Using Drugs Leads to Crime - Case Study Example

Abstract This discussion examines the evidence supporting the connection between drugs use and crime and uncovers the complexities involved when attempting to identify this connection. It also reviews criminological theories that explain the underlying causes of crime and drug use then concludes with an attempt to understand why the association is a component of society. Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Qualification of Terms and Statistics 3 Prevalence of connection 4 The proof of connection 5 The Casualty Measure of the Connection 6 Determining Factors of Drug Use and Crime 8 Socialization Theory 9 Labeling Theory 9 Biological Reasons 10 Conclusion 11 References 13 Introduction A crime labeled simply as ‘drug-related’ could refer to any one of many scenarios. A heroin addict, desperate to obtain money to support their habit, robbing a home or business could come to mind as might the dealing or possession of drugs. These situations illustrate an obvious association between drugs and crime. However, it is difficult to accurately determine to what extent in which drugs could be considered the main motivation for crimes. A person under the influence of an illegal drug while committing a crime does not necessarily mean that the crime was drug-related. To what extent the drug clouded their judgment is subjective at best. That person may be a cigarette smoker as well but the crime would certainly not be classified as tobacco-related. Theories such as Strain, Labeling and Socialisation explain causations for crime and can also be applied to drug usage, but all drug users do not commit crimes and all criminals do not use drugs. The connections between drug use and crime are complex and explanations vary widely. This has been a topic that has garnered a considerable amount of attention for the past few decades among the public, media and politicians because of the considerable negative social and economic impact on society as a whole and the victims of crime. Qualification of Terms and Statistics Some argue that laws make criminals out of drug users and distributors. Prohibition acts to encourage organized criminal activity because of the high profitability involved. In addition, the inflated expense of drugs is the main reason a user has to resort to crime to support their habit. Broadly differing arguments are offered regarding the degree to which criminal activity is driven by drug use. The term ‘drug user’ cannot be used without qualification when connecting this activity to crimes of any description. Drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine, phencyclidine, (PCP), barbiturates and alcohol are more closely connected to criminal acts of violence than are heroin and marijuana according to current scientific literature (Wright & Klee, 2001). Some statistics that show a linkage from drug use to crime are generated from drug tests on prisoners. If the prisoner tests positive, the link is confirmed. However, more accurate numbers are obtained by interviewing prisoners and asking them if drugs played a role in their crime. A person who committed murder may test positive for marijuana but the drug use may have had nothing to do with the crime. Furthermore, a person may have been born with a neurological disorder resulting from alcohol or hard drug abuse by their mother while pregnant. This would be an example of a drug-related crime that would not be documented. Taking these types of possible inaccuracies into account, it can be surmised that no statistics in this area can be relied upon as being 100 percent accurate. Therefore, the statistics that connect drugs and crime quoted either in this paper or from any source must only be used as a guideline for discussions not as scientific proof. Prevalence of connection Heroin, as do many other illegal drugs, costs more than gold based on weight. The habitual use of these drugs exerts an extreme financial liability on the addict which, in most circumstances, causes them to obtain the money to buy drugs by illegal measures such as robbery, burglary, shoplifting and prostitution. In addition, the act of buying and using drugs are illegal as well (Gossop et al, 1994). According to estimates by police departments, approximately 50 per cent of all crimes recorded in Britain may be related to drug use. The high rate of drug abusers located in various parts of the justice system reflects this estimate. The combination of criminal actions and related burden on the justice system represents a significant liability to the whole of society. The crimes are more harmful economically than in terms of violent physical assaults. Drug related crimes normally involve shoplifting. This offence represents both the largest number and highest percentages of drug-related crimes committed. For most drug abusers, the types and number of crimes committed are influenced by the type of drug to which they are addicted. Those who are heavily dependent on very addictive drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines or heroin have a greater propensity for criminal activity, generally property theft. As would be expected, the greater degree of a person’s drug use increases their rate of criminal activity. It is important to note though, research has demonstrated that “the vast majority of acquisitive crimes were committed by a small minority of drug users, with ten per cent committing about three-quarters of all property crimes” (Stewart et al, 2000). The proof of connection Since the most accurate method to measure the connection between drug use and crime is to interview prisoners, the following statistics are based upon studies that employ this technique. Not surprisingly, prisoners who reported that their crimes were related to drug use made a considerably higher amount of money derived from illegal means than prisoners who did not report such a connection. Those that claimed a connection were in receipt of, on average, at least two times the quantity of illegal earnings than those that did not. Comparable disparities were revealed in the outlay of money for drugs. Prisoners who stated a connection spent up to ten times the amount on drugs as prisoners that did not connect their crimes to drug use. Consequently, prisoners who said that there was a connection between their drug use and the crime they committed were “much more involved in illegal income generating crime and also much more involved in expensive drug consumption than their counterparts” (Bennett, 1998: 31). Prisoners who stated they spent under £2,000 on illegal drugs during the past year also said they accumulated about £3,000 in illicit income. Prisoners who stated they spent under £10,000 on illegal drugs during the past year also said they accumulated about £19,000 in illicit income (Bennett, 1998: 40). These numbers reveal that the degree to which drugs are used and degree of criminal activity is closely related. Prisoners who are heavy users of drugs are also involved heavily in unlawful behavioural patterns. It can be safely assumed that drug addicts in the general population are the culprits behind much of the property crime committed throughout the country. They just haven’t yet been arrested. The Casualty Measure of the Connection The results of the prisoner interviews also reveal that particular types of drugs including cocaine, methadone, amphetamines and heroin, because of their addictiveness, the effects unique to each of these drugs and their high cost, have the tendency to be more directly connected with criminal activity than, for example, marijuana which is a milder and non-physically additive drug. These results do not, however, reveal to what extent drug use causes crime. “In order to estimate causality, it would be necessary to establish not only the existence of a correlation between drug use and crime, but also the temporal direction of the two variables and the extent to which other variables partly or wholly explain the correlation” (Bennett, 2000: 44). One technique to determine the causality concerning crime and drug use is to produce an example whereby the number of possible variables including drug use is inserted into a formula that endeavours to explain the frequency of criminal activities. A study based on this criterion was performed using information gathered from more than 700 prisoners who said that there was a connection between their drug use and the crimes they committed. The prisoners totaled more than £4 million in illegal income over the previous year’s time. The illicit income of cocaine and heroin users alone totaled close to £3 million. Therefore, this study would suggest that one, there is a clear and strong connection between drug use and crime and two, addictive, expensive drugs such as heroin and cocaine account for at least 75 per cent of crime where drugs are involved (Bennett, 1998: 46). The research also shows that a significant proportion of prisoners, about half, admit that their use of drugs and their crime are linked and that use of cocaine and heroin is likely accountable for the inflating numbers concerning criminal activity (Bennett, 1998: 47). Determining Factors of Drug Use and Crime The fact that using the harder drugs such as those previously mentioned lead to criminal activity is widely recognised and has been shown to be a valid assumption by way of comprehensive studies in the field. However, these studies don’t answer the question of why an individual would either use drugs or commit crimes. Although the two are connected in a social context, they are separate activities. However, drug use is rooted in similar theories that also explain criminal activity. There is a connection in the originations as well as the end result of using drugs and committing crimes. The available evidence shows that biological, social, cultural, and environmental factors may all play some part in explaining the relationship between drugs and crime. A dysfunctional social environment is a reason given for using drugs and for criminal behavior. The communal surroundings within which one develops presents distorted values that determine behavior. Urbanization and poverty has resulted in the breakdown of fundamental family and social institutions. As personal values and standards became disjointed, definitions regarding appropriate behaviors become distorted leading to social misbehaviour. “Disorganization is more prevalent in the center of the urbanized city, and decreases with distance thus, crime developed through frequent contact with criminal traditions, goals and values that have developed over a period of time in disorganized areas of the city” (Shaw, 1931). During the past couple of decades, there has been a resurgence of attention focused on what is now referred to as social disorganization theories. This ‘contextual movement’ endeavors to establish a link between what affects a negative physical social setting motivates deviant actions. One of such theories involves the relationship between drug use, crime and the social process. Socialization Theory The Socialization Theory dictates that criminal behaviours including drug use is a learned response because of long-term associations with groups or persons who habitually practice criminal activities. This theory is normally more suitable to forms of deviant crimes such as drug use and prostitution. Differential Association, one of the most prominent of the socialization theories, maintains that deviant behaviour is learned as are compliant behaviours. According to the theory, “each person is surrounded by people, definitions, norms, and behavior patterns that differ in that some are favorable to law violation while others are not. Whether or not a person becomes deviant will be a function of the relative mixture of these pro-criminal and anti-criminal experiences” (Petee, 1987). Labeling Theory The Labeling Theory is similar to the Socialisation Theory in that it emphasizes that deviance originates from interactions and relationships between people in society. Being labeled a ‘criminal’ becomes an individual’s public and self identity.  They are characterised first as criminal then an employee, spouse or parent, etc.  This identity invites public scrutinisation which could seem to cause the person to be shamed into obeying the law. However, it is likely that this label will have the opposite effect. People who are labeled in this manner eventually normally abandon hope of ever fitting back into society.  “An identity change takes place where the person’s self-concept loses any further stake in conformity, and because a deviant self-image is now in place, there’s pressure to behave consistently as deviant” (Silver, 1974). Moreover, individuals labeled as deviants are inclined to begin to associate with others labeled as criminals and, at the same time, stop associating with their law-abiding acquaintances. Many labeling theorists consider that the justice system exhibits a lower-class bias when prosecuting offenders. Biological Reasons Among the biological and physiological explanations for crime is the Behaviour Genetics Theory which postulates a biological explanation for drug use and/or crime. While the genetic make-up of an individual does not induce any specific actions, anti-social behaviour can be facilitated by neurotransmitters in the brain and hormonal imbalances which generate tendencies to act in a particular way. “Low self-control is strongly and inversely related to the neurotransmitter/neuromodulator serotonin, and that serotonin level is heritable” (Robinson, 2004). Abnormal serotonin levels have been shown to be an origin of criminal behaviours of all types of crime because an individual lacks the natural ability to control their impulsive thoughts thereby acting upon them. Everyone has thoughts they would never act upon. Those with this abnormality tend to act first and think later. Of course, the mental distortions associated with drug use exacerbate this condition. Evidence compiled from studies has supported another link between a particular inherited mutant gene, criminal behavior and drug use. Instead of high serotonin levels the neurotransmitters in the brain, because of genetic abnormalities, may produce low levels of an enzyme which causes interruptions in signals within the nervous system and the brain. “Urinalysis of subjects in the Dutch study, all of whom were related and demonstrated aggressive and antisocial behavior, showed abnormal levels of metabolic products associated with the enzyme” (Vinces, 1996). These persons did not have the ability to produce this enzyme. This genetic defect may be at least a contributing factor leading to deviant behaviors. Conclusion This discussion has examined substantive evidence, both theoretical and contextual reasoning as well as criminological concepts regarding the relationship between crime and drug use. Another factor that plays a role in the connection between drugs and crime is, ironically, the very laws enacted in an attempt to prevent drug use and thus reduce crime. The punitive, conservative approach to eradicating the drug problem has resulted in creating a solid foundation for organised criminal activity, raised the cost of drugs and has encouraged sullying and dilution of drugs. Drug laws, though well-intentioned, are directly responsible for the increased instances of misconduct with regard to both violent and property-related crimes. Dropping the laws would drop the price of drugs. This alone would reduce crime to at some extent. Many social, physical, psychological and biological factors cause people to use drugs. Trying to stop drug usage is like trying to stop the rain. Modifying or eliminating drug laws will stop a percentage of the crime that is connected to drug use however. References Bennett, Trevor. (1998). “Drugs and Crime: The Results of Research on Drug Testing and Interviewing Arrestees.” A Research and Statistics Directorate Report. London: Home Office. Accessed 20 December, 2006 from Gossop, M; Powis, B; Griffths, P; & Strang, J. (1994). “Sexual Behaviour and its Relationship to Drug-taking Among Prostitutes in South London.” Addiction. Vol. 89, pp. 961-970. Petee. (1987). “Sociology 530.” Handbook of Social Psychology; Handbook of Sociology. Accessed 20 December, 2006 from < http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/xsoc530/deviance.> Robinson, Matthew B. (2004) Why Crime? An Integrated Systems Theory of Antisocial Behavior Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shaw, Clifford R. (1931). The Natural History of a Delinquency Career. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Silver, I. (1974). (Ed.) The Crime Control Establishment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Stewart, D; Gossop, M; Marsden, J.; & Rolfe, A. (2000). “Drug Misuse and Acquisitive Crime Among Clients Recruited to the National Treatment Outcome Research Study.” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. Vol. 10, pp. 10-20. Vinces, Marcelo. (1996). Behavioral Genetics. Cornell University Sci-tech archives. Accessed 20 December, 2006 from Read More