What is the relationship between drug abuse and criminal behaviour?

By the early 1990s, Britain had developed a polydrug culture with the use of a variety of illegal and legal drugs (Davis & Ditton, 1990). No longer is drug culture supposedly hidden away in a sub-culture; now it is argued that it is part of mainstream culture.

In Britain the link between heroin use and crime became more noticeable since the 1980s with increased concern in the 1990s about the growth of organised gang crime in the inner cities, e.g. Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and South London.

The illegality of certain drugs obviously makes their possession, supply or preparation and manufacture an offence (McBride & McCoy, 1982) but the debate about the drugs-crime relationship is wider than this.

Studies have largely focused on heroin and crime tending to exclude more casual recreational drug use (McBride & McCoy, 1982) and it is important to remember that the majority of studies on drugs and crime concern men, with neglect of research on women.

Crime related to the use of drugs may be categorised as follows:

Commonest are offences such as possession and trafficking, which result directly from the legal sanctions against the illicit use of drugs; then follows the predominantly acquisitive drug related crime or street crime which arises from the high cost of illegal drugs; less commonly an offence may be committed during an abnormal mental state related to drug use such an intoxication or withdrawal.

A rough division may be made between studies suggesting that “criminal lifestyles may facilitate involvement with drugs” and those suggesting that “dependence on drugs then leads to criminal activity to pay for further drug use”.

Involvement in criminal activity leads to drug use

Some studies (Morton Taylor, 1974) provide evidence that a high proportion of heroin users were already involved in criminal activities before they started using heroin or other drugs. Thus the argument would be that:

a) Involvement in deviant or crime oriented sub-cultures or groups would be likely to lead a person to encounter the availability of drugs sold within that culture;

b) Such a person would have a deviant lifestyle which would accommodate deviant drug use with relative ease; and

c) Whilst money from criminal activity might then pay for the drugs, it was not drug addiction or use which led to the perpetration of crime.

Certain personality types are both more aggressive and more inclined to drink large quantities of alcohol and ingest certain types of drugs.

This is a preview of the whole essay

b) Such a person would have a deviant lifestyle which would accommodate deviant drug use with relative ease; and

c) Whilst money from criminal activity might then pay for the drugs, it was not drug addiction or use which led to the perpetration of crime.

Certain personality types are both more aggressive and more inclined to drink large quantities of alcohol and ingest certain types of drugs.

The classic New York study (Preble & Casey, 1969) emphasised that it is the activity and lifestyle surrounding drug use, as much as drug taking itself, which is attractive to users. In Scotland, studies challenged the view that heroin use is a direct causal determinant of criminal activity (Hammersley et al, 1989); although the two are related, use of other drugs is also related to crime and furthermore it is a prior history of criminality that is the more important determinant of crime frequency.

Involvement in drug use causes crime

Other studies argue that there is a causal link and drug use (particularly heroin) causes crime (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1990). Jarvis and Parker (1989) found that the criminal convictions of one group of heroin users doubled after they started using heroin regularly and concluded that addiction leads to acquisitive crime.

Typically drug related crime is non-violent and acquisitive involving theft, shoplifting, forgery or burglary (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1991) or prostitution (Plant, 1990). More serious drug related crimes of violence, murder, large scale trafficking and money laundering occur and may be increasing in Britain although they still remain relatively infrequent.

Certain types of crimes are associated with the use of drugs and alcohol, namely offences against people or property as a result of intoxication; offences committed to obtain drugs or alcohol; road safety or traffic offences and specifically through illicit drugs, crimes associated with the importation and distribution of drugs.

In relation to the “hard” drugs such as heroin and cocaine, the patterns of addiction and their link with crime may vary.

There is less evidence that crack cocaine is linked with violence together with other drugs, e.g. amphetamines and strong forms of cannabis although tranquillisers and barbiturates may cause aggression with higher doses (Bihl & Peterson, 1993). Drug and alcohol “cocktails” consumed often by chaotic drug users have unpredictable effects on the user’s level of aggression and may even be life-threatening. The paranoia caused with most of these drugs or the comedown after certain drugs, e.g. Ecstasy and amphetamines, can also lead to aggression.

Women comprise about 30% of notified addicts and 20% of drug users reported in community surveys (Parker et al, 1987) and they also commit acquisitive crime to sustain their habit but clinical experience suggests that this is more likely to involve shoplifting than burglary. Prostitution is reported by about 5% of clients attending clinics and may be as common among men as women.

Legislation and drug-related crime

Legislation introduced since the early twentieth century curbing the use of drugs has been linked to the growth of illegal drug markets and the criminalisation of both users and dealers. To detach drug use from the criminal sub-culture of trafficking, police officers and policymakers are advocating alternatives such as harm reduction(education and clinical approaches) or the decriminalisation of certain categories of drugs (usually soft drugs, particularly cannabis).

Parker et al (1995) argued that the classification of Ecstasy as a Class A drug and the penalties for dealing in cannabis, criminalise and damage the career prospects of many otherwise law abiding young people who are not connected with the criminal sub-culture.

Drug use and crimes of violence

Most drugs of abuse do not cause violent criminal behaviour and personality, situation and cultural background remain critical determinants. Among notified addicts, crimes of violence comprise only 6% of convictions compared with 12% for the general population (Home Office, 1985b). Use of heroin and other opiates does not usually lead to aggression although this could result from a disinhibited state, especially if alcohol is consumed as well.

Withdrawal from opiates, though uncomfortable, is not directly associated with violence. Long-term use of barbiturates often leads to chronic intoxication marked by irritability and aggression. Occasionally, benzodiazepines produce apparently paradoxical stimulation leading to hyperactivity, aggression and outbursts of violence (Hall & Zisook, 1981). Disinhibition combined with memory loss and confusion may lead to patients on low doses of benzodiazepines to commit a range of acts from shoplifting to sexual offences (Ashton, 1987) or violence may occur due to some benzodiazepine withdrawal syndromes, i.e. acute psychotic reactions.

The use of amphetamines or cocaine can induce an acute toxic psychosis as a result of which aggression may occur. This is also possible with the use of hallucinogenic substances and inhalation of volatile solvents. In a study of young people who abused volatile solvents Evans and Raistrick (1987) reported that most had a criminal record usually of theft to support the habit. Regular use was associated with anti-social and destructive acts with nearly half showing an associated misuse of alcohol and illicit drugs.

Use of violence and of firearms by traffickers has reportedly been rising (O’Connor, 1995) and money laundering has developed in various ways (Levy, 1991 and Salt, 1992).

In conclusion, Nurco et al (1985) suggested that this long and continuing controversy seems pointless in view of the fact that addicts cannot be regarded as a homogenous group.

British researcher Stimson (1973) described four types of addicts:

1. Stable addicts - sometimes older who attend clinics or surgeries for a regular maintained dose and avoid the criminal sub-culture.

2. Loners who are not involved in any sub-culture will get help from friends or welfare agencies.

3. Two-worlders who belong to both the legitimate world but mix in the drug or crime culture to buy their drugs.

4.Junkies, i.e. criminal drug addicts usually unemployed involved in drug dealing and criminal sub-culture. These addicts will steal to support their habit and multiplied during the 1980s and 90s in Britain creating an illegal black market which deals with all prescribed doses of drugs.

In terms of treatment of drug users by the medical system, evidence of the efficacy of medical treatment is neither plentiful nor conclusive (Jarvis & Parker, 1990). One key underlying assumption of the practice of maintaining drug users on methadone or other substitutes has been that this will remove the need to resort to criminal activity and erode the profitability of an illegal market in drugs (Mott, 1989). Some significant studies (Weipert et al, 1979; Bennett & Right, 1986) reported maintenance having little clear impact on criminal activity. However, there is evidence that flexible drug treatment programmes can retain patients and reduce criminal activity (Jarvis & Parker, 1990).

A number of studies suggest that unrealistic goals and unattractive abstinence orientations will lead to client dropout, a possible increased involvement in crime and a chaotic lifestyle (Hartnoll et al, 1980; Pearson, 1991).

According to Nadelson (1989), the relationship between drugs and crime could be :

1. To get access to drugs, e.g. robbery;

2. Coincidental because users tend to be antisocial personalities;

3. Those involved in drug dealing often resolve disputes violently;

4. The direct pharmacological effect of drugs which affects different individuals in various ways.

It is clear that the relationship between alcohol and drugs and criminal behaviour is far from straightforward. As Wilson & Herrnstin stress, one has to decide whether the relationship between alcohol or drug use and criminality is:

a) spurious, i.e. there is some other cause of the behaviour;

b) direct, i.e. drink changes behaviour;

c) conditionally causal depending on other factors like a provocative situation;

some other common cause, i.e. an anti-social personality may lead to both.

REFERENCES

Maguire, M.; Morgan, R. & Rayner, R.;The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (2nd Ed.);

Oxford University Press;1997.

Psychology of Criminal Behaviour Course Study Guide Series 4;

Birkbeck University of London.

Gunn, J. & Taylor, P.J.;Forensic Psychiatry;

Butterworth - Heinemann Limited;1993.

Chick. J. & Roch. C;Seminars in Alcohol and Drug Misuse;

The Royal College of Psychiatrists;1998.

Kaplan.H.I. & Sadock.B.J;Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry;Sixth Edn;

Williams & Wilkins;1995.

What is the relationship between drug abuse and criminal behaviour?