Click for next page ( 53


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 52
The Impact of Substance Abuse on Criminal Careers Eric D. Wish and Bruce D. Johnson OVERVIEW Approach This paper reviews what is known about how illicit drug use affects the pa- rameters of criminal careers, especially crime rates, and suggests directions that future research should take to fill the gaps in current knowledge about drug use and crime. To accomplish these goals, we have focused on the small number of studies of drug use that permit the com- putation of crime rates and that provide important implications for research. We have drawn heavily on our own research and that of our colleagues. In taking this approach, we have ex- cluded many excellent studies. The inter Eric D. Wish and Bruce D. Johnson are research staff members at Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc., New York City. Points of view or opinions in this paper do not necessarily represent the official posi- tion or policies of Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc. The authors would like to thank Lee Robins and Mary Toborg for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. 52 ested reader may wish to refer to a num- ber of comprehensive reviews of the drugs and crime literature (Tinklenberg, 1973; McGIothlin, 1979; Weissman, 1979; Gandossy et al., 1980~. The reader should also be aware that our selection of studies influences the scope of our discussion and the applicability of our conclusions. Most of the studies we discuss concern crime among users of heroin and/or co- caine. These two drugs, along with aTco- ho! (which is reviewed separately in this volume), are the drugs that have been most frequently studied in relationship to crime. Although we briefly discuss mari- juana and phencyclidine (PCP), relatively few careful studies have been made of the relationship of these drugs to criminal behavior. We also discuss the relation- ship of barbiturate use and amphetamine use to crime, mainly in the context of studies that have focused on heroin or cocaine use. In focusing our discussion on studies of heroin and cocaine users, we have thereby limited the types of crimes and the types of populations that we report on. Also, because the use of heroin and

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS cocaine is rare in the general population and in persons uncler age 17, most of the detailed information about the relation- ship of these drugs to crime comes from studies of acIfflts who have been proc- essed by the criminal justice system or who have entered publicly funded drug abuse treatment programs. Finally, be- cause men are more likely to be arrested than women, most of the finclings refer to them. This is unfortunate in light of grow- ing evidence (Wish, Brady, and Cuadrado, 1984) that drug abuse may be more prevalent and severe among female arrestees than mate arrestees. Much of what we say is largely appli- cable to the indigent, less eclucatect, adult mate drug user who has been arrested. Our discussion is less relevant to the users of heroin and cocaine who are well educates! and legitimately employed (Washton and Gold, 1984; Zinberg, 19841; such persons are less likely to be found in state or federally funclec] treat- ment programs, from which many re- searchers select their samples. Little is known about the drug use and criminal behavior of these relatively affluent per- sons. However, a recent survey of 500 largely employed and educated persons who called a national hotline for help with cocaine-related problems (Washton and GoIc3, 1984) indicates crimes are less common among these persons than among less affluent users tv~icalIv stud- ied. Only 12 percent of the sample of mostly chronic cocaine users had been arrested for a cocaine-relatec3 crime, ancI 29 percent inclicatecT stealing from family, friends, or employers to support their habits. The fact that existing research does not permit more extensive discus- sion of drug use ant] crime among affluent populations should not hincler us from achieving our main purposes, however, since we are particularly concerned here with how drug use affects the criminal careers of persons processed by the crim S3 inal justice system, who are preponcler- antly not affluent. Summary of Findings We summarize here conclusions baser! on the information presented in this pa- ner. First, studies of persons who have been arrested and processed by the crim- inal justice system, of unapprehended criminals on the streets, and of persons in drug treatment programs indicate that as levels of illicit drug use (especially of heroin and cocaine) increase so does criminal activity (both drug-clistribution offenses and noncirug-related serious of- fenses). Second, among youths in the general population, the small subset who use cocaine, heroin, or pills for nonmedi- cal reasons account for a disproportionate amount of all juvenile crime. Third, per- sons in the United States who use these drugs enough to have associated legal problems tend to be so enmeshed in other deviance and adjustment problems as to make attempts to untangle the exact sequence of the onset of drug use and criminal behavior a futile and, perhaps, trivial pursuit. Fourth, chronic users of heroin and/or cocaine who are repeatedly arrested ant! processes! by the criminal justice system typically engage in a vari- ety of clrug-clistribution activities and other crimes. Fifth, treatment programs can reduce drug abuse and crime if the person remains in treatment. Ant! sixth, urinalysis appears to be an effective toot for identifying drug-using arrestees, but more needs to be learned about how to use this information. We have also attempter] to review a number of topics for which insufficient information was available to draw clefini- tive conclusions. Little is known, for ex- ample, about the natural course of drug use and crime among persons processed by the criminal justice system. Does in- carceration reduce or only delay drug use

OCR for page 52
54 and crime? Persons tend to relapse into c3 rug use and crime after release from treatment or detention, but c30 they make up for lost time? Even persons dependent on heroin have periods in their lives when they reduce or abstain from the use of drugs. More needs to be Earned about what brings these periods on and how they might be prolongecl. Drug use appears less prevalent among arrestees over age 35. Is this because ctrug-abusing criminals drop out of the active criminal population because of early death, incarceration, or institution- alization, or c30 they turn to alcohol or mature out of their drug use and criminal activities? Or do police avoid arresting oIcler criminals? Or is it that the older criminals, like the rest of the oIcler popu- lation, lack opportunities to use illicit clrugs? And, do these relationships apply equally to mate and female offenders? Much money and resources are being expenclect to reduce the supply of illicit drugs in the United States by seizing supplies and asking other governments to reduce poppy and coca plant production in their countries. These efforts assume that by reducing the supply one can re- duce the abuse of these drugs and the associated crime. Almost nothing is known, however, about how these efforts actually affect the crime rates of drug abusers. Do the higher prices for illicit drugs that result from a decrease in sup- ply lead to less use and therefore less crime, or floes the user merely increase his or her criminal activities to pay the increased prices, or is there no effect because the user turns to more abundant ([rugs? More needs to be learned also about how to reduce demanc! for drugs in of- fencler populations. Which offenders are the best cancticiates for intervention? Should major efforts go toward deterring the young, drug-using offender at risk of progressing to more serious drug abuse, CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS or toward deterring older persons, who may be more ready to change their ways? There is some evidence that court- ordered treatment may keep persons in treatment longer and, therefore, away from drugs and crime longer. More needs to be learned about how specific types of court-ordered interventions can reduce drug abuse and crime. The remainder of this paper expands on the points presented above. The paper is divided into two sections and two ap- pendices. In the first section, which is divided into 11 themes, we review the research and draw pertinent conclusions. In the second section, we present sug- gestions for future research on drug abuse and crime. Appendix A provides a sum- mary of many of the methodologic prob- lems involved in the study of drug use and crime that guided our review of the research. Appendix B provides criti- cal reviews of seven studies from which we have derived many of our conclu- s~ons. CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON DRUG USE AND CRIME We have reviewed the studies indi- cated in Appendix B as well as other research bearing on drug abuse and crime and developed a set of themes to catego- rize the current state of knowledge. Each of these themes is discussed below. Drug Use and Crime Rates Among Youths and Adults After reviewing studies of individual crime rates conducted in the mid-1970s, Cohen (1978:229) concluded that, "clearly the most pressing research re- quirement for estimating the incapacita- tive eject is to provide adequate esti- mates of the individual crime rate (A)." These estimates, she added, should ac

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS count for variations in A by crime type, across the criminal population, and (lur- ing an individual career. This section pro- vicles information that shows how an of- fencler's use of hard drugs influences his or her crime rate. Two primary points are stressed: 1. Among youthful and aclult offenc3- ers, those who use hard drugs, especially if they are daily users, have higher crime rates than those who do not. 2. Studies of these active drug-using offenders that have measured self-report- ec! criminal behavior have produced esti- mates of crime rates that far exceed esti- mates based on arrest or conviction records. Stucties of Youths Information on the crime rates of cirug- using youths comes primarily from stud- ies basecI on data from Elliott and Huizinga's (1984) National Youth Survey (NYS). In assessing the value of such studies one must remember that serious criminal offenses are rare in the general population of youths and that analyses of the most deviant youths are necessarily based on a small number of subjects. Nevertheless, analyses of different types of offenders (e.g., those who limit them- seIves to minor offenses versus those who commit serious crimes) consistently show that use of serious "hard" drugs (primar- iTy cocaine or heroin) is associates] with higher rates of offending. Johnson, Wish, and Huizinga (1983) used NYS data to assess how rates of juvenile crime change according to the level of drug use and offender type (see also Elliott and Huizinga, 19841. Johnson and colleagues grouped youths into five classes of c3 rug use arranged hierarchi- cally (virtually all users of more serious drugs had used the less serious drugs) in terms of the seriousness of drugs used nonexperimentally in the previous year: 55 (1) no drug or alcohol use (N alcohol only used alcohol on four or more occasions (N = 5581; (3) mari- juana usecl on four or more occasions (N = 3011; (4) pills used on three or more occasions (N = 991; (5) cocaine-used on three or more occasions (N = 71, 12 of whom were heroin users). Mean annual crime rates were then caTculatecl for index offenses (rape, robbery, aggravated as- sault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehi- cle theft; homicide was excluded), minor offenses (thefts, assaults, vandalism), and drug sales. These finclings appear in Ta- ble 1. It is clear from Table 1 that the level of juvenile crime closely parallels the level of (lrug use. Both nonusers of drugs and alcohol and users of alcohol reported an average of only two or three crimes, most of them minor offenses, in the previous year. Youths who used marijuana had overall rates of crime that were three times higher than the rates for non-drug users or alcohol users. Youths who used pills but not cocaine, in turn, had higher crime rates than the users of marijuana or alcohol, particularly for index offenses and drug sales. The highest crime rates were found for the youths who reported the use of co- caine. Their rates of index and minor offenses were two to three times those of the pits users, and they had a very high annual rate (48) of drug sales. Separating the youths into offender groups based on the seriousness and number of crimes committed showed that even within these relatively homogeneous groups, youths who used pills or cocaine had the highest crime rates. In fact, one-fourth of the cocaine users had committed three or more index offenses in the previous year. Youths who used cocaine and committed multiple index offenses constituted only 1.3 percent of all youths but accounted for 40 percent of the index crimes reported by the entire sample. = 510~; (2)

OCR for page 52
56 CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS TABLE 1 Mean Annual Rates of Inclex Offenses, Minor Crimes, and Drug Sales in a National Sample of Youths by Level of Drug Use in the Prior Year (number of cases) Mean Annual Rate Index offenses Minor offenses Drug sales All offenses Youths Who in the Prior Year Used No Drugs/Alcohol Alcohol Marijuana (510) (558) (301) b 3 b 3 _b 2 b 6 1 8 Pills Cocainea/Heroin (99) (71) 3 12 9 24 9 21 48 78 Total (1,539) 9 NOTE: Some minor offenses (e.g., running away from home and skipping classes) have been excluded. aIncludes 12 who reported using heroin. bless than one crime per year. SOURCE: Johnson, Wish, and Huizinga (1983~. Conclusion. These findings from a study of a national sample of youths offer strong support for the hypothesis that se- rious drug use (especially of cocaine) and criminal offenses tend to be found among the same youths. These finclings are also consistent with other widely accepted studies showing that illicit drug use by youths tends to be accompanied by a variety of deviant attitudes and behaviors (lessor ant! lessor, 1977; Robins and Wish, 1977; Kandel, 19781. Studies of Adults A study of incarcerated persons in three states (Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982) fount! that violent predators, i.e., persons who reported committing robbery, assault, and drug dealing and who had very high crime rates, had extensive histories of drug use. Violent predators were more likely than others in the sample to have used hard drugs (including heroin) fre- quently as a juvenile and to have used drugs daily and in large amounts cluring the period studied (up to 2 years prior to the current incarceration). It is not clear from the data presented, however, whether cirug use is a major factor in differentiating crime rates among of- fender groups. "Robber-clealers," who committed robbery and drug dealing but not assaults, had Tower crime rates than the violent predators but similar drug-use histories (so far as one can tell, given that only significance levels are reported and not actual percentages) (Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982:Table 3.11. The robber- dealers had higher rates of participation for 15 of 19 juvenile and aclult drug-use measures. Compared with other inmates, both violent predators and robber-cleaTers had higher rates of juvenile heroin acIdic- tion, use of other hare! drugs as a juvenile, claily heroin use costing more than $50, daily barbiturate and amphetamine use (10 or more pills), ant! combined alcohol and amphetamine use. In the absence of more-cletaile(1 information, we have to conclude that the two groups, on the whole, hac! similar drug abuse histories and that the commission of assaults, not use of drugs, (differentiates the two groups. Furler information on this issue is provider] by a study (Chaiken, 1983) in which crime rates were computer! for these same sample members according to their offender group and level of illicit pill or heroin use during the study period. Table 2 presents the minimum estimates of crime rates for selected nondrug crimes, computed by truncating each per- son's annual rate for any offense type at

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS 365 (one per day). The findings of this study indicate that for each offender group high-cost heroin users had the highest crime rates. There was no mono- tonic relationship between drug use and rates of those crimes for other levels of drug use, but this may be because two important drug types (cocaine and mari- juana) were not measured. Even the vio- lent predators who did not report drug use had relatively high (156) crime rates, however. The findings indicate that ha- bitual use of heroin does tend to be ac- companied by high rates of nondrug crime, regardless of one's overall level or type of offending. On the other hand, the fact that violent predators who did not use drugs had high crime rates, even com- pared with some groups who were heavy daily heroin users, shows that serious heroin involvement is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for high crime rates for nondrug crimes. (It should be noted, however, that the data presented in Table 2 omit the high rates of drug- dealing offenses among drug users. An- nual rates of drug dealing were generally greater than 1,000 among the high-cost heroin users, and in the 200 to 800 range for the other groups). Additional evidence for the link be 57 tween hard-drug use and crime rates is found in a recent study of 201 opiate users in Harlem (Johnson et al., 1985~. This study found that crime rates increased with the frequency of self-reported her- oin use. Daily heroin users (persons who used heroin 6 or 7 days a week) averaged 1,400 crimes per year; persons who used heroin less than 3 days a week averaged about 500 crimes per year. Although this finding could be affected by respondent- measurement problems, the subjects were interviewed daily for 5 days and then weekly so the recall period was short. If robbery, burglary, shoplifting, and other larcenies are taken as the index crimes, daily heroin users in this study committed 137 such crimes per year, and less regular heroin users committed 47 per year. Other crimes, e.g., forgery, pros- tit~tion, pimping, con games, and miscel- laneous nondrug crimes, were not related to level of heroin use among this group of users. The annual rates for drug-distri- bution crimes were much higher than for nondrug crimes, ranging from 245 (for irregular heroin users) to almost 900 (among daily heroin users). This study (Johnson et al., 1985) also used the offender typology developed by Chaiken and Chaiken (1982) and found TABLE 2 Annual Crime Rates for Robbery, Assault, Burglary, Theft, and Forgery- Fraud by Drug Use During the Measurement Perioc! Drugs Used No Pills Pills butLow-Cost Heroin Use Variety of Offender or Heroina No HeroinHeroin Use Over $50/Day Violent predator (N) 156 (50) 254 (76)134 (62) 326 (88) Robber-dealer 33 (32) 112 (51)156 (38) 194 (66) Low-level robber 27 (158) 19 (24)24 (26) 110 (23) Burglar-dealer 63 (62) 76 (50)127 (28) 184 (38) Low-level burglar 17 (89) 11 (23)5 (14) 78 (11) Property-drug offender 67 (52) 6 (21)104 (31) 204 (29) NOTE: Measurement period was up to 2 years prior to current incarceration. aStudy did not ask about cocaine or marijuana use during this period. Some of these persons could have used these drugs. SOURCE: Chaiken (1983).

OCR for page 52
58 that crime rates were generally high, con- trolling for offender type, for daily heroin users. These analyses, one should note, clid not control for age or other factors that could have affected the crime rates in each group. Table 3 presents the mean annual offense rates, their standard devi- ations, and the skewness for four offenses, for the 22 robber-dealers in the sample. (Robber-dealers were persons who com- mitted both robbery and drug dealing on 2 percent or more of their days on the street.) The offense-specific crime rates in Table 3 vary considerably. Burglary is a good example because the group was not defined on the basis of burglary rates. Although these 22 robber-dealers, as a whole, had an annual crime rate for bur- glary of 35.8, 6 of them committee! no burglaries, and another 4 committed more than 75. Thus, in computing and analyzing annual crime rates, one must pay special attention to the large variabil- ity that can be fount! even in a somewhat homogeneous group of drug-using of- fenders. Some of the variability in incliviclual offense rates may be explainer! by the finding that persons may have alternating periods of heavy and lesser drug use. One study reported high criminality during runs of narcotics use; when narcotics use declined so did crime rates (McGIothlin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977~. Another study reported that addicts were six times more criminally active during periods of heavy narcotics use than cluring periods of CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS lesser use (Ball et al., 19811. Both of these studies offer further evidence of a link between heavy narcotics use and higher crime rates. A study of acldicts known to the police in Baltimore (Ball et al., 1981; Ball, Shaf- fer, and Nurco, 1983) has received consid- erable public attention because of find- in~s that show the magnitude of the increases in crime rates on days that per- sons used narcotics heavily, compared win days of less frequent use. The fincl- ings ofthis study are consistent with stud- ies reviewed above that document an increase in crime win increased narcot- ics use. However, because of problems of ambiguity in Me interview questions Mat measured the frequency of criminal activ- ity (noted in Appendix B), the exact esti- mates ofthe increase in criminal behavior should not be used as the basis for policy decisions until this study has been repli- cated in other sites. Another study (Wish, Klumpp, et al., 1980; Wish, 1982) analyzecl a 6-year re- cidivism file for 7,087 persons arrested in Me District of Columbia. Arrestees de- tectecl by urinalysis to be drug users (pri- marily morphine or phenme~azine) at any arrest cluring the period had an aver- age of 4.9 arrests during the 6 years, compared win an average of 2.7 arrests for persons not ~letected to be drug users. This result coup! have been observed because persons with multiple arrests probably had more urine tests during the period ant! thus a greater opportunity to TABLE 3 Mean Annual Crime Rates Among 22 Robber-Dealers Mean Annual Standard Offense Crime Rate Deviation Skewness Range Robbery 31.3 34.9 2.6 8-155 Burglary 35.8 50.4 2.3 0-212 Shoplifting 48.1 51.1 .9 0-144 Other larcenies 30.2 35.3 1.2 0-122 SOURCE: Johnson et al. (1985).

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS have a positive specimen and to be cIas- sified as a drug user. The researchers continuer] to fins! an association between the number of arrests and being a chug user, however, when they controller] for the number of urine test results available for each person. In a related analysis, persons found at an initial arrest to have a positive urine test had rates of multiple rearrest in a 4-year follow-up period that were significantly higher than those found for nonusers, after controlling for age and prior record (Forst and Wish, 19831. Similar findings were also reported in a study of male arrestees in Manhattan (Wish, Bracly, and Cuadrarlo, 19851. Ar- restees with a urine specimen that was positive in tests for any of four drugs (opiates, cocaine, PCP, or methadone; N = 2,647) at the index arrest had an aver- age of 3.5 arrests in a 3-year period, most of which occurred after the index arrest, compared with an average of 1.9 arrests for persons with drug-negative urine at the index arrest (N = 2,089~. This higher number of arrests was found among drug- positive arrestees of all ages. In addition, the number of arrests was related to the number of drugs found in a specimen. Arrestees with two or more drugs in their urine (N = 1,081) had an average of 4.6 arrests, compared with an average of 2.8 arrests Or persons with one drug (N = 1,5661. Thus, arrestees who had recently used multiple hard drugs (usually co- caine and heroin) had the highest number of arrests. Other studies of drug users (doss, 1976; Inciardi, 1979, 1984; Clayton anclVoss,1981; Collins ancIAllison, 1983; Johnson et al., 1985) and of the associa- tion between the price of heroin ant] levels of property crimes in the commu- nit,v (Silverman and Spruill, 1977) pro- vide evidence for a link between heroin and cocaine use and criminal activity. Conclusion. Studies that vary dramat- ically in the locales and populations sam 59 plecI, in the measures of crime and drug use, and in the cutting points and cIassi- fications of offenders and drug users have consistently found a strong association between the level of cocaine or heroin use and criminal behavior. Among the general population of youths and among adult offenders, users of these drugs have high rates of c3rug-distribution crimes and serious nondrug crimes, especially those that generate income. Daily users ofthese drugs tenet to have the highest crime rates. Demonstrating a link between serious drug use and crime is much easier than estimating the actual amount of crime committee] by drug abusers, however. Large estimates of the amount of crime attributable to heroin users have been challengecl by some as impossible and "mythical" (Singer, 1971; Renter, 19841. Diversity of Crimes Among Drug Users As in(licatecT above, recent research has demonstrated that some offenders who use hard drugs, like the violent predators, may have rates of violent crimes against persons that equal or exceed those found among offenders not using drugs. The analysis of the rates of arrest over a 6-year period for a sample of 7,087 arrestees (Wish, 1982), noted above, found that per- sons with a positive urinalysis test (at the time of at least one of their arrests) had rates of arrest for bait violations, larceny, robbery, burglary, and drug offenses that were two to three times higher than the rates for persons not detected to be using hard drugs. Drug users' rates of arrest for all other crimes were similar to those found for the nonusers. Analyses of consecutive arrests among drug users and nonusers from the same study showed a tendency for drug users to be rearrested for property crimes. A sample of all persons who had an arrest in

OCR for page 52
60 an 8-month panel period were selected for this analysis and all of their rearrests in the following 4 years were tracked. Each of 2,442 arrestees was classified as being drug positive (D + ~ by urinalysis at the initial arrest or drug negative (Do. The index arrest and the next arrest were classified according to six types of of- fenses: violent, robbery, property, victim- less, drug, and other. The results showed that for D- arrestees the next arrest was most likely to be for the same type of crime as the index arrest. Drug-negative arrestees initially charger] with a drug offense were an exception and were more likely to be rearrested for a property crime. All D + arrestees, however, were more likely to be charged with a property crime at rearrest than any other crime type, regardless of what the charge was at the initial arrest (Wish, Klumpp, et al., 1980:VII-22~. Ethnographic research of indigent drug users in New York shows that the ordi- nary, high-rate offender may switch from one crime type to another from one clay to the next ant! even on the same clay. For example, a person may commit a theft one clay, a burglary the next clay, several drug sales the next clay, ant! no crimes the next day (Johnson et al., 19851. Other studies of active street hustlers in Harlem have also suggested such a diverse pattern of offending (Strug, Stevie, et al., 1984; Strug, Wish, et al., 1984~. Although ethnographic studies of nonrandom samples of offenders provide findings with unknown representative- ness of other offenders, such studies do yield valuable insights into the link be- tween drug use and crime. For example, one of the reasons behind the variety and number of crimes that drug users report may be the rather modest amounts of money they earn from their crimes. Johnson et al. (1985) report that the aver- age nondrug crime committed by the re- spondents they studied netted the of CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS fender only $35 in cash; even the most lucrative nondrug crimes (burglary and robbery) netted an average of only about $80. Estimates of the annual criminal in- come from both drug and nondrug crimes ranged from $6,000 to $18,000. Conclusion Offenders with expensive drug habits clearly commit high rates of income- generating crimes, such as larceny, bur- glary, and robbery, in addition to high rates of drug-clistribution crimes. Evi- dence from ethnographic studies of indi- gent street users in New York indicates that these persons earn small amounts of money anti, thus, commit numerous crimes to finance their drug use. Drug Use and Violent Crimes If one considers robbery to be a violent crime, there is little doubt that drug users commit many violent crimes. However, there has been some controversy in the literature regarding whether drug users commit crimes specifically designed to harm persons (Wish, 1982~. Studies of the arrest charges for heroin-using versus nonusing arrestees have uniformly found that the heroin-using arrestees had higher proportions of arrests for property crime and Tower proportions of arrests for vio- lent crimes against persons (Kozel and DuPont, 19771. Similarly, inmates with a history of narcotic addiction were only one-thircl as likely to be serving a sen- tence for violent crime as were nonusers (Barton, 1976~. In reviewing this topic, McGIothTin (1979:361) cautioned against jumping to the conclusion that such results necessar- iTy mean that heroin users do not commit violent crimes: These findings have been loosely interpreted to conclude that narcotic addicts are less likely to commit crimes against persons than are

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS nonaddict criminals. Actually, the data do not warrant conclusions about the absolute fre- quency of crimes by He two groups. Addicts exhibit an especially high recidivism rate, and Be possibility that they commit many more property crimes, and some more violent crimes, than nonaddict criminals is not incon- sistent win the above results. In recent years the wisdom of this ob- servation has become clear. Analyses of a recidivism file for 7,087 arresters in the District of Columbia indicated that the percentage of arrest charges for violent crimes against persons for drug users (positive urine test) was lower than that for nonusers (Wish, 19821. However, the rates of arrest for violent crimes for drug- using ant] nonusing arrestees were equiv- aTent for assaults, sexual assault, and ho- micide. Rates of arrest among drug users for weapons offenses were higher than those for nonusers. And a study of incar- ceratec! persons (Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982; Chaiken, 1983) found that many of the violent preclators, the group cleaned by drug cleating, assault, and robbery, were heroin users, many of whom had expensive habits. Drug-using offenders, especially those involved in drug-clistribution activities, may be especially prone to commit crimes against persons. Several jurisclic- tions have recently issued statistics that indicate that between 20 and 30 percent of their homicide cases appear to be "drug related," that is, the victims or perpetrators were either drug users or dealers (Goldstein, 1985; Heffernan, Mar- tin, and Romano, 1982; McBride, 19831. And toxicologic studies of homicide vic- tims in New York have shown a high prevalence of alcohol and drug use by the clecedents (Haberman and Baclen, 19781. A rationale for the prevalence of vio- lence among drug abusers has been sug- gestecT in terms of a "systemic moclel" (Goldstein, 1985~. This model holds that the drug-clistribution system relies main 61 Ty on violence and its threat to maintain "orcler" and to control the sale of these valued, but illegal, substances. A variety of expectations of violence have been developer! by higher level dealers to keep Tower level distributors "in line." And lower level users-dealers see drug distributors as prime candidates to "rip off,' (rob or burglarize). Distributors who have been victimized rarely report such crimes to the police; they settle the mat- ter themselves. Conclusion Users of heroin have, in the past, been considered to be unlikely to commit vio- lent crimes against persons. Recent stud- ies suggest that hard-drug users commit violent crimes at least as often as nonus- ing offenders. The pervasive violence in the drug-distribution system may even increase the likelihood of drug users' be- coming perpetrators or victims of violent crimes. More research is needed to clarify the hypothesized link between violent crimes and drug-distribution activities. Drug-Distr~bution Activities ant! the Measurement of Crime Rates There are a number of reasons for sepa- rating drug-related crimes (e.g., possession or sale) from the computation of rates of crime. Drug users, by definition, commit- ted drug-related crimes. However, drug- distribution activities are so much a part of the daily lives of drug-involved of- fenders that to ignore these activities is to underestimate their crime rates seriously. Virtually all studies of high-risk popu- lations have found that the rates of drug selling exceed those of any other offense type, especially for users of cocaine or heroin. Chaiken and Chaiken (1982) found that their subjects reported be- tween 90 and 160 drug sales per year. Even among persons who were not daily

OCR for page 52
62 heroin users, the number of drug sales (about 100) exceeded the number of thefts by a factor of two to five. Drug users in Miami reported two to three drug sales for every theft that they committed (Inciardi, 19791. And others have fount! that approximately 10 percent of Ameri- can youths sell drugs in any given year, and a few do so more than 50 times per year (Single and Kanclel, 1978; Clayton and Voss, 1981; Johnston, Bachman, ant! O'Malley, 1982; Elliott et al., 1983~. Daily heroin users in East Harlem reported committing an average of 1,000 cirug- ctistribution crimes per person per year (Johnson et al., 1985~. Conclusion Drug-ctistribution activities must be taken into consideration when measuring the rates of crime among drug users. These crimes are among the most com- mon committed by drug users, and poli- cies of selective incapacitation or treat- ment of drug users may have their greatest impact on these crimes. Onset of Drug Use and Crime: Does It Matter Which Occurred First? The onset of drug use ant! crime has been given considerable attention in the research literature. There is often an im- plicit assumption that knowing when in the life cycle ant! in what order the two types of behavior first occur may help to resolve two issues: (1) how to intervene in and prevent these behaviors and (2) whether the onset of drug use changes a person's level (or type) of criminal behav- ior. Persons who begin to use drugs or alcohol at an early age have a greater likelihood of having problems with sub- stance abuse and alcoholism as adults. The evidence is less definitive on the issue of whether drug use precedes or follows onset of criminal behavior, and it CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS appears that this relationship may depend on the availability of the drug and the con- ventional age at which its use is initiated. The typical addict studied before 1950 lic! not have a prior criminal background (Greenberg anct Adler, 19741. These per- sons, predominantly rural, white south- erners, became actdicted in their middle twenties, usually as a result of using pre- scribed drugs. Around 1950 a shift oc- currec3 in the type of persons who became heroin aclclicts. Adclicts were now urban blacks and Spanish-speaking males who voluntarily used heroin and who had a history of criminality prior to the begin- ning of adcliction in their teenage years (DuPont artcl Kozel, 19761. The weight of the evidence seems to support the con- clusion that currently most (not all) users of heroin and other hard drugs who even- tually come to treatment programs or who are apprehencled by the police have cle- viant or criminal backgrounds that pre- cecled their addiction. Heavy use of her- oin and injection of heroin and cocaine tend to begin in the late teens or the early twenties (Inciardi, 1981; Clayton ant] Voss, 19811. Once aclclicted, these per- sons become more involves] in drug-dis- tribution activities and other income-gen- erating crimes (McGIothTin, 19791. Heroin use and, to a lesser degree, cocaine use have a bad reputation in American society, and there is consicler- able self-selection involved in the use of these drugs. Persons who are deviant in childhoocl are more likely to use these drugs, and consequently, it is cliff?icult to cietermine how many crimes committee! by users are the result of an underlying disposition toward deviance and criminal behavior. This is a major problem in as- sessing the causal role of drug use in crim- inal behavior. After considering these is- sues, Robins (1979:328) concluclecl, Thus, while it is true that the kinds of people who use heroin are also likely to commit crimes, and that committing crimes makes

OCR for page 52
78 CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS Although researchers may find it help . ~ ~ ~Polyclrug Use Among Heavy fuT to test the vanity of seli-reports ot Drug Users recent drug use through urinalysis, they still face many problems in vali(lating self-reports of drug use. For example, urine tests do not tell us when in the test-sensitive period (approximately 24 to 48 hours for cocaine and heroin) the drug use occurred. One cannot use urine tests to validate reports of drug use several days prior to the collection of the urine specimen. Researchers typically settle for an indication of the veracity of the re sponclent's answers to questions about drug use from the vaTiclation of recent drug use (by urinalysis) and from consis tency checks within the interview ant! between the interview and recorc] infor mation obtained for the respondent. Episodic Nature of Hard-Drug Use It is commonly believed that the heavy user of hard drugs, especially of heroin, uses the drug every day. It has become increasingly clear, however, that heroin users go in and out of periods of use even w i t h o u t t r e a t m e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n ~ M c G ~ o t h lin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977; Robins, 1979; Ball et al., 1981; Ball, Shaffer, and Nurco, 1983; Johnson et al., 19851. Stud ies of active, unapprehenclecl heroin using offenders in New York City (Iohn son, 1984; Johnson et al., 1985) tend to find much polydrug use and drug switch ing, depending on drug availability and the person's finances and preferences at the time of purchase. The implications of the episodic nature of drug use for studies of drug use and crime are significant. One must not label a person a drug user over an entire period because the person reports being an acIdict or heavy user at one time during that pe riod. Measurement of drug use on a daily or weekly basis is needed to relate runs of drug use to changes in criminal behavior (see McGIothlin, Anglin, ant! Wilson, 1977; Nurco, Cisin, anct Balter, 1981a-c). Ample evidence exists that the heavier the use of any one ([rug, the greater the likelihood of use of other drugs. One study (Robins, HeIzer, et al., 1980) found that, as the use of alcohol or heroin in- creased in a sample of veterans, so cTi(1 the number of other drugs used in the same 2-year period. This study reporter] that persons addicted to heroin used an aver- age of 10.4 other drugs (out of 20) in a 2-year period after returning to the United States from Vietnam, comparer! with 7.9 drugs for less regular heroin users. In fact, the authors suggested that knowing how many illicit drugs were used by a person may be as good an indicator of severity of use as knowing which drugs are used. Studies of popula- tions of heroin-using offenders have tended to confirm this high degree of polycirug use (Strug, Stevie, et al., 1984; Strug, Wish, et al., 1984~. Both self-reports and urinalysis have inclicated that heavy users of any illicit drug use a smorgasbord of drugs, including alcohol, PCP, cocaine, heroin, pills, and illicit methadone fre- quently on the same clay. The fact that heavy users of heroin anti, incleed, of any illicit psychoactive drug tend to use multiple drugs presents some clifficulties for the researcher studying the relationship between (lrug use and crime. It may be misleading to attribute the criminal behavior of a heroin user to the heroin when that person is probably us- ing a multitucle of ([rugs and alcohol. Studies of drug use and crime must there- fore obtain precise information about all substances being used and control for their clifferential impacts on crime. A good example of this approach appears in the study of veterans cites] above (Robins, HeIzer, et al., 1980~. That study compared the effects of regular use of heroin, am- phetamines, marijuana, and barbiturates on social acldustment, after controlling for

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF S UB STANCE AB USE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS early predisposing factors as well as other c3 rug use. The authors concluded that the greater social disability found among us- ers of heroin than users of other drugs was probably attributable to the types of per- sons who use heroin in our society persons with the greatest predisposition (apparent in their youths) to social prob- lems. Both the use of other drugs and one's disposition toward deviant behav- iors must be taken into consideration when ascertaining the impact of a partic- ular drug on one's social adjustment or criminal behavior. Measuring Drug Use and Crime We inclicatec3 above that persons may tend to underreport their use of illicit drugs and that urine tests can help to detect instances of recent drug use. When one measures both drug use and criminal behaviors by self-reports, however, there is another potential problem. Let us as- sume that person X is a seasoner! drug- abusing offender (perhaps in his late twenties) who is relatively open about his involvement in illicit behaviors. Such a person might report considerable drug use ant] crime in a research interview. On the other hand, person Y may be younger and as criminally active as person X, but less willing to admit to deviant behaviors. For example, some evidence exists that youthful offenders in Harlem were less likely to admit that they were junkies than were older offenders (Anderson et al., 1984~. Assuming that a sample contains many persons like X and Y. we could find a strong relationship between rates of drug use and crime that would be artifactual, resulting only from the fact that persons willing to disclose one of these behaviors are likely to disclose the others. A similar problem could occur if a respondent tended to view a particular time period to be one of general activity. In such cases he might report a high level of both drug 79 use and crime as a result of this general- ized belief about his life at that time. These biases or distortions in self- reported behaviors could be expected to increase as the time period being recalled gets further away from the time of inter- view (Bachman and O'Malley, 19814. On the other hand, in our research we have found some indication of underreporting among persons asked to report their drug use in the prior 24 to 48 hours during a research interview held in potentially threatening criminal justice settings. Re- searchers shouIc3, therefore, attempt to test drug and crime associations based on self-reports by comparing them against other information that does not depend solely on self-reports. An example of this strategy is the evaluation of the California Civil Addict Program by McGIothTin, Anglin, and Wilson (1977), in which an association between self-reported reduc- tions in narcotics use and self-reported reductions in crime was verified by a reduction in recorded arrests cluring the same period. APPENDIX B Studies of Drug Abuse an(1 Crime In this appendix we review studies whose findings greatly influenced our discussion in the body of this paper. We provide a brief summary of the design, major findings, significance, and potential limitations of each stu(ly. Evaluation of the CaZfornia Civil Addict Program (:McGIothtin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977J Sample: Studied 949 men committed to the CaTifomia Civil A(l(lict Program. Included admissions from 1962~1963, 1964, and 1970. Many sample members entered this program as an alternative to serving time for a crime. Primary Measures: Self-reports clur

OCR for page 52
80 ing personal interviews, official arrest rec- orcts, and urine specimens. Validity Checks: For criminal behav- ior, arrest records; for recent drug use, urinalysis. Study Design: Follow-up study; nat- ural experiment using a comparison group of persons who were released from program early because of a legal techni- cality; oversampled a group of treat- ment successes as another comparison group. Significance of Study: This study is known for its excellent design and execu- tion. Both drug use and crime in specific time periods were measured, and runs of narcotics use were identified. The study indicated that the Civil Afflict Program, which consists of inpatient and outpatient periods, was effective while the men were in the program and less effective after termination. Supervision coupled with drug testing (originally with naline and later with urine tests) producer! mod- erate reductions in narcotics use and nondrug crime while the men were in the program. Methadone appeared to have a similar beneficial impact. The study con- cludec3 that reductions in daily runs of narcotics use couIc3 produce significant reductions in criminal behavior. Potential Limitations: Sampled only mates, largely those convicted of crimes. Applies to persons living in California; impact of methadone use by respondents not totally controlled for in the post-1970 analyses. Analysis of Drugs and Crime Among Arrestees in the District of Columbia (Wish, KZampp, et al., 1980J Sample: Consists of 57,944 men ant] women arrested and acljuclicatecl in the Washington, D.C., Superior Court from 1973 to 1977 and a recidivism file contain- ing 19,277 arrest cases (over a 6-year pe- riocI) for a sample of 7,087 consecutive per CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS sons arrester! in an 8-month panel period in 197~1975. Primary Measures: Prosecutors' case- processing records (from PROMIS), bait and sentencing information from court records, urinalysis results, ant! drug abuse treatment records. Validity Checks: For criminal records, none; for urine test results, some compari- son with police officer's perception of ar- restee's involvement with narcotics. Study Design: Cross-section case files of prosecutor's case information and results of a urine test from a specimen taken at arrest were merged for each in- dividual and analyzed; in addition, a per- son-based file containing arrest cases, uri- nalysis results, and information on drug treatment for 7,087 persons was con- structed and analyzed. Significance of Study: This study showed that urine test results could iden- tify arrestees at high risk of rearrest in a 4-year follow-up period. Drug-using ar- restees in a 6-year period prior to and after the index arrest had higher rates of bait violations and income-generating crimes than nonusers and equivalent rates of arrests for violent crimes. Female arrestees were more likely to be detected to be using drugs at arrest than male arresters. The report also contains infor- mation about the type of victims chosen by drug users and their types of arrest. Potential Limitations: Study looked only at arrest records and obtained no self-reports of crimes committed. Time at risk was not controlled for, although sub- sequent analyses indicated that adjust- ment for time at risk did not alter study findings. Drug use was measured only by . . urlna ySlS. Varieties of Criminal Behavior (Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982) Sample: Study of 2,190 inmates in prison or jail in Michigan, California, and

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS Texas. Sample was selected to represent an incoming cohort in the institutions. Analyses were weighted, where neces- sary. Primary Measures: Group-adminis- tered questionnaires nonconfidential- to enable linking of information with of- ficial records. Validity Checks: Performed exten- sive internal and external validity checks. Official records were available only for respondents in prison, however. External validity tests of self-reports versus record information inclicatec3 that 23 percent had "bad ciata" on 31 percent or more of 14 indicators checked. Internal consistency checks showed that between 28 and 32 percent of the respondents had trouble understanding the clefinition of the 2-year period preceding the primary measure- ment period. Approximately 17 percent of the sample hac3 bacl data on 21 percent or more of the 27 indicators of internal qual- ity that were checked. No systematic re- lationships were fount] between the global indices of internal and external validity and personal characteristics or reported crime rates in the measurement period. Official records on drug involve- ment were so poor that checks of the self-reportec3 information on substance abuse were impossible. Study Design: One-time, retrospec- tive, self-administerec3 survey question- naire and available official records were used. Significance of Study: Study is pri- mariTy known for the clevelopment of a typology of offenders having different levels of offending rates and for measur- ing individual offending frequencies (As) from inmates' self-reports. Self-report in- formation, but not official records, was useful in discriminating high- and Tow- rate offenders. Potential Limitations: Used identifi- able group-ac3ministered questionnaires, rather than personal interviews. Re 81 spouse rates were 50 percent in CaTifor- nia and Michigan prisons, 66 percent in California and Michigan jails, and 82 per- cent in Texas prisons. Measures of drug use were few and simple: did not mea- sure use of marijuana, PCP, or LSD after age 18; did not measure cocaine use at all. Method of drug administration was not measured. Alcohol use was measured by only a single, yes-no question regarding whether the person drank alcohol heavily, got drunk often, or had a drinking problem. The findings may apply to a select population of offenders, given the Tow probability of incarceration. Respon- clents' clifficulty in differentiating prior time periods places analyses over these periods in doubt. Statistical significance levels were often reporte(1 rather than the actual finclings, which limits the reader's ability to assess the magnitude of the differences reportecl. Criminality Among Heroin Addicts in Baltimore (:Ball et al., 1981; Nurco, Cisin, and Balter, 1981 a,b,c; Ball, Shaffer, and Nurco, 1983) Sample: A random sample of 243 mate opiate addicts arrested or identified by the Baltimore police department be- tween 1952 and 1971. Sample was strati- fiec3 by race and time periocl. Primary Measures: Personal follow- up interviews an(1 police, juvenile, and FBI records. Validity Checks: Interview informa- tion was checke(1 against recor(1 informa- tion on (late of birth, narcotics use, incar- ceration an(1 conviction history, and juvenile clelinquency history. Stucly Design: Follow-up interviews with sample in 1973 and 1974. Significance of Study: Known for its typology of heroin addicts and for its fin(lings regarding the number of crime days during periods of heavy narcotics use and lesser use.

OCR for page 52
82 Potential Limitations: Early papers presented findings for blacks and whites separately, since the sample hac3 been stratified by race to produce nearly equal proportions of whites and blacks. (On original list 77 percent were blacks; in the final sample 57 percent were blacks.) However, research on crime days by Ball et al. (1981) anc3 Ball, Shaffer, anc3 Nurco (1983) pooled blacks ant] whites without weighting the sample back to its original ethnic composition. Given the many dif- ferences found between black and white respondents (Nurco, Cisin, and Balter, 1982), the pooling of all subjects limits the generaTizability of results. Because whites were less criminally active than blacks, the disproportionate number of whites in the sample wouIcl tend to lower the estimates of crime. Persons were interviewed as long as 20 years after they had been iclentified as drug involved by the Baltimore police. Other than verifying that most of these persons were using drugs at about the time they were placed on the list (Bonito, Nurco, anc3 Shaffer, 1976), few checks were macle to verify that the behavioral patterns recalled were accurate. This study may also be limited by biases in self-reported behaviors (discussed in Ap- pendix A), which could have produced a strong association between drug use and crime in certain periods as an artifact of the measures. While the number of crime clays per year is measured, the study does not report data from which As may be computed. In addition, the computation of crimes per clay is not straightforward, given ambiguity in the way the pertinent questionnaire items were worcled. National Youth Survey (Elliott ant] Huizinga, 1984) Sample: Consists of 1,725 youths se- lectecI as a representative sample of American youths aged 11 to 17 in 1976. Persons were reinterviewed annually CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS from 1977 to 1981 about their delinquent anc3 drug-using behaviors. Primary Measures: Self-reports from personal interviews about behaviors clur- ing a 12-month period. Also obtained rec- ords of arrests. Validity Checks: For criminal behav- ior, used arrest records; for recent (1rug use, used internal consistency checks. Study Design: Prospective longitudi- nal design; each year of birth cohort was treated as an indepenclent sample. Significance of Study: This is the largest ant] longest study of a national sample of youths that is available. It is recognize(1 for its design and execution. Its reports contain measures of crime rates (routinely reported) for various types of clelinquent behavior. It provides the best information available about de- linquency in a large, representative sam- ple of youths. Potential Limitations: The major lim- itation is the small number of youths reporting extensive clelinquency anc3 se- rious drug use in a national probability sample. Heroin use was almost nonexis- tent (1 percent or less). While (dropouts from the study do not appear to slider substantially from reinterviewees, the Toss of even three to five highly clelin- quent youths could have re(lucecl crime rates. Economic Behavior of Street Opiate Users (Johnson et al., 1985) Sample: Consists of 201 heroin and methadone users recruite(1 from the streets of East and Central Harlem in New York City. Subjects were inter- viewed nine or more times an(1 provided a total of 11,400 person-days of informa- tion about their behaviors. Researchers were not successful in (leveloping a sam- pling frame from which to select persons with a known probability of selection. Primary Measures: Self-reports Bring 33 or more clays per person with

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS respect to crimes (type, number, clolIar, and drug income), drug patterns (use, purchase, sales, noncriminal income, noncIrug expenditures, arrests, and drug treatment. Validity Checks: For criminal behav- ior, some observations of subjects com- mitting crime in the streets, internal consistency checks cluring follow-up in- terview, reporting of similar crimes dur- ing different interviews; occasionally, two or more subjects reported about the same crime event. No arrest records were obtained. Reports of drug use were not validated, although many subjects report- ing use appeared intoxicated at the time of interview. Study Design: Convenience sample of persons encountered on the street who were screened by exaddict field-workers for heroin and methadone use and prob- able criminal behavior; subjects selected to represent the diversity of drug and criminal life-styles in the neighborhood; subjects reported to storefront research once each clay for 5 days and then 1 day per week (for 1 month or longer) to re- count prior week's activities. Significance of Study: This is the first study to compute crime rates from data about self-reported crime for persons while they were active on the streets. It is one of the few studies to present detailed daily and annualized data on the dollar returns from drug use, drug-ctistribution activities, and other crimes, as well as other economic behaviors. The study presents both quantitative and qualitative information about heroin abusers who are serious and regular criminal offenders. Potential Limitations: The sample is small and limited in geographical area, and it clid not follow accepted sampling procedures. It is unknown how represen- tative the respondents are of other of- fenders in New York City or in other cities. The As include numerous small drug-distribution crimes. The analyses seldom control for the effects of demo 83 graphic characteristics (sex, age, ethnic- ity, age of onset, education, etc.) on the As computed. Studies from the National Institute of ;/ustice-Funded Interdisciplinary Research Center (IRC) for the Study of the Relationship of Drug Use anct Crime (Strug, Stevie, et al., 1984; Strug, Wish, et al., 1984; Glassner et al., 1985) Samples: Three samples: youths in a moclerate-size city in New York (N = 1001; unapprehen~lec3, clrug-using aclult criminals in East Harlem (N = 179~; and aclults arrested for possession or sale of drugs in the East Harlem area (N = 116~. Primary Measures: Intensive, open- en(le(1 interviews of youths; structured personal interviews and urine tests for apprehended and unapprehended adult . . . criminals. Validity Checks: Internal checks and some corroboration by other youths; stud- ies of adults checked urine tests against self-reports of recent use of illicit drugs and found considerable concordance. Study Design: Studies of youths in- volvec3 three subsamples: a random sam- ple from school lists, a purposive sample based on field observations of deviant youths, and a sample of juveniles adjudi- cated as delinquent and residing in group homes or detention centers. Youths were interviewed for an average of 4 hours about their drug use, adjustment, and cle- v~ance. Studies of unapprehended and appre- hended adults in East Harlem: unap- prehended har(l-(lrug users who hac3 re- cently committed a serious nondrug crime were recruited from the streets en cl interviewed about the crime event anti the rote of drug and alcohol use in that event. A comparison group of 116 ar- restees were interviewed in a police sta- tion (in the same neighborhood as the unapprehended (lrug users ) about their

OCR for page 52
84 cTrug-use histories and a urine specimen was obtained. A second follow-up inter- view was obtained for 43 of these 116 persons after release. The releasees who showed up for reinterview were more indigent and reported more lifetime cle- penclence on drugs than those who dic3 not show up. Their educational and eth- nic backgrounds were similar to those who were not reinterviewed, as was their level of recent use of drugs. The fol- Tow-up interview was identical to the in- terview used with unapprehended per- sons and was followed by collection of a . . urine specimen. Significance of Study: Study of youths obtained in-clepth information about drugs and crime and successfully oversampled high-risk youths. Studies of aclult criminals obtained information about the role of drug and alcohol use in the crime event and examined the criminal justice system's processing of drug-involvec! arrestees. Potential Limitations: Study of youths had a small sample and collected much information in a qualitative way that limits quantification and extrapolation to other populations. The studies of unappre- hencled persons used paid recruiters to fincl persons who tract just committed crimes. The degree to which the stucly respondents are representative of other adctictect o~end- ers is unknown. The comparison group of arrestees does provide some indication of the potential biases in the data from unap- prehended respondents. The arrestees in the study were primarily arrested for pur- chase, sale, or possession of cocaine or her- oin, and some findings may not apply to arrestees charged with nondrug crimes or to persons arrested in over jurisdictions in New York City. Adclitional Current Studies Two ongoing studies of urine testing of arrestees, in Washington, D.C., and in New York City, have also influenced the CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS conclusions presented in this paper. The study in Washington (Toborg, 1984) is examining whether it is effective for judges to assign cirug-using arrestees to specific pretrial release conditions (treat- ment and/or urine monitoring) based on the results of a test of a urine specimen obtained shortly after arrest. The study in New York City (Wish, Bracly, and Cuadra- do, 1984, l9X5; Wish, Bracly, et al., 19~34; Wish, Chedekel, et al., 19~35) is examining the feasibility of using urine tests to iclen- tify arrestees at high risk of pretrial arrest and failure to appear in court. REFERENCES Anderson, Kevin, Wish, Eric, Johnson, Bruce D., Sears, Alton, and Miller, Tom 1984 Living Hard in the City: A Portrait of Ten Young "Hustlers." Paper presented at a meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, March. Anglin, M. Douglas, and McGlothlin, William H. 1984 Outcome of narcotic addict treatment in Cali- fornia. Pp. 10~128 in Frank M. Tims and Jac- queline P. Ludford, eds., Drug Abuse Treat- ment Evaluation: Strategies, Progress, and Prospects. Research Monograph 51. Rock- ville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Bachman, Jerald G., and O'Malley, Patrick M. 1981 When four months equal a year: inconsisten- cies in student reports of drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly 45:536 548. Ball, John C., Shaffer, John W., and Nurco, David N. 1983 The day-to-day criminality of heroin addicts in Baltimore a study in the continuity of offense rates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 12: 119-142. Ball, John C., Roxen, Lawrence, Flueck, John A., and Nurco, David N. 1981 The criminality of heroin addicts when ad- dicted and when off opiates. Pp. 39 66 in James A. Inciardi, ea., The Drugs-Crime Connection. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Pub- lications. Barton, William I. 1976 Heroin use and criminality: survey of state correctional facilities, January 1974. Pp. 419- 440 in National Institute on Drug Abuse and Research Triangle Institute, Drug Use and Crime: Report of the Panel on Drug Use and Criminal Behavior. Appendix. Research Tri

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS ~5 angle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Insti- tute. Baxley, Robert C. 1980 Voluntary intoxication from phencyclidine: will it raise a reasonable doubt of the mental capacity of a person charged with a crime re- quiring specific intent or mental state?Jour- nal of Psychedelic Drugs 12(3-4):33~335. Bonito, Arthur J., Nurco, David N., and Shaffer, John W. 1976 The veridicality of addicts' self-reports in social research. International Journal of Ad- dictions 11(5):719-724. Bureau of Justice Statistics 1983a Prisoners and Alcohol. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 1983b Prisoners and Drugs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depa~llent of Justice. Chaiken, Jan, and Chaiken, Marcia 1982 Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation. Chaiken, Marcia 1983 Crime Rates and Substance Abuse Among Types of Offenders. Unpublished paper. In- terdisciplinary Research Center, New York City. Clayton, Richard R., and Voss, Harwin L. 1981 Young Men and Drugs in Manhattan: A Causal Analysis. Research Monograph 39. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Cohen, Jacqueline 1978 The incapacitative effect of imprisonment: a critical review of the literature. Pp. 187-243 in Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, and Daniel Nagin, eds., Deterrence and Incapac- itation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Collins, fames J., and Allison, Margret 1983 Legal coercion and retention in drug abuse treatment. Hospital and Community Psychi- atry 14(12~:1145-1149. Collins, James J., Hubbard, Robert, and Rachal, J. Valley 1985 Expensive drug use and illegal income: a test of explanatory hypotheses. Criminology 23:743-764. Collins, James J., Rachal, J. Valley, Hubbard, Rob- ert, Cavanaugh, Elizabeth R., Craddock, S. Gail, and Kristiansen, Patricia L. 1982a Crime and Crime Indicators in the Treat- ment Outcome Prospective Study. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute. 1982b Criminality in a Drug Treatment Sample: Measurement Issues and Initial Findings. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Tri- angle Institute. DuPont, Robert L., and Kozel, Nicholas J. 1976 Heroin Use and Crime. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Associ- ation, Miami Beach, Florida. Elliott, Delbert S., and Huizinga, David 1984 The Relationship Between Delinquent Be- havior and ADM Problems. Boulder, Colo.: Behavioral Research Institute. Elliott, Delbert S., Ageton, Suzanne S., Huizinga, David, Knowles, Brian, and Canter, Rachelle T. 1983 The Prevalence and Incidence of Delinquent Behavior: 107~1980. National Youth Sur- vey Report 26. Boulder, Colo.: Behavioral Research Institute. Fauman, Beverly J., and Fauman, Michael A. 1982 Phencyclidine abuse and crime: a psychiat- ric perspective. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 10~3~:171-176. Feinberg, Kenneth R. 1984 Selective incapacitation and the effort to im- prove the fairness of existing sentencing practices. Unpublished paper. Kaye, Scholer, Fierrnan, Hays, and Handler, Wash- ington, D.C. Law and Society. Forst, Brian, and Wish, Eric 1983 Drug use and crime: providing a missing link. Pp. 84-95 in Kenneth R. Feinberg, ea., Violent Crime in America. Washington, D.C.: National Policy Exchange. Gandossy, Robert P., Williams, Jay R., Cohen, Jo, and Harwood, Henrick J. 1980 Drugs and Crime: A Survey and Analysis of the Literature. National Institute of Justice. Washington, 13.C.: U.S. Government Print- ing Office. Glassner, Barry, Loughlin, Julia, Johnson, Bruce D., Carpenter, Cheryl, Ksander, Margret, Berg, Bruce, and Stuck, Mary 1985 Drugs and Alcohol in Adolescent Delin- quency. Interdisciplinary Research Center. New York City. Goldstein, Paul J. 1981 Getting over: economic alternatives to pred- atory crime among street drug users. Pp. 67~4 in James A. Inciardi, ea., The Drugs- Crime Connection. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. 1985 The drugs/violence nexus: a tripartite con- ceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues 15:493-506. 1983 Drug Related Involvement in Violent Epi- sodes. Proposal to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. New York City: Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.

OCR for page 52
86 Greenberg, Stephanie W., and Adler, Freda 1974 Crime and addiction: an empirical analysis of the literature, 192~1973. Contemporary Drug Problems 3:221-270. Haberman, Paul, and Baden, Michael 1978 Alcohol, Other Drugs and Violet Death. New York: Oxford University Press. Heffernan, Ronald, Martin, John M., and Romano, Anne T. 1982 Homicides related to drug trafficking. Fed- eral Probation September:3-7. Huizinga, David, and Elliott, Delbert S. 1981 A Longitudinal Study of Drug Use and De- linquency in a National Sample of Youth: An Assessment of Causal Order. Boulder, Colo.: Behavioral Research Institute. Hunt, Dana, Lipton, Douglas S., and Spunt, Barry 1984 Patterns of criminal activity among metha- done clients and current narcotics users not in treatment. Journal of Drug Issues 14:687- 702. Inciardi, James A. 1979 Heroin use and street crime. Crime and Delinquency July:33~346. 1981 The Drugs-Crime Connection. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. 1984 Criminal Justice. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press. Jessor, Richard 1979 Marihuana: a review of recent psychosocial research. Pp. 337-355 in Robert L. Dupont, Avram Goldstein, and John O'Donnell, eds., Handbook on Drug Abuse. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Jessor, Richard, and Jessor, Shirley 1977 Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Devel- opment: A Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press. Johnson, Bruce D. 1973 Marijuana Users and Drug Subcultures. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1984 Empirical patterns of heroin consumption among selected street heroin users. Pp. 101-123 in George Serban, eel., Social and Medical Aspects of Drug Abuse. Jamaica, N.Y.: Spectrum Publications. Johnson, Bruce D., Wish, Eric, and Huizinga, David 1983 The Concentration of Delinquent Offend- ing: The Contribution of Serious Drug Involvement to High Rate Delinquency. Pa- per presented at a meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Denver, Novem- ber. Johnson, Bruce D., Goldstein, Paul, Preble, Edward, Schmeidler, James, Lipton, Douglas S., Spunt, Barry, and Miller, Thomas 1985 Taking Care of Business: The Economics of CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS Crime by Heroin Abusers. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Johnston, Lloyd, Bachman, Jerald G., and O'Malley, Patrick 1982 Student Drug Use, Attitudes, and Beliefs: 1975~1982. Rockville, Md.: National Insti- tute on Drug Abuse. Kandel, Denise B. 1978 Longitudinal Research on Drug Use. New York: Halsted Press. 1984 Marijuana users in young adulthood. Ar- chives of General Psychiatry 41:20~209. Kaplan, John 1983 The Hardest Drug: Heroin and Drug Policy. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Kleinman, Paula H., Wish, Eric D., Deren, Sherry, and Rainone, Gregory 1984 The "Pure" Marijuana-using Client: Where? Unpublished paper. Narcotic and Drug Re- search, Inc., New York. Kozel, Nicholas J., ar~d DuPont, Robert 1977 Criminal Charges and Drug Use Patterns of Arrestees in the District of Columbia. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. LuPoff, Irving F. 1974 Issues in the evaluation of heroin treatment. Pp. 12~157 in Eric Josephson and Eleanor C. Carroll, eds., Drug Use: Epidemiological and Sociological Approaches. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1976 Consequences of use: heroin and other nar- cotics. Pp. 19~227 in Joan Rittenhouse, ea., The Epidemiology of Heroin and OtherNar- cotics. Research Monograph 16. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. McBride, Duane C. 1983 Homicides and Violence among Miami Drug Dealers. Paper presented at a meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Prob- lems, Detroit, Michigan, August. McGlothlin, William H. 1979 Drugs and crime. Pp. 357~65 in Robert L. Dupont, Avram Goldstein, and John O'Don- nell, eds., Handbook on Drug Abuse. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. McGlothlin, William H., Anglin, M. Douglas, and Wilson, Bruce D. 1977 An Evaluation of the California Civil Addict Program. Services Research Issues Series. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Morgan, John P. 1984 Problems of mass screening for misused drugs. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 16(4):30~317.

OCR for page 52
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS Nurco, David N., Cisin, Ira H., and Baiter, Mitchell B. 1981a Addict careers. I. A new typology. Interna- tional Journal of the Addictions 16(8): 130~1325. 1981b Addict careers. II. The first ten years. Inter- national Journal of the Addictions 16(8): 1327-1356. 1981c Addict careers. III. Trends across time. Inter- national Journal of the Addictions 16(8): 1357-1372. 1982 Trends in the age of onset of narcotic addic- tion. Chemical Dependencies: Behavorial and Biomedical I ssues 4(3) :221-228. O'Donnell, John A., and Clayton, Richard R. 1981 The steppingstone hypothesis: a reappraisal. Chemical Dependencies 4. O'Donnell, John A., Voss, Harwin L., Clayton, Rich ard, Slahn' Gerald T., and Room, Rol~in G. 1976 Young Men and Drugs-A Nationwide Sur- vey. Research Monograph 5. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Peterson, Robert C., and Stillman, Richard C., eds. 1978 Phencyclidine (PCPJ Abuse: An Appraisal. Research Monograph 21. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Reuter, Peter 1984 The (continued) vitality of mythical num- bers. Public Interest 75: 13~147. Robins, Lee N. 1979 Addict careers. Pp. 325 336 in Robert L. Dupont, Avrarn Goldstein, and John O'Don- nell, eds., Handbook on Drug Abuse. Rock- ville, Md.: National Institute on DrugAbuse. Robins, Lee N., and Wish, Eric 1977 Development of childhood deviance: a study of 223 urban black men from birth to 18. Pp. 448-473 in Mae F. McMillian and Serrgio Henao, eds., Child Psychiatry Treatment and Research. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Also published in Social Forces 56(2):448-473. Robins, Lee N., Davis, Darlene H., and Wish, Eric D. 1977 Detecting predictors of rare events: demo- graphic;, family, and personal deviance as predictors of stages in the progression to- wards narcotic addiction. Pp.379-406 in J. S. Strauss, H. M. Babigian, and M. Hoff, eds., The Origins and Course of Psychopathol- ogy. New York: Plenum. Robins, Lee N., Helzer, John E., Hesselbrock, Michie, and Wish, Eric D. 1980 Vietnam veterans three years after Vietnam: how our study changed our view of heroin. In L. Brill and C. Winick, eds., Yearbook of Substance Abuse. New York: Human Sci- ences Press. 87 Robins, Lee N., Hessellbroc>k, Mic~hie, Wish, Eric D., and Helzer, John E. 1977 Polydrug and alcohol use by veterans and nonveterans. Pp. 74-90 in David E. Smith, Steven M. Anderson, Millicent Buxton, Nancv Gottlieb William Harvev and 7 ~ 7 Tommy Chung, eds., A Multicultural View of Drug Abuse: Proceedings of the National DrugAbuse Conference, 1977. Philadelphia, Pa.: Hall and Schenkman. 1~978 Alcohol and Crime in Veterans. Paper pre- sented at the National Institute on Law En- forcement and Criminal Justice Colloquium, Washington, D.C. Sells, Saul B., Stimson, D. D., Joe, G. H., Demaree, R. G., Savage, L. J., and Lloyd, M. R. 1976 A national follow-up study to evaluate the effectiveness of drug, abuse treatment: a re- port on cohort I of DARP five years later. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 3(4~:54~556. Siegel, Ronald K. 1978 Phencyclidine, criminal behavior, and the defense of diminished capacity. Pp. 272 288 in Robert C. Peterson and Richard C. Stillman, eds., Phencyclidine (PCP) Abuse: An Appraisal. Research Monograph 21. Rock- ville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1980 PCP and violent crime: the people vs. peace. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs 12(3~):317- 330. Silverman, Lester P., and Spruill, Nancy L. 1977 Urban crime and the puce of heroin. Journal of Urban Economics 4:8(}103. Simonds, John F., and Kashani, Javad 1980 Specific drug use and violence in delinquent boys. AmericanJournal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 7(3&4~:305 322. Singer, Max 1971 The vitality of mythical numbers. Public In- terest 23:~9. Single, Eric, and Kandel, Denise B. 1978 The role of buying and selling in illicit drug use. Pp. 118-128 in Arnold Trebach, ea., Drugs, Crime, and Politics. New York: Prae t~er. Strug, David, Stevie, B., Wish, Eric, Johnson, Bruce D., Miller, Tom, and Anderson, Kevin 1984 Hustling to Survive: The Role of Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime in the Lid of Street Hustlers. Paper presented at a meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Chi- cago, March. Strug, David, Wish, Eric, Johnson, Bruce D., Anderson, Kevin, and Miller, Tom 1984 The role of alcohol in the crimes of heroin

OCR for page 52
88 abusers. Crime and Delinquency 30(4):551- 567. Tinklenberg, Jared R. 1973 Drugs and crime. Pp. 242~299 in National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspec- tive. Vol. I, Appendix. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Tinklenberg, Jared R., and Ochberg, Frank M. 1981 Patterns of adolescent violence: a California sample. Pp. 121-140 in Jared R. Tinklen- berg and Frank M. Ochberg, eds., Behavioral Aspects of Aggression. New York: Alan Liss. Tinklenberg, Jared R., Roth, W. T., Kopell, B. S., and Murphy, P. 1976 Cannabis and alcohol effects on assaultive- ness in adolescent delinquents. Pp. 85-94 in Chronic Cannabis Use. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282. Tinklenberg, Jared R., Murphy, Peggy, Murphy, Patricia L., and Pfefferbaum, Arnold 1981 Drugs and criminal assaults by adolescents: a replication study. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 1343~:277-287. Toborg, Mary 1984 Preliminary Findings on the D.C. Urine Testing Experiment. Paper presented at a Meeting of the American Society of Crirni- nology, Cincinnati. Voss, EIarwin L. 1976 Young men, drugs and crime. Pp.351-385 in Robert Shellow, ea., Drug Use andCrime: Appendix, Report of the Panel on Drug Use and Criminal Behavior. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute. Washton, Arnold M., and Gold, Mark S. 1984 Chronic cocaine abuse: evidence for adverse effects on health and functioning. Psychiat- ricAnnals 14(10):733-743. Weissman, James C. 1979 Understanding the drugs and crime connec- tion: a systematic examination of drugs and crime relationships. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs 10:171-192. Winick, Charles S. 1962 Maturing out of narcotic addiction. Bulletin on Narcotics 14:1-7. Wish, Eric D. 1982 Are [Ieroin Users lleally Nonviolent? Paper presented at a meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville, Ken- tucky, March. 1986 PCP and crime: just another illicit drug? Pp. 174-189 in D. PI. Clouet, ea., Phencyclidine: an Update. National Institute on Drug CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS Abuse. Research Monograph No. 64. Rock- ville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Wish, Eric D., Brady, Elizabeth, and Cuadrado, Mary 1984 Female Arrestees: The Most Serious Drug- abusers? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Crimi- nology, Cincinnati, Ohio, November. 1985 Drug Use and Crime in Arrestees in Manhat- tan. Presented at a poster session of the Forty-seventh Annual Scientific Meeting of the Committee on Problems of Drug Depen- dence, Baltimore, Maryland. Wish, Eric D., Anderson, Kevin, Miller, Tom, and Johnson, Bruce D. 1984 Drug Use and Abuse in Arrestees: New Findings from a Study of Arrestees in Man- hattan. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Criminal Justice Society, Chicago, Illinois, March. Wish, Eric D., Brady, Elizabeth, Cuadrado, Mary, and Sears, Alton 1984 Preliminary Findings from the "Drug Use as a Predictor of Pretrial Behavior in Arrestees" Project. Paper presented at the annual meet- ing of the American Society of Criminology, Cincinnati, Ohio, November. Wish, Eric D., Chedekel, Morris, Brady, Elizabeth, and Cuadrado, Mary 1985 Comparison of the Use of Thin-layer Chro- matography and EMITS for Detecting Re- cent Drug Use by Arrestees. Paper pre- sented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada. Wish, Eric D., Klumpp, K. A., Moorer, A. PI., and Brady, E. 1980 An Analysis of Drugs and Crime Among Arrestees in the District of Columbia. Springfield, Va: National Technical Informa- tion Service. 1981 Executive Summary: An Analysis of Drugs and Crime Among Arrestees in the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C.: National In- stitute on Justice. Wish, Eric D., Strug, David, Anderson, Kevin, Miller, Tom, and Johnson, Bruce D. 1983 Are Urine Tests Good Indicators of the Va- lidity of Self-Reports of Drug Use? It De- pends on the Test. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Meeting, Denver, Colorado, November. Zinberg, Norman 1984 Drugs, Set, and Setting. Chicago, Ill.: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.