How Drugs Cause Crime - Essay Example

21 November 2007 How Drugs Cause Crime Critics that there is a close link between drug addiction and criminal behavior. Criminologists use different theories to explain causes and affects of drug addiction on deviant behavior and criminal activities. A special attention is given to sociological and psychological theories which help to explain deviant behavior and its correlation with drug addiction. The addict is much more likely to commit nonviolent crimes against property than violent crimes against persons (Akers and Sellers 23). This is to be expected from the depressant nature of the drugs and social environment of the drug addicts. Thesis There is no evidence suggesting that crime results from the direct effects of the drugs themselves, but drug addiction leads to deviant behavior, unemployment, lack of financial resources and poverty - the direct causes of crime. The most obvious and superficial way to define crime is to say that it is the violation of regulations of society. In advanced societies which have transcribed their rules of conduct into criminal law, crime is a violation of the code. The statement is intended to show that the rules of conduct in society define and make crime. Whether society is dealing with crime in an advanced society having a written criminal code or crime in an unadvanced society having unwritten mores, it is evident that criminal behavior is a violation of the rules of the social order. Every society, through the accumulation of its heritages and culture, possesses a body of social values that are conceived to be important to its welfare. The mores define the rules of conduct so as to protect and preserve these important values (Akers and Sellers 26). Drug addiction is defined by the World Health Organization (2007) as: Repeated use of a psychoactive substance or substances, to the extent that the user (referred to as an addict) is periodically or chronically intoxicated, shows a compulsion to take the preferred substance (or substances), has great difficulty in voluntarily ceasing or modifying substance use, and exhibits determination to obtain psychoactive substances by almost any means” (). Taking into account the psychological theory, it is possible to say that the drug addict as a degenerate and vicious criminal much given to violent crimes and sex orgies. More and more people are coming to understand the nature of opiate drugs and the meaning of addiction. Such pain-killers are the drugs of choice of most persons who are fully addicted in the sense described below (Akers and Sellers 34). This is an important point, because the continued use of these opiate-type drugs (to which the term narcotics may also be applied) produces characteristics and behavior quite at odds with stereotyped conceptions of the dope addict. Actually, opiates are depressants, that is, they produce a general lowering of the level of nervous and other bodily activity. The effects of these drugs have been summarized as follows: thus, depressant increase stress and psychopathy which are the direct causes of crime (Messner and Rossenfeld 83). In fact, the specific effects of opiates, serve to decrease the likelihood of any violent antisocial behavior. Similarly, opiates produce a marked diminishing of the sexual appetite--long-term addiction producing impotence among most male addicts; hence, concern about "dope fiend sex orgies" is quite unfounded. Indeed, perhaps the most striking characteristic of addicts is their general inactivity, on the basis of which they might be considered unproductive or withdrawn but hardly fearsome. It has also been widely believed that opiates produce definite and extreme organic disturbance and deterioration in the users. As an authoritative report recently emphasized, there are no known organic diseases associated with chronic opiate addiction, such as are produced by alcohol addiction, regular cigarette-smoking, and even chronic overeating (Messner and Rossenfeld 86). Although opiate use does produce such effects as constriction, constipation, and sexual impotence, none of these conditions need be fully disabling, nor are they permanent. Similarly, many characteristics and ailments, such as unkempt appearance and symptoms of malnutrition, which often are exhibited by addicts in our society, are attributable to the difficulties they experience in obtaining drugs rather than to the drugs direct effects. Recent additions to the criminal codes of modern societies are performing the same function that unwritten mores perform in a preliterate society. They are protecting sacred values, probably recently elevated by public opinion or by a dominant political faction to the status of sacred importance (Messner and Rossenfeld 83). Once tolerance to opiates reaches a certain level, a distinct physiological (as well as psychological) dependence on the drug is produced. When this dependence has developed addiction is complete and the user is properly referred to as an addict (although the term addict sometimes has been used more broadly to cover regular use even of non-dependence-producing drugs). The users bodily system now, in effect, requires the drug to function smoothly, and if it is withdrawn the addict experiences acute symptoms of distress, known as the "abstinence syndrome" (Yur and Williford 373). At the same time, the fact that the long-term addict has a physiological as well as psychological need for his drugs helps to put his condition and his behavior in proper perspective. Following Yur and Williford: Research on drug use and crimes indicates that drug addicts and heavy drug users have a high likelihood of being involved in violent criminal behaviors (e.g., Refs. 4 and 9), and alcohol abuse is a factor for some and violence. Hammersley et al. noted that heavy opioid users committed crimes significantly more frequently than others, polydrug use was associated with theft and delinquency, and alcohol use with fraud” (373). Dependence also provides a basis for distinguishing truly addictive drugs from those which may be said to be only habit-forming--or to which users ordinarily develop merely a psychological habituation or dependence (Yur and Williford 373). Strain theory and social conflict theory stipulates that lack of financial resource, economic blockage and power differentials typical for drug addicts lead to a crime. Like other oppressed minorities, drug addicts adopt a justifying ideology to support their morale and lessen their feeling of isolation (Akers and Sellers 43). Although this might be true even in the absence of legal repression, it is all the more important in the face of such repression. By "reproductive" process, Akers and Sellers refer to the fact that the system continually requires new members in order to maintain itself. The considerable involvement of addicts in the drug -distribution process has led some observers to assert that it is basically the addicts themselves who spread the habit, and that therefore elimination of the "professional" peddler would not appreciably alter the problem of addiction. In this view, the subculture and the addict-pusher are seen almost as causes of the addiction problem. The cost of cocaine is relatively high compared to that of other drug, and some young people, even though starting to use cocaine at an early age, may not be able to afford heavy use of cocaine for economic reasons; however, people with jobs may be able to afford more frequent use even when they start cocaine use at an older age (Yur and Williford 373). The evidence indicates that they are at least partly caused, in turn, by the supply demand cycle and the pattern of legal repression. It should not be thought that the addict subculture engulfs everyone coming into contact with it. In all high drug -use neighborhoods, non-using "squares" live alongside the addicts. Although drug distribution is closely related to the underworld, delinquent gangs as such are not a key factor in the promotion of addiction (Curtis 1233). There is strong evidence that most crimes committed by addicts are undertaken in order to obtain funds with which to purchase illicit drugs. The statements and records of individual addicts amply corroborate the relationship between drug use and "crime for profit." Furthermore, the New York studies have shown that in high drug -use areas there are relatively high rates of cash-producing delinquencies (robbery, burglary, procuring, and the like) and relatively low rates of violent crimes and other nonprofit offenses. Similarly, a study of arrest data (comparing cases handled in the Narcotic Bureau with those processed by the municipal police department) indicated that "the number of arrests for nonviolent property crimes was proportionately higher among addicts” (Gottfredson and Hirschi 29). In recent years, however, the Bureau of Narcotics has contended that most American addicts were involved in criminal activities prior to becoming addicted. Because drug use is concentrated in neighborhoods in which crime and delinquency also flourish, it is not surprising if there is some truth to this claim. But the most significant facts about addict- crime in the United States today seem to be that addiction reduces the inclination to engage in violent crime, and that persistent involvement in petty theft or prostitution (in order to support the drug habit) is an almost inevitable consequence of addiction (Akers and Sellers 92). It is noteworthy that in Great Britain, where the addict usually can obtain needed drugs legally and at low cost, there is practically no crime associated with addiction. The conflict theory underlines that individuals in certain socioeconomic categories run a relatively greater risk of encountering and using narcotics than do those in other categories. Also, it seems likely that of those individuals in the high-risk categories it is the more troubled or the more disadvantaged, situationally, who are especially likely to take up drugs. (Although in another sense they could be viewed simply as those most fully socialized into the prevailing, if deviant, pattern.) (Akers and Sellers 187). The specific policy implications stemming from conclusions of this sort are not very clear. On the one hand it seems that drug is partly caused by other general social disorders and that one way to deal with it is to attack the various socioeconomic ills which constitute the breeding ground of drug use. Similarly, various types of family life are highlighted as being detrimental, and presumably measures should be taken (assuming it could be determined just how this might be done) to improve the quality of interparent and parent-child relations. If those individuals who do become addicted have certain personality problems, some kind of therapy or counseling should be aimed at treating the addicts themselves (Akers and Sellers 176). Just as individuals with worse labor market prospects are more likely to be involved in crime, poor neighborhoods have higher crime rates. This neighborhood-level relationship is much more robust than the relationship between crime and economics at higher levels of aggregation (Curtis 1233). Another apparent consequence of the illegality of narcotics is the expansion of, and immersion of most addicts in, a specialized addict subculture. Messner and Rossenfeld statement of the conditions necessary for the emergence of a subculture included the effective interaction of a number of persons with similar problems of adjustment. In drug addiction, this condition is present. It has been argued that the addict benefits psychologically from knowledge of and contact with others who share his plight. Furthermore, certain forms of subculture which develop among addicts might exist even if drug use were not an important part of their lives. This reasoning is in line with the belief that a particular cultural climate underlies drug use. This is a typical; pattern found among young male Negro addicts in Chicago (Messner and Rossenfeld 98). Because all reports on known drug -users in the United States indicate that young male Negroes are highly overrepresented, this particular study may be of special importance. The drug -users interviewed by Gottfredson and Hirschi varied, of course, but a dominant type emerged: these addicts had developed a way of life through which they could conceive of themselves as belonging to an elite group. According to the social learning theory, the main causes of crimes are imitation and reinforcement schedules. The social definition of the addict as a criminal not only vitally influences his behavior but also significantly affects his self-image (Gottfredson and Hirschi 76). Certainly the knowledge that one has become fully addicted must in itself have a profound impact on this self-image. At the same time it is noteworthy that although the physician-addict and the sub-cultural-type addict are addicted in precisely the same physiological sense, their self-images are likely to be strikingly different. Both may recognize themselves as addicts, yet the physician is most unlikely to consider himself a criminal. Yur and Williford underline that: Family environment is the starting point of the model, under the assumption that all behaviors, including the use of alcohol/drug, are learned, and the learning primarily takes place in intimate groups . Various studies have indicated the importance of family environment, especially alcohol use by parents, in influencing a persons current alcohol-related behavior (373) On the other hand, the addict who is driven to underworld connections and to crime in order to support his habit cannot help but begin to feel that he is an enemy of society (or at least that society is his enemy) (Gottfredson and Hirschi 76). A self-fulfilling-prophecy cycle is set in motion from which it is very difficult for such an addict to extricate himself. He is aware that respectable people view him as a criminal, and he sees that he is beginning to act like one. Increasingly he must turn to the drug world for interpersonal support as well as for drug supplies. As the need to finance his habit occupies more and more of his time and energy, and as other worlds (such as those of work, family, and so on) recede into the background or fade away completely, addiction becomes a way of life (Gottfredson and Hirschi 76). Another approach to the causes of addiction lies in the extensive findings from research into the nature, extent, and distribution (spatial and social) of narcotics use in various large metropolitan centers. These area studies derive, in part, from the ecological approach developed some years ago by the Chicago school of sociologists. Addiction is invariably found to be concentrated in those areas of the city that are most dilapidated and overcrowded, inhabited by persons of low socioeconomic and minority-group status, and characterized by high rates of other types of social pathology (Katyal 1039; Gottfredson and Hirschi 76). Researchers summarized the large body of data obtained in a ten-year study of juvenile drug use in New York, undertaken by the Research Center for Human Relations at New York University (Akers and Sellers 87). This research, conducted under the guidance of social psychologists, combined an interest in the dynamic psychology of the individual deviant with an awareness of the importance of the socioeconomic and even legal aspects of the drug problem. The findings indicated that the areas with the highest drug use were those that were most overcrowded, had the highest poverty rates, and were populated largely by minority group members. Not only was drug use found to be correlated with significant socioeconomic variables of that sort, but the New York researchers also concluded from an attitude survey that the high-use neighborhoods were characterized by a cultural climate conducive to experimentation with drugs (Akers and Sellers 88). A major theoretical problem for such studies is posed by the fact that not all individuals in the areas of addict concentration take up drugs or even orient themselves to this dominant cultural climate. In seeking to explain the nonusers in high-use neighborhoods, Gottfredson and Hirschi revert in some degree to a psychological-predisposition approach. They note certain functions the use of drugs may serve--such as relieving various personal and interpersonal strains and in general "establishing distance from the real-life demands of young adulthood” (Gottfredson and Hirschi 54). A comparison of the family backgrounds of a group of addicts with those of a group of non-addicts suggested that such background might constitute the basis for susceptibility to addiction. They also found that the fathers of the addicts had either been absent much of the time or were themselves highly disturbed or deviant. In addition, the development of the welfare state should reduce crime (Akers and Sellers 81). Those programs that provide support to the poorest members of the society should have the largest crime reduction benefits. Several types of models imply that greater inequality leads to more crime. In time allocation models, drug addicts decide how to divide their time between the legal and illegal sectors depending on the relative returns in the two sectors (Katyal 1039). The standard model supposes that the relative returns to time in the illegal sector increase with the earnings and wealth at the top of the income distribution. For those at the bottom of the income distribution, increasing inequality reduces the returns to time working in the legal sector at the same time it increases the returns to criminal activity. As a result, increases in earnings inequality yield increases in criminal activity related to drug addiction and drug abuse (Akers and Sellers 82). In sum, the idea that drug addiction is closely connected with crime is a potential explanation for property crime and for violent crimes that are instrumental in some way. If poverty among drug addicts provides the incentive for crime, aggregate crime rates should fall as economies become more developed and incomes rise. Crime emphasizes lifestyle choices. Here, drug addiction may "go along with" being unemployed, since a person is in a better position to take advantage of criminal opportunities when his schedule is more flexible. In this case, steady employment is incompatible with intensive criminal activity. Poor economic conditions, then, may shift people from one set of activities to another. This idea is similar to a time allocation model, except here people are "choosing" from a limited number of bundles of activities rather than making choices about much smaller units of time). The negative effect on ones social activities of being perceived (rightly or wrongly) is being involved in criminal activity. Thus, it argues that criminal activity and the imposition of sanctions serve to "label" individuals in such a way that, for example, their employment prospects are reduced. This provides for a feedback mechanism: once one becomes involved in crime, employment opportunities fall, and the incentive to commit crime increases. If vibrant communities provide opportunity, role models, and pride for their residents, a poor economy can lead to disorder and decay. Drug addiction through a variety of mechanisms, get translated into criminal activity. Works Cited 1. Akers, R. L., Sellers, Ch., S. Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. Oxford University Press, USA; 4 edition, 2007. 2. Curtis, R. The Improbable Transformation of Inner-City Neighborhoods: Crime, Violence, Drugs, and Youth in the 1990s. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88 (1998): 1233. 3. Drug Addiction. WHO. 2007, 4. Gottfredson, M., Hirschi, T. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press; 1 edition, 1990. 5. Katyal, N.K., Architecture as Crime Control. Journal article by Neal Kumar; Yale Law Journal 111 (2002): 1039. 6. Messner, S.F., Rossenfeld, R. Crime and the American Dream (Wadsworth Series in Criminological Theory). Wadsworth Publishing; 4 edition, 2006. 7. Yur, J., Williford, W.R. Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Criminality: A Structural Analysis. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 20 (1994): 373. Read More