out for the need for a comprehensive solution that is not achieved by mere street level interventions. Conclusion and Recommendation It is a reality that law enforcement could really cause unintended harm. Given then the situation, there is now a need to redefine the roles of law enforcement which shall not be limited with crime prevention but also in coordination with the governments program for public health. The first step will be to have a way of evaluation for the effectiveness of law enforcement. It is admitted that there are benefits and making law enforcement to drug related crimes but there are also unintended harms which must be studied further. ADCA For the drug problem to solve in Australia there is a need for balancing the interest of law enforcers and the drug victims. There is and a need to have an evaluation and analysis of the for the improvement of the role of law enforcement in reducing drug crime. With ADCA’s beliefs that of the very few indicators for determining the effectiveness of drug law enforcement, such indicators must be improve to demand responsibility or accountability from law enforcers in Australia. The article on “ADCA” (2003) cited Wardlaw & Deane (1986) cautioning not only about the quality of indicators but also the biased and unscientific manner in which data may be used to illustrate particular points of view when they claimed that one of the principal problems with drug law enforcement statistics is that they are largely a measure of police activity and may bear no direct relation to changes in the magnitude of drug use (Paraphrasing made). Without good way of indicator to measure the effectiveness of law enforcement under Australia’s unique case, there could also no clear way if law enforcement is exacerbating drug related harms. There is therefore basis to agree on the policy recommendations of the article on ADCA (2003) as follows: • law enforcement should be maintained and promoted as an active key partner in reducing drug related harm in Australia • the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy should develop more comprehensive performance indicators for drug law enforcement nationally • appropriate harm reduction education and training should be systematically included in the pre-entry and in-service programs of agencies involved in the law enforcement and criminal justice system. The drug problem in Australia has become a public health problem too. The government must really have to resolve the source of the problem in cannot be too serious in street level interventions when it cannot go over the big syndicates. But there is wisdom in reducing the supply because there are no drug problems without the drugs. As to possible reaction of users is another problem of law enforcement that must be addressed. References: Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia 2002, Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into crime in Australia, Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia, Canberra. Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (2003), Law enforcement and harm minimization, {www document} URL http://www.adca.org.au/policy/policy_positions/2.5Law_enforcement_and_harm_ minimisation_9.11.03.pdf, viewed October 16, 2006 Australasian Centre for Policing Research 2003, Research publications: measuring the success of law enforcement agencies in Australia in targeting major drug offenders relative to minor drug offenders, Australasian Centre for Policing Research, Adelaide, viewed 19 July 2003. http://www.acpr.gov.au/publications2.asp?Report_ID=23 Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence 2002, Australian illicit drug report 2000-01, Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002, Year book Australia 2002: transport: special article: a history of road fatalities in Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, viewed 30 June 2003. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9AFD4E13D7DA281FCA256 9DE0028B40C?Open&Highlight=0,crash Australian Crime Commission 2003, Australian illicit drug report 2001-02, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Australian Drug Foundation 2002, Laws, Australian Drug Foundation, Melbourne, viewed 18 July 2003. http://www.adf.org.au/drughit/laws.html Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation n.d., How to help, Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, Canberra, viewed 18 July 2003. http://home.vicnet.net.au/adlrf/howtohelp.html Caulkins JP 2002, ‘Law enforcement’s role in a harm reduction regime’, Crime and Justice Bulletin, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, no. 64, January, viewed 17 July 2003. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/pages/cjb64text Green P & Purnell I 1996, Measuring the success of law enforcement agencies in Australia in targeting major drug offenders relative to minor drug offenders, publication no. 127, National Police Research Unit (now the Australasian Centre for Policing Research), Adelaide. Kendall RE 1996, ‘The role of law enforcement in reducing drug related crime’, in 7 th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm: from science to policy to practice, conference proceedings, Australian Drug Foundation, Melbourne. Maher L & Dixon D 1999, ‘Policing and public health: law enforcement and harm minimisation in a street-level drug market’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 39, no. 4, Autumn, pp. 488-512. Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy 1998, National Drug Strategic Framework 1998-99 to 2002-03: building partnerships, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Palmer M 1998, ‘Reducing the supply of illicit drugs’, Drug and Alcohol Review, vol. 17, no. 3, September, pp. 245-247 Wardlaw G & Deane H 1986, ‘Uses and abuses of drug law enforcement statistics’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Australian Institute of Criminology, no. 1, July. Weatherburn D 2000, ‘Performance indicators for drug law enforcement’, Crime and Justice Bulletin, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, no. 48, February, viewed 4 August 2003. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/fb66c290e58468584a2565e80 02698c6/25295ceedc87041cca2568c4001ee4aa/$FILE/C+%26+J+Bulleti n+48.pdf Weatherburn D, Lind B & Forsythe L 2000, Drug law enforcement: its effect on treatment experience and injection practices, National Drug Strategy monograph series no. 42, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra Read More