Connection of Crime and Drug Use - Essay Example

Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Overview of Key Terms 3 2 DTTO 3 2.2 DRR 4 2.3 Therapeutic Community 4 2.4 Problem Drug Users 4 3 Connecting Drugs and Crime 5 3.1 Alcohol 5 3.2 Illegal Drugs 6 4 Causal Models of Drug-Crime Relationship 7 5 Prison-Based Drug Treatment 9 5.1 Therapeutic Community 9 5.2 DTTO and DRR 13 6 Conclusion 15 7 Bibliography 16 1 Introduction The link between crime and drug use is an established fact, fortified by a wealth of empirical evidence and, certainly, not a claim premised upon weak assumptions. It is this link and the strong foundations upon which it is established which has motivated the design and implementation of drug rehabilitation programmes for prison inmates in the UK, just as it has in the United States, Australia and most Western European nations. As Johnson, Lipton, and Wish (2001) explains, given the link between drugs and crime, the implementation of drug rehabilitation programmes in prisons may be defined as a strategy for the reduction of recidivism rates and for the assurance of the successful re-integration of offenders into their societies. It is, in other words, an integral part of prisoner rehabilitation programmes which target the possibilities of recidivism by addressing their root causes, in this case, drugs. While not claiming that drugs are responsible for the entirety of the recidivism rate which the UK currently suffers, it is one of its more important causes (Burnett, 2004). Drug rehabilitation programmes for offenders has the potential to significantly reduce recidivism rates and, thus, to reduce the nation's overall crime rate (Burnett, 2004). Indeed, Burnett (2004), a criminologist and offender management expert and researcher, argues that the Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) and the Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) which evolved from it, derive from the empirically-proven link between drugs and crime and are motivated by the imperatives of reducing the nation's crime rates by confronting one of the primary causes of recidivism. This research, however, will not proceed from a premise of unquestioning acceptance of the correlation between addiction and crime, hence treatment and reduction in recidivism rates. Instead, the research will critically analyse attempts to divert drug users out of the prison system and reduce recidivism rates through their inclusion in drug treatment programmes, with particular reference to DTTO and DRR. The study will first begin with the identification and definition of its key terms, following from which it will discuss the relationship between drugs and crime, review causal models of the drug-crime relationship and then examine the extent to which DTTO and DRR have emerged as solutions, at least partial, to the problem under investigation. 2 Overview of Key Terms The research employs four key-terms. This section of the study will briefly resent and define each one of them. 2.1 DTTO Drug Treatment and Testing Orders, a type of community sentence, were introduced within the framework of the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 (Hough et al., 2003, p. 1). As Hough et al (2003) explain, DTTOs "were designed as a response to the growing evidence of links between problem drug use and acquisitive offending." As such, they are a sentencing scheme which is designed to rehabilitate heavy drug users and, in so doing, facilitate their reintegration into society and limit the potential for their re-offending. 2.2 DRR According to a Home Office (2005) publication on drug rehabilitation programmes Drug Rehabilitation Requirement entered into force in April 2005 as a replacement for DTTOs. The Home Office (2005, para 3) defines DRR as "the main delivery route for drug interventions within community sentences for adult offenders. It involves treatment (either in the community or in a residential setting) and regular drug testing." 2.3 Therapeutic Community Therapeutic Community Programmes were the first drug rehabilitation programmes specifically targeting prison inmates. They were premised on the assumption that heavy drug use and crime were inextricably linked and that reduction in recidivism was dependant on rehabilitating imprisoned drug users (Palmer, 2003). DTTOs, according to Palmer (2003) evolved from within the therapeutic community construct. 2.4 Problem Drug Users Problem drug users are heavy drug and alcohol users, addicts. Their addiction, according to several researchers, mitigates their ability to lead productive lives, function as constructive community and societal members and often pushes them towards crime as a strategy for sustaining their habit (Sampson and Laub, 2001; Raynor and Vanstone, 2002). 3 Connecting Drugs and Crime While many studies have focused on the relationship between drugs and crime, these studies do not always differentiate between alcohol and illegal drug use. Many studies solely examine the pharmacological effects of alcohol or drugs, while others examine the economic relationship between drugs and crime. 3.1 Alcohol Empirical evidence suggests that alcohol plays a significant role as a factor in violent crime. In fact, alcohol has been a key factor in rising homicide rates since 1960 (Parker and Rebhun, 1995). Based on their study concerning the connection of drugs and alcohol to violent crimes, Parker and Rebhun (1 995) concluded that alcohol is more related to violent crime than any other drug. Specifically, alcohol played a bigger role in murder, rape, assault, and child and spousal abuse than any illicit drug. In an examination of the pharmacological and economic effects of alcohol compared to the popular drug crack, Parker and Rebhun (1995) found that alcohol was evident in approximately 20 percent of all violent crimes, while crack was a factor in only 3 percent. In the same study, they found that 17 percent of all property crimes took place while the individual was under the influence of alcohol. Studies show that more than one-half of all homicides and assaults involve the use of alcohol (Collins and Messerschrnidt, 1993; Roizen, 1993). Using interviews of inmates, Spiess and Fallow, 2000 (2000) reported that about one-third of inmates report committing crimes while under the influence of alcohol. In fact, in both individual-level and macro-level studies, Cook and Moore (1993) determined that rates of homicide and other forms of criminal activity were positively correlated with the availability and per capita consumption of alcohol. Furthermore, they argued that in cities where efforts to reduce drinking have taken place, a decrease in violent crime was also evident. 3.2 Illegal Drugs Based on figures alone, it would be incorrect to make the assumption that there is a direct causal relationship between drug use and criminality, though studies of heroin addicts dominate the literature because of the apparent link to crime (Ball et al., 1983). Studies of heroin users concluded that active drug use accelerates a drug user's crime rate by a factor of four to six times (Ball et al., 1983; Johnson, Lipton, and Wish, 2001). Findings relating criminality to cocaine use have been reported (Goldstein., 1981). Initial impressions from studies of crack-related crime indicate that the crime rate among crack users is as high or higher than heroin-related crime rates. Furthermore, results from an Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) report (2000) suggest that drugs may generate violent crime, whether based on the competition of the illegal drug trade, the disputes among users and sellers, or the lack of social control among addicts. In another example of the drugs-violence relationship, a study by Valdez, Yin and Kaplan (1997) examined data to predict the outcome of aggressive crime from drug and alcohol-related variables within a sample of 2,364 males. Overall, they found that being charged with an aggressive crime was related to testing positive for drug use. It is on the basis of these studies and several others (Sampson and Laub, 2001; Raynor and Vanstone, 2002; Palmer, 2003; Burnett, 2004) that, regardless of the reasons, there appears to be a pattern of findings suggesting that violence often accompanies drug use. 4 Causal Models of Drug-Crime Relationship According to Goldstein (198l), four causal models explain the connection between drugs and criminal activity. The first of these, the psychopharmacological model, suggests that the individual is physically and psychologically affected by his drug intake, causing him to act out. This becomes more apparent in individuals that do not already have a violent personality, as the drugs can cause a normally rational person to act out of character. Of the studies that have been done, psychophannacological effects have been found more consistently in alcohol than in any other drug use. Psychopharmacological effects have also been shown in studies of illicit drugs. Barbiturates can often lead to violent or aggressive behaviour. The chronic use of marijuana, opiates, and amphetamines also increases the risk for violence (Miczek et al., 1994). Although psychophannacologica1 research does not match criminal activity with a corresponding drug, the research does explain potential causal relationships between drugs and crime (White and Gorman, 2000). The second model, economic motivation, addresses the need for money to support an addiction to illegal drugs (Goldstein, 1981). Support for this model comes mainly from the literature on heroin addiction. Studies offering evidence of economic motivation show that raising the frequency of substance use necessarily raises the rate of individual offending, especially property crime (Sampson and Laub, 2001). Self-report research regarding the criminal histories of inmates offers a picture of economic motivation. According to a 1991 survey of prison inmates, an estimated 17% reported committing their offense to get money to buy drugs (Spiess and Fallow, 2000). In 1997, 19% of inmates admitted to committing their crimes to obtain money for drugs (Spiess and Fallow, 2000). Overall, these figures help to demonstrate the economic connection between drug addiction and crime. The systemic model is the third explanatory model for the drug-crime relationship. This model suggests that negative interactions within the drug market occur because of the sale or distribution of illegal drugs (Goldstein, 1981). As an example, drug-related homicides increased significantly with the introduction of crack in 1985, suggesting that systemic violence may be associated with the popular drug of the time period (Blumstein, 1995). A fourth model that can be used to explain the drug-crime relationship is the common cause model, also referred to as the lifestyle model of substance abuse. Essentially, this model suggests that substance abuse and criminal behaviour share several common causes and predictors. This model argues that there is no one specific characteristic or variable that causes substance abuse, but that a host of variables play a role in the connection between drugs and criminal activity. As an example, Jessor and Jessor (2000) found that variables such as cigarette use, promiscuous sexual activity, excessive drinking, using marijuana and other drugs, stealing, and aggression were linked in a cluster of behaviours negatively associated with conventional behaviour. On the basis of the information discussed above, it is apparent that there is an undeniable link between crime and drug use. Realisation of this link led to the belief that imprisonment was an opportunity for the rehabilitation of drug addicts, with the assumption being that successful treatment was a safeguard against recidivism. 5 Prison-Based Drug Treatment Prison-based drug treatment programmes are integral to the efforts to rehabilitate criminals and ensure their reintegration into society and a strategy for the reduction of recidivism rates. This section of the research will critically discuss prison-based drug treatment programmes and, in so doing, will attempt to identify the advantages which DTTO/DRR have over their predecessor, TC, if any. 5.1 Therapeutic Community Research has shown that the most effective and efficient method of imprison treatment is the therapeutic community (TC). The first TC in a correctional setting was created in 1962 in the Nevada state prison, with several more to follow in the latter half of the decade, eventually spreading to the United Kingdom and several other West European nations (Inciardi and Martin, 1993). Therapeutic communities gradually became a popular treatment modality, based on evidence that the TC model was an effective tool for addiction treatment in a prison setting. Farrell (2002) found that among TC program graduates followed seven years after treatment, success rates exceeded 5 percent, meaning that inmates discontinued both their drug use and criminal activity. Conversely, program dropouts followed during the same time period showed only a 30 percent success rate (Farrell, 2002). While there is little consensus about what types of treatment work best for what types of offenders and in what settings, several studies have demonstrated that in-prison treatment, particularly the TC model, can be effective in reducing relapse and recidivism among drug-involved offenders (Simpson, Wexler and Inciardi, 1999). The rationale for the therapeutic community is that a person needs treatment for the disease of addiction. Most TC programs view the disease as multidimensional, affecting all traits of the individual, including his social, psychological, and physical attributes. Therefore, the goal of TC is to develop a change in the client's lifestyle as well his social and psychological characteristics. According to De Leon (1996: 52), addiction, and more specifically substance abuse, is "embedded in a larger picture of personality disorder, social deviance, disaffiliation, and personal dysfunction." Based on this concept, TC treats drug abuse as deviant behaviour that reflects poor personality development, as well as deficits in social, educational, and economic skills (Farrell, 2002). Since addiction affects the entire person, the recovery cannot take place without treating all aspects of the individual. The therapeutic community is different from other types of drug abuse treatment in that it provides a residential setting for abusers, offering them an environment to change their lifestyle free of societal pressures. A main problem for drug-related offenders is that their community environment outside of prison is often a large contributor to their drug-related activities (De Leon, 2002).Therefore, offering the offender a treatment environment void of familiar, self-defeating characteristics allows for the chance of full recovery. Recognising that drug addiction is a multidimensional problem is half the battle; the other half is recognising the various stages of the addiction and getting the addict to accept treatment as a necessary part of his life. De Leon (1996; 2002) describes ten distinct stages that addicts pass through in a TC treatment program. The first six stages are pretreatment stages, all of which take place before the addict accepts the treatment as rehabilitation. The first of these stages is denial, during which the individual experiences active personal abuse and associated problems, but fails to either recognise or accept that he has a problem. In the second stage, ambivalence, the addict demonstrates some problem recognition but an inconsistent acceptance of the consequences of continued drug use on both himself and others. However, the abuser attributes his drug problems to external influences rather than seeking treatment or change. Some examples of these external motivations include fears and worries about legal problems, money issues, health problems, family concerns, or other social responsibilities. In the next stage, readiness for change, the addict displays a willingness to seek change, but at this point he often chooses options that are not treatment related. As an example, the drug user will choose to change geography, religion, jobs, or relationships rather than choosing treatment because he feels that self-management is the key to detoxification. Eventually, he realises that this is not feasible and becomes ready for treatment. In this stage, the abuser rejects all other options for change except treatment, perceiving treatment as the only alternative. It is here that the addict realises that he needs to change himself, not only his environment and relationships (De Leon, 1996; De Leon, 2002). During this phase, the abuser also develops intrinsic motivation to change. The abuser shows recognition of drug use and the associated problems and expresses a desire to change based on the positive and negative internal reasons. At this point of addiction, the addict realises that change starts with his own desire for rehabilitation and that treatment is a necessary part of recovery. Once the abuser realizes that treatment is a necessity, treatment-related stages emerge and therapeutic engagement begins. These include de-addiction, which is a detachment from active use, essentially creating a pharmacological and behavioural detoxification; abstinence, which is a stabilised drug freedom for an extended period of time; continuance, in which sobriety and personal resolve is utilized to acquire and maintain a lifestyle free of drugs; and integration and identity change, which allows for the separation from treatment for a sustained period and entry into a new lifestyle. At this point, self-examination has taken place, and sobriety is internalised (De Leon, 1996; De Leon, 2002). The above investigation into drug rehabilitation programmes aimed at inmates speaks of a decades' long understanding of the relationship between drug use/addiction and criminality. While recognition is important, it can hardly be acted upon in relation to individuals who have not yet been accused of, or have been found guilty of, having committed a crime. The prison setting, however, provides an ideal opportunity to act upon this recognition and, indeed, has been found to contribute to the reduction of recidivism rates. It is precisely because of this that prisons across the UK have implemented drug rehabilitation programmes which generally assume the TC form. It is further because of this that DTTOs and DRR have been designed and passed into legislature. 5.2 DTTO and DRR In direct comparison to TC, DTTO/DRR are proactive, rather than reactive approaches to the reduction of crime rates through the treatment of drug addiction. TC unfolds within the prison setting and, as such, may be defined as the state's response to drug addiction among incarcerated individuals. DTTO/DRR unfold, however, within the community setting and may be defined as mandatory treatment programmes which target drug addicts for the purposes of reducing the possibilities of their embracing criminality as a way of life. It is, in other words, a proactive response to crime which involves the targeting of individuals deemed vulnerable to criminality. According to a report prepared for the House of Commons by the National Audit Office (2004) noted that mandatory drug testing of individuals arrested in the commission of crime found that between 36 to 66% had committed their offences while under the influence of drugs. Based on these findings, the Home Office introduced DTTO, designed to reduce crime rates through the mandatory, court-ordered enrolment of offenders tested positive for drugs, in community drug treatment programmes (NAO, 2004). Introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), DTTO became available to courts in England and Wales from October 2000 and gave courts the authority to sentence offenders to mandatory community treatment programmes, involving regular testing for drugs for determination of compliance with the programme (NAO, 2004). Prior to the nation-wide implementation of DTTO, pilot studies were carried out in England and Scotland between 1999 and 2000. The results of the studies were positive and underscored the potential of court-ordered mandatory, community-based, drug treatment programmes to treat drug addicts and, accordingly, contribute to the assurance that they abandon crime (Eley et al., 2002). Turnull (1999) confirms these findings. He notes that the pilot studies indicated a significant reduction of drug use among participants and an associate decrease in crime. While conceding to the fact that a significant percentage of participants did not end their drug use following treatment, Turnbull (1999) emphasises that they transited from hardcore to soft drugs and significantly reduced their levels of drug use. Indeed, the findings of these pilot studies indicated that the average expenditure of offender-participants went from 500 pounds sterling per week before treatment to 30 pounds sterling per week after completion of the treatment programme (Turnbull, 1999). The results of these pilot studies encouraged the nation-wide implementation of DTTO. Post-implementation study results were not very encouraging. As Hough et al (2004) report, a two year follow-up study indicated that recidivism rates were not significantly affected. Studying 161 offenders who had received DTTO, the authors found that programme completion rates were very low, standing at about 30%. For the population which did not complete the treatment programme, reconviction rates stood at about 80% while for those who did, recidivism rates were significantly reduced (Hough, 2004). The point here is that while DTTO has the potential to reduce reconviction rates, low completion rates limit the ability of DTTO to fully realise their potential. Turnball and Webster (2007) make the same argument for DRR. The potential is there but it is not realised because significant numbers of offenders do not complete the programme and tend to take it lightly. It is, thus, that critics argue the imperatives of ensuring compliance or locking up offenders and subjecting them to in-prison treatment programmes as opposed to community-based ones (Turnbull and Webster, 2007). 6 Conclusion The research study has argued that the link between drugs and criminal behaviour cannot be ignored. Supported by empirical evidence and the subject of countless research studies, scholars and criminologists have argued that the reduction of the crime rate is partially predicated on the targeting of this link. The argument here is predicated on the assumption that the treatment of addiction can substantially decrease the probabilities for recidivism and, quite possibility, offset the possibilities of their eventual embrace of criminality as a way of life which, primarily determined by the imperatives of supporting their habit. This link has been targeted through programmes which unfold within the prison setting and others which take place within the community setting. The former have been found effective but the latter, which assume the form of DTTO and DRR, have not. This is not because the foundations of DTTO/DRR are weak or inherently flawed but because programme completion rates are low and, hence, recidivism rates are high. It is, thus, that efforts must be redirected towards the enforcement of DTTO/DRR and the insurance of completion. 7 Bibliography Ball, J.C., Rosen, L., Flueck, S.A., & Nurco, D.N. (1983). Day-to-day criminality of heroin addicts in Baltimore: A study in the continuity of offense rates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 12, 119-42. Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth violence, guns, and the illicit-drug industry. In Carolyn Block and Richard Block (Eds.), Trends, risks, and interventions in lethal violence: Proceedings of the third annual spring symposium of the Homicide Research Working group, Research report, NCJ 154254. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Burnett, R. (2002). The Dynamics of Recidivism. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Criminological Research. De Leon, G. (1996). Integrative Recovery: A stage paradigm. Substance Abuse 17(1): 51-63. De Leon, G. (2002). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. New York: Springer. Eley, S., Gallop, K., Mc/ivor, G., Morgan, K. and Yates, R. (2002) Drug treatment and testing orders: Evaluation of the Scottish Pilots. Stirling: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works With Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime. Cullompton: Willan. Goldstein, P.J. (1981). Getting over: Economic alternatives to predating crime among street drug users. In James A. Inciardi, (Ed.), The drugs-crime connection (pp. 67-84). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Home Office (2005) Drug intervention programme. Retrieved 11 April 2008 from http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drug-interventions-programme/strategy/communications/key-messages/DRR_KM Hough, M., Clancy, A., McSweeney, T. and Turbull, P.J. (2004) The impact of drug treatment and testing orders on offending: Two year reconviction results. London: Home Office. Inciardi, J.A. & Martin, S.S. (1993). Drug abuse treatment in criminal justice settings. Journal of Drug Issues 23(1): 1-6. Jessor, R. & Jessor, S. (2000). Problem behaviour and psychosocial development-A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press. Johnson, B.D., Lipton, D.S., & Wish, E.D. (2001). Facts about the criminality of heroin and cocaine abusers and some new alternatives to incarceration. New York: Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc. Miczek, K.A., DeBold, J.F., Haney, M., Tidey, J., Vivian, J., & Weerts, E.M. (1994). Alcohol, drugs of abuse, aggression, and violence. In Albert J. Reiss and Jeffrey A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence, volume 3 (pp. 377-570). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NAO (2004) The Drug Treatment and Testing Office. London: The Stationary Office. Office of National Drug Control Policy (June, 2000). State of Pennsylvania: Profile of drug indicators. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Palmer, E.J. (2003). Offending Behaviour: Moral Reasoning, Criminal Conduct and the Rehabilitation of Offenders. Devon: Willan. Raynor, P. and Vanstone, M. (2002) Understanding Community Penalties: Probation, Policy and Social Change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Sampson, R.J. and J.H. Laub (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. London: Harvard University Press. Simpson, D. D., Wexler, H. K., & Inciardi, J.A. (1999). Introduction. The Prison Journal 79(3): 291-3. Spiess, M. & Fallow, D. (2000). Drug-related crime. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy. Turnbull, P.J. (1999) Drug Treatment and Testing Orders - Interim Evaluation. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Turnbull, P.J. and Webster, R. (2007) Supervising Crack-Using Offenders on Drug Treatment and Testing Orders. London: NHS. Valdez, A., Yin, Z., & Kaplan, C.D. (1997). A comparison of alcohol, drugs, and aggressive crime among Mexican-American, black, and white male arrestees in Texas. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 23(2), 249-65. White, H.R. & Gorrnan, D.M. (2000). Dynamics of the drug-crime relationship. In Gary LaFree (Ed). The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change (Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 1) (pp. 151-218). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Read More