My aim is to provide a critical discussion of the concept drug-related crime. Whether a crime is caused by drug abuse or other factors, does not infringe the criminality. But regarding the consequences attached to the crime, it is important to have knowledge of the cause. For example, a person robs a store. When it is clear that this person acted under the influence of drugs (and he/she is a dependent/problematic drug user), this person could - and should- be referred to drug treatment. On the other hand, it could be possible that the person robbing the store was acting under the influence of a mental disorder (e.g. schizophrenia). In this case, this person should receive treatment and care that is adapted specifically to his needs. Whether the person in question is sent to prison, referred to drug treatment or to a centre for mental health services, can be important in estimating the risk of recidivism. In between these three options there are a lot of differences in terms of legal position, possibilities and future prospects. These issues are, in my opinion, important in preventing drug-related crime. Therefore I want to explore the triangular relationship between drugs, crime and psychiatric illness.

Hello both,

from my perspective, it is not possible to pose the question in this way and I think Renzo agrees. If you look at the chapter we wrote in the Debates in Criminal Justice book (2012) ISBN 978 0 415 44591 7 (or ebook 9780 203 80448 3)  there are 5 essential models (pp.187-189) that try to tackle this and the 5th is effectively a non-model, relying on coincidence. As we move forward, it is likely that drugs will have to be in included in complexity theory models which attempt to explain factors associated with crime, but it will only be one variable factor. In your case, it is a good idea to tackle this empirically, but I wonder whether your 'majority' of studies reflect the paradigm you are reading within - co-morbidity, mental health etc. You may need to widen your searches, or narrow down your question to a very specific environment, which seems to be people with drugs problems and involvement in crime (and possibly mental health issues). Renzo has noted the case-by-case approach, but that is pretty much where we are in any practice environment. What we need is some sort of application of complexity theory but that is hard if you are only assessing in a treatment environment. More sociological and/or structural issues are often ignored (ie, lack of job opportunities) because they are beyond the remit of the treaters and treatment tends to be off the peg programmes. I think case-by-case treatment is justifiable, but it needs to be dynamic (ie, if the drugs issue is found to be more of a symptom than a cause) so that the focus doesn't just remain on the drugs factor. I hope that helps. I have done a lot of research, but not on drugs. We wrote the chapter for students and those generally trying to orientate themselves in drugs/crime issues, so all that I know is in there, although the offender treatment elements are based on wider research experience.

Hello,

I agree with the need for a case- by-case approach. Whether I can go beyond this case-by-case approach is one of the big questions and still a work in progress for me. I just finished 15 qualitative in-depth interviews with drug addicts doing treatment in an ambulant setting. I deliberately chose not to make use of quantitative methods so that I can give an insider perspective on the issue of drug-related crime. And I found it really interesting to examine the factor ‘psychiatric illness’ among drug addicts who are NOT doing treatment in a residential setting. In doing so, and comparing this with recent literature on drug-related crime, I hope to produce some interesting findings.

I've studied this issue for a couple of decades now.  And I've come to the conclusion that drug use drives a lot of property and violent crime.  The challenge is helping police understand that the drug-crime relationship is complex and multi-faceted, that alcohol and drugs are root causes of many crimes (we just recently finished a survey of 400 burglars and most were motivated by drugs), and that gang-related and revenge/retaliation homicides (as examples) may be linked to the illicit drug distribution.  Here are a few pieces which might be helpful in this discussion.  Best of luck.

Article The Prevalence of Alcohol-Involved Homicide Offending: A Met...

Article Illicit drug-related psychopharmacological violence: The cur...

Article A meta-analysis of alcohol toxicology study findings among h...

Article A meta-analysis of marijuana, cocaine and opiate toxicology ...

Technical Report Understanding Decisions to Burglarize from the Offender's Perspective

Another consideration in chicken-egg comparisons is how early you go back.  So during adolescence or adulthood you might observer both drug use and crime occurring simultaneously.  So reciprocal relationships can be tested. 

Another consideration is which came first.  This seems simple, just get measure first drug use and first crime.  But maybe not.  What is a crime, something they get caught for are any legal infraction whether detected by authorities or not.  What about the issue of disruptive behavior disorders (DBD), before official crimes, there is a entire syndrome of behaviors in this psychiatric disorder that involves rules violations, challenging authority, disregard for authors that.  So if if drug use starts before other crimes but DBD precedes drug then how do you interpret that? 

Finally, can causal inferences be made about DBD, drugs and crime or are they just correlated with one another?  Or are they all associated with some other latent or manifest factor.  Its a challenge, right because it can be posed as a simple question, that represents something much more complex.

Els, 

I think your intuitions about mental illness underlying both drug use and criminal involvement are very much on point. I am studying now how the increased prescribing of psychotropic medications to children and adolescents in the last 10-20 years has been driving down juvenile delinquency and crime in the US. I'm using a quantitative approach, analyzing state-level panel data. If you are interested, I'll let you know about the results when I complete the analyses!

I am very much interested. Thank you!

I know of at least two longitudinal studies with youth that try to tease out the direction of some of the associations you are interested in understanding (See attached). Hope these are helpful to you.

For me, a major "critical" analysis needs to point out the implications of relying on police or juvenile justice system data or samples for understanding the interrelationship between mental disorder diagnoses, substance misuse, and crime. Really, these studies are only examining those individuals who are detected by authorities (e.g., arrested), and such detection is obviously vulnerable to a variety of biases. In turn, using justice-involved samples and criminal justice data limits the conclusions that can be drawn about mental disorders, substance misuse, and criminality more broadly.

Hi - Critical Analysis - Some Questions:

Drugs: are we talking about illicit, licit, or both legal and illegal psychoactive substances?  Do we limit things to 'hard' drugs or include 'soft' drugs?

Crime: does this include or exclude 'drug-related' crime (such as DUI)?  Do we include or exclude things like banking fraud, market rigging or front-running, government fraud / crime, lying to congress etc. you know, crime not usually shown on Fox's Cops?  Most studies are skewed in terms of the drugs-crime nexus as they tend to focus on street drugs and street crime. 

Psychopathology: is the mental illness nexus being sought inclusive or exclusive of mental illnesses surrounding psychoactive substance use/abuse/addiction?  In other words, abuse and/or addiction to any psychoactive substance is considered pathological in the DSM. Drug related psychopathology may also be caused by, or indicate, some non-drug related disorder or illness (e.g. alcohol abuse or addiction stemming from an anxiety disorder - or anxiety disorder caused by alcohol abuse / addiction).  

@Leah Jacobs:  

I strongly agree with those remarks. That is why I am using qualitative interviews with drug addicts who are not being held in penitentiary institutions nor a residential treatment centre (and will discuss the studies that rely on police or justice system data or samples).   

@ John Edward Deukmedjian:

My focus will be primarily on the use of illegal drugs but I take into account a possible alcohol abuse. As regards the psychopathology, I place great importance on the multidirectional causal path between mental illness and chemical abuse, as noted by Bean (Philip Bean,’Drugs and Crime’, third edition, 2008, p 43.).

As for the rest, of course, the framework will have to be fleshed out. The variables ‘drugs’, ‘crime’ and ‘mentall illness’ are open to all sorts of interpretations (e.g. it is debatable what we can consider as 'hard' drug or 'soft' drug..).

Unfortunately it is very hard to explore ALL these dimensions in in-depth interviews with drug addicts in such a short time frame. Also, in the interviews I did, I couldn’t – and didn’t want to*- ask for every specific detail possible. I considered it of more importance to retain a trusting relationship in which they shared information on their experiences with drug use, crime and mental problems (and their age at onset!).

(*to avoid tendentious questioning, suspicion or aggressive feelings)

Of course, the protection of the community must always be paramount. However, in a society with overcrowded prisons that cannot (or not enough) provide adequate treatment for their inmates I wonder if incarceration is the best solution in order to protect the community.

Apart from a small group of prisoners, all convicted persons will ultimately return to society in Belgium. And without doing something about the underlying problem (e.g. drug dependency or mental illness), the criminality will persist. Also, bearing in mind that incarceration can have perverse effects - in particular on people with a drug dependency or mental health problems – I consider it important to highlight this issue.

Els,

This is an important point that they will return to society and possibly at greater risk than when they went to prison. 

I am recently becoming more aware of a movement for enhanced supervision programs used to either divert offenders from prison in the first place or provide greater management of them after prison during probation.  Important components of these programs include more intensive monitoring and more engagement in therapeutic activities rather then just further restrictions.  For alcohol and drug offenders the focus is on detecting use and providing skills to reduce use.  These models appear promising, although their success is dependent on how they are actually implemented. 

An issue has always been how to afford this, but in the US our Department of Justice is funding some pilot programs to test this approach https://www.bja.gov/Funding/15SmartSupervisionSol.pdf    The hope being that the increased costs of drug treatment services is offset by saving brought by reduced criminal recidivism.  If these are demonstrated to be efficacious, they may be more likely to be embraced by the criminal justice community.

Charles

I believe that the idea of a relationship between psychiatric illness, drug abuse (including alcohol) and crime should be investigated and studied.

Dependence upon drugs (often in the case in which a subject becomes desperate to continue their abuse of a particular substance) has been a well-known precursor to and given reason for indulgence of crime. This idea is common whether as an accepted social presumption or an everyday encounter  testified by law enforcement professionals.

It is also accepted that some psychiatric illnesses can lead to drug abuse or drug dependency, such as the common co-morbidity found with schizotypal disorders. To add, self-medicating with alcohol and illicit drugs may be a common method of coping in persons whom do not have access to mental healthcare, or whom suffer from untreated forms of mental illness.

Therefore, it would make a great deal of sense to investigate as to whether drug abuse and addiction have a mental health precursor, which in turn, may lead to a subject resorting to, or committing crimes more often than persons without a psychiatric illness.

I believe that the matter should be approached from both perspectives - Criminal behavior preceding drug use and drug use preceding crime behavior.  I think the more pressing question would be the percentages of each. It would be important to get both the perspective of the drug user and their families or significant others.

It would also be important to not limit the sample population to those who have been identified by the justice system.  The study might include  but those involved in criminal behavior but who have not been arrested.  Surveys and interviews related to judgment in various situations that require choosing moral choices vs criminal choices might be beneficial.

La ley penal no es inocente. El sistema penal (que incluye la ejecución y aplicación de las normas penales) es selectivo. En tal sentido, las personas con problemas neurológicos, psiquiátricos o drogadependientes, son destinatarios de esa selección. A fin de: 1) Comprobar la "normalidad" de quienes elaboran y sostienen dichas normas; 2) demostrar la situación de "excepción" que supone la actividad delictiva; 3) desviar el estudio de la criminología de cualquier análisis sociohistórico o estructural, que dé cuenta de las desigualdades y carencias; y 4) finalmente, despreocuparse de cualquier tipo de violencia institucional.

Els,

I think it is important to determine that while you're using the variable illegal drugs, the effects of drugs are all different and each effect according to the possibility of carrying out criminal behavior under the influence of drugs concrete.

Also, I think we should consider prescription drugs, as in Argentina, for example, presents the greatest relationship between crime and prescription drug consumption.

Also, interesting it would investigate the reasons for drug use, since it is not the same consuming to commit a crime or to look for certain purposes and as a result end up committing crimes.

Finally, it would be important to think like the penal system contributes to the health system away drug consumer.

I hope I have contributed.

I think following the typical method of researching drug and crime is not as helpful as looking at this old subject from new approaches and perspectives.  Many individuals in jails have mental illness and become labelled as criminals. I think investigating the labeling process and how one label almost immediately subjugates other labels. In investigating crime and drugs usage,I think it is important to investigate perception of the individual, family, and the legal system in relationship to labeling theory.  .  

I agree, however, attachment to mother is as old as time but the approaches to that old story are very new and in light of new theories . Criminalization of pathology and pathologization of criminality are historically "old"  topics. However, as an area of research, they remain virgin territory especially in view of what we know now about social construct and the collective building of reality among institutions which perpetuate themselves.  All I am saying is if the original topic is to be pursued, consider how the individual receive their labels and make sure the sample actually representatives the population that is indicated.  (Is a chair a chair because I call it a chair or is it a chair because of its function?)

So what if we research, both of the process of criminalization of pathology and the 

It's very interesting to see how, starting from matters of drugs et crime matter, which is an seemingly factual question, going to the mental illness field, which is a clinical question in a second time, the debate is now about stigmatization and labelling process, which is a sociological debate. Next epistemological point will probably be a philosophical one. This is criminology in all its extends !

     Law does not produce crime.  However, crime and persons labelled as criminals are defined by law.  This works until the innocent, mentally ill, and certain ethnic groups are labelled so without actual evidence, considerations of mitigating circumstances, or justice.  So the question becomes are all those labelled as criminal actually criminals just because they have engaged in the system.  The answer is yes unless you realize that some persons in the system are innocent.  You may argue that those instances are few and far between but how can you be sure with recent reports of injustices in the legal system.  

     There would have to be considerations in defining criminal just as with drug use.  There are certain considerations such as drug usage, drug dependence, and drug addiction that might be considered.

Consider restorative justice. A community can come together to rehabilitate an offender. The community can make suggestions to assist in this rehabilitation to the greater village, town or city. It might include an increase in opportunities for youth for example. One could infer that the community lack of this service is one potential cause of juvenile delinquency. In a sense then, the community is responsible as well as the offender for the crime. The larger question is: can a community know the needs of everyone, if not there will always be crime and criminals. Realistically we cannot know the needs of everyone yet we can predict the needs of many if not most. 

I suggest these predictions are important although I do not know if they are a part of modern criminology or not. Sounds good though.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are attractive terms that elicit lots of dialogue but little implementation.  The question becomes what is the benefit of continuing to deal with crime and all its aspects in the same ways?  

There are so many intersecting factors but what is needed most is a paradigm sift in how these issues are viewed.   The community can only be responsible for the offender if they are able to assert more influence than all of the other ecosystems that affect the lives of the minor and the poor.

There is a profit element to imprisonment. Black males are counted in or around the sixth grade to fill prisons.  Who benefits from this? Privatization of prisons.  Men are incarcerated and placed in facilities where violence is expected including rapes. Certainly the end result is a more hardened and angry individual upon release.

Extreme sentences are given for lesser crimes and the big fish are no necessarily sought after.  If by chance those who make millions from crime are caught and tried, they receive probation, suspended sentences or are often sent to luxury prisons with golf courses and swimming pools.  Who designed, built, and paid for  those luxury prisons?   They were certainly not designed for the common man.

Am I soft on crime? No,  but there are so many elements that should be considered in looking at crime and drugs.  Mitigating circumstances should be considered such as poverty, self medication for the pains of life, unemployment, and of course morality.  Also, honestly looking at who has the money and power to bring drugs into the communities and remain untouched.

I know its all overwhelming but what about a Gestalt approach of defining the component parts?

Well I have attended several practice sessions and in depth trainings of Restorative Justice (not the same as real, I know) but I am reassured by the practitioners that it is true that the use of RJ is growing, especially in BC. Many police are now redirecting youth and non-criminal offence offenders to RJ for help. Just the presence of the victims, their families, the police and volunteers is often enough to bring about deep regret in the offender. It is working and needs to be further explored and tested.

I agree many approaches are required, especially a Gestalt one. What matters is if the offender grows through it and becomes more mature as a person. Continuing guilt and incarceration only recreate conditions that have been seen to rarely work. Lets move on from this brutality.

Roddy,

Keep up the good work!

I certainly agree to the benefits of restorative justice.  I hope that the initiative spreads worldwide.  It is certainly is  needed in the U.S.  Perhaps it can be introduced to the U.S. through SAMSA as a part of communnity preventative measure to combat drug and alcohol usage.  Restorative Justice can also be used as a counter measure  for trauma recovery since many youth offenders have experienced traumatic incidents. i

https://medium.com/@addictiondocMD/the-chicken-and-the-egg-16d9611b2255