National Academies Press: OpenBook

Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II (1986)

Chapter: 3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences

« Previous: 2. The Impact of Substance Abuse on Criminal Careers
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"3. The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences." National Research Council. 1986. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/928.
×
Page 120

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 The Relationship of Problem Drinking to Individual Offending Sequences James I. Collins INTRODUCTION This paper examines the empirical as- sociation ant! etiological relevance of problem drinking to the onset, continua- tion, ant! pattern of criminal careers. The main purpose is to determine, based on previous research, what inferences can be macle about the relation of problem drinking to serious and repetitious in- volvement in crimes that victimize per- sons or property. Hence, the paper is not concerned with crimes that are related to the use or distribution of alcohol. Uncler- age clrinking, public clrunkenness, the il- legal sale of alcoholic beverages, ant] driving while intoxicated are alcohol- clefined offenses and are considered! here only if they are relevant to incliviclual offending sequences (criminal careers). Nor is the paper concerned with the in- fluence of alcohol use in particular crim Jarnes I. Collins is a staff member at the Cer~ter for Social Research and Policy Analysis, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The author acknowledges the assistance of Patricia L. Kristiansen and Elizabeth R. Cavanaugh, both of the Research Triangle Institute. 89 inal events. A substantial literature ad- dresses whether drinking precipitates criminal events or changes their charac- ter especially violent events. Some of that literature will be partially relevant here, but the criminal career focus of the paper requires an emphasis on offenders' life cycles and not on particular events. fReviews of the alcohol-criminal events literature can be found in Roizen and Schneberk (1977) ancl Collins (19811.] It is clear that identifiecl offenders are much more likely than the general popu- lation to engage in problem drinking. It has not been established, however, that the problem drinking explains serious in- volvement in crime. Indeecl, the funcla- mental difficulty of this paper will be distinguishing the pervasive use of alco- hol among offenders from the explanatory relevance of alcohol use to inclividual offending sequences. A basic assumption of the paper is that alcohol use is never the sole cause of a criminal career. Alcohol's behavioral effects are filtere through a variety of physiological, psy- chological, social, an(1 cultural factors. Thus (lrawing etiological or causal infer

go ences will be clifficult because of the complexity of the aTcohol-behavior rela- tionship and because most of the relevant research has not addressed causal-infer- ence problems. The ideal research design for making inferences about the effect of alcohol use on individual offending sequences is a longitudinal one that begins to collect data on drinking and criminal behavior before the onset of either behavior. No such research has been clone, nor is any planned, so far as this writer is aware. A number of completecl or ongoing longitu- ctinal studies have the ciata with which to analyze the effects of alcohol use on crim- inal careers, but completed Tongituclinal analyses have not focused on the role of alcohol. Some researchers have examined the importance of drug use Johnston, O'Malley, and EvelancI, 1976; Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton, 1982) but they either ignore alcohol use or combine al- cohol use with drug use in their analyses. Most of the promise of completed and ongoing longitudinal research to cleter- mine whether and how alcohol use affects individual offending sequences remains to be realizecl. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES Definition and Measurement of Problem Drinking Problem drinking is the main inclepen- dent variable in this analysis. The term can have many definitions and is not consistently clefinect in the literature. Oc- casional ant! light or moderate use of alcohol that does not have adverse out- comes is not of interest here. Neither is the focus only on the conclition of aTcohol- ism. Problem drinking is interpreted here to include: (1) excessive use of alcohol based on quantity or frequency of intake; (2) adverse consequences of drinking, such as family, job, or health problems; CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS and (3) perceptions of the drinker or oth- ers that he or she has a drinking problem. The literature includes work that is not explicit about the definition of drinking problems or alcoholism. In the discus- sions of inclividual works that follow, the basis for cleaning drinking as a problem is macle explicit. Usually, the definition re- lies on some measure of excessive intake or of adverse outcomes of drinking. Sometimes drinking is defined as a prob- lem on the basis of criminal outcomes, such as arrest or violence after drinking. For the purposes of this paper the latter definition confounds independent and clepenclent variables ant] inhibits a cleter- mination of whether drinking is a causal factor in criminal careers. Problem drinking is usually measured by records of aTcohol-relatec3 arrests or alcohol treatment or by self-reports of aTcohol-use patterns or problems. Bloo alcohol content (BAC) measures, physio- logical indicators, and use of instruments with known reliabilities are rarely found in the literature. The incompleteness an inaccuracy of public records are well- known problems, and the reliability and validity of self-report data are infre- quently cliscusse(1 in the literature. The discussion below specifies the source of data on problem drinking anct discusses those measures when that seems appro- priate for methodological or substantive reasons. If an inclivi(lual clevelops a drinking problem, it is very often not permanent. Typical prevalences and types of clrink- ing problems vary by segment of the life cycle, and drinking problems ten(1 to be highest during the young a(lult years (Cahalan and Room, 1974; Cahalan and Cisin, 1976; Mandell and Ginzburg, 1976; Noble, 19781. There is evidence that problem (lrinkers often stop having problems through abstinence or con- trollec! drinking (Robins, Bates, and O'Neal, 1962; Fillmore, 1975; Cahalan

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES and Cisin, 1976; Roizen, Cahalan, and Shanks, 1978~. The type of drinking prob- lem experienced by an incTiviclual also varies by age. For example, Cahalan and Room (1974) show that "police" prob- lems clue to drinking are highest between the ages of 21 and 24, but that health problems due to drinking, comparatively Tow between the ages of 25 and 44, in- crease after age 44. An implication of the age-variation and spontaneous-remission evidence is that the lifetime and current prevaTences of drinking problems cliffer. Much of the ciata in the literature on problem drinking ant! criminal careers, however, do not distinguish "ever" having drinking prob- lems from "current" problems, nor do they place the drinking problems within a life-cycle segment. This lack of speci- ficity limits the career inferences that can be drawn from the findings. Long-term drinking patterns and the cumulative ef- fects of drinking alcohol over a long pe- rioc! are more relevant to the career focus of this paper than the acute effects of alcohol use in single drinking episodes. This is also consistent with the focus on indiviclual offending sequences rather than particular criminal events. Some Tong-term effects of drinking are well known. Misuse of alcohol is associ- ated with liver disease, nutritional defi- cits, brain dysfunction, cardiovascular problems, and an increased risk of cancer (Eckarcit et al., 19811. Much less is known about the Tong-term behavioral effects of problem drinking. There are empirically unsupported suggestions in the literature that alcohol's chronic effects may cause "irritability," and although the inference must be tentative, chronic alcohol effects may increase inclividual tendencies toward violence. A more reasonable basis for the pharmacological and physiological effects of alcohol on behavior is through its impact on cognitive capacity. Alcohol use impairs a (lrinker's ability to perceive, 91 process, assess, and integrate cues from the environment (Pernanen, 1976, 19811. A distinction is relevant for purposes of this paper, although it is a distinction not usually made in the literature and thus is not sustainable in the analyses that fol- Tow. Problematic alcohol use over a Tong period creates "neuropsychological clefi- cits" in the drinker (Tarter and Alterman, 19841. Presumably, some ofthose cleficits will affect behavior and may explain some criminal behavior. A priori it seems reasonable to expect such criminogenic deficits to impel one to "irrational" (vio- lent) crime rather than to "rational" (ac- quisitive) crime. A second type of chronic criminogenic effect of problem (lrinking may be a recurrent effect in indivicluals who are not necessarily chronic problem drinkers. Examples would be an infre- quent drinker who totals to have prob- lems when he or she does ([rink ant] a regular drinker who occasionally com- mits offenses when drinking. Even though these distinctions cannot be macle from the existing literature, it is useful to recognize them because of their potential relevance for etiological understanding. The "eye of the behoIcler" issue is also an important one for interpreting alcohol use as problematic. Alcohol occupies unique psychological, cultural, moral, en cl scientific territories in American life. The phenomenological dimension causes definitional and inferential problems, some of which are discussed below. The phenomenological complexities cannot be resolved here, but they are partially arldressec! through explicit (definitions of what is meant by problem drinking. Definition and Measurement of Criminal Careers Criminal careers involving "street" crime are of interest here. In general, these are Uniform Crime Reports Part I and Part II offenses that involve actual or

92 attempter] violence or property loss. This focus exclucles two major categories of crime: (1) victimless crime, especially al- cohol- and drug-clefined crime includ- ing public-order crimes that result from substance abuse (vagrancy, disorderly conduct, et cetera) ant] (2) white collar crime. The first category is not used to define a criminal career because, as noted, it confounds independent and cle- pendent variables and because interest is in criminal behavior that involves victim- ization of someone's person or property. It will not always be possible to distin- guish the victimless or public-order of- fenses from other offenses because some studies do not make the distinction. White collar crime is not considered because almost no information is avaiT- able on the relationship of alcohol use to such offenses. It is reasonable to infer that white collar criminal careers would be influenced by problem drinking. Alcohol is the principal drug of choice for white collar, psychoactive substance users, and it is known that significant percentages of people of high occupational status are heavy drinkers or have problems with alcohol (Cahalan, Cisin, and Crossley, 1969; Trice and Roman, 1972~. The rela- tionship between alcohol problems and white collar crime, however, has not been studied. Official records and self-report data are used to estimate involvement in crime. Each type of ciata has its strengths ant] weaknesses. The most serious problem with using official records to estimate criminal behavior is their incomplete- ness. Most crimes are not reported to the police (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1983b). There is also some evidence that alcohol abusers are more By than nonabusers to be arrested. Petersilia, Greenwood, and Lavin (1978), for exam- ple, found that alcohol abusers were ar- rested for 12.1 percent of the offenses they committed compared with 2 to 3 CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS percent for drug abusers ant! offenders who were neither drug nor alcohol abus- ers. If the problem (drinker is more likely to be arrested given commission of an offense, it may be a result of the cognitive impairment that results from alcohol use. A drinking offender may be an incompe- tent offender. If the probability of arrest is higher for problem (lrinkers than others, official records may overstate the impor- tance of problem drinking to criminal careers. Self-reports of illegal activity have adcled an important dimension to the study of criminal careers. The reliability anct validity of such data have been exam- ined, and the best general conclusion seems to be that offender reports of illegal involvement represent reasonable ap- proximations of the behaviors in question (Marquis, 1981; Hubbard et al., 19821. The data are likely to contain some sys- tematic error, however. Hubbard et al. (1982) found that the frequency of in- volvement and length of recall affected the concordance of self-reports of arrest and official records of arrest. Peterson and Braiker (1980) found rapists less willing than other offender types to report the crimes for which they were convicted. Weis (in this volume) discusses other is- sues relating to self-reports of criminal behavior. Because of the potential for the type of crime data to affect findings in systematic ways, the discussion below specifies the sources of data used in the analyses. Study Populations Studies of problem drinking and crim- inal careers have been carried out on samples of the general population, ar- restees or convicted offenders, alcohol abuse and mental-hearth treatment popu- lations, and prison populations. Studies of the general population are least frequent; studies of prison populations most fre

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES quent. Clearly, general-population stud- ies are most generaTizable, although such studies are relatively expensive to con- duct. Neither a criminal career nor prob- lem drinking is common among the gen- eral population, so large samples are requires! to produce sufficient data for detailecl analysis. On the other hand, prison populations have a high preva- lence of involvement in criminal activity and problem drinking and are relatively accessible to researchers. The tracle-offin using prison samples is limited generaTiz- ability. Prisoners are not representative of the general population or of all offenders. Because of the representativeness and generalizability issues, discussions that follow are organized in part by the type of sample studied, i.e., general, alcohol treatment, ant] criminal justice system samples. Polydrug Use It is common for individuals to use mul- tiple psychoactive substances (O'Donnell et al., 1976; Fishburne, Abelson, ant] Cisin, 1980; Johnston, Bachman, and O'Malley, 1981; Bray, Guess, et al., 1983~. This may involve the use of alcohol and other drugs at the same time or within a short time (hours), or different psychoac- tive substances on different occasions. Polydrug use Including such combina- tions as alcohol and marijuana, alcohol and barbiturates, heroin ant] cocaine) has become very common in recent years, and there is evidence that it Including alcohol) is the modal pattern among of- fenders and treatment populations (Bray, Schlenger, et al., 1982; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982; Johnson and Goldstein, 19841. Polydrug use creates a complex analytic problem when the behavioral ef- fects of a particular substance are of inter- est. The behavioral effects of single drugs are not well understoocl, and, when two or more c3 rugs are used in combination, 93 specific behavioral effects are all but im- possible to predict. Despite the proliferation of polyclrug use, most users have a "drug of choice," and inclividuals who have alcohol or drug problems are usually able to identify the substance that is the primary source of their cli~culties. Among 3,325 individu- als entering federally funded drug abuse treatment programs in 1979, for example, 87 percent specified a particular sub- stance as being their "primary" problem (Bray, SchIenger, et al., 19821. The sepa- ration of inclivicluals into categories basest on alcohol or specific-clrug problems, however, does oversimplify the reality of substance-use patterns, and indivicluals may be cIassifiecl in different categories during different phases of their lives. It is the heuristic assumption ofthis paper that individuals can be classified accurately as having or not having a drinking problem (lifetime or current). This classification permits examination of the relationship between problem (lrinking and indivicl- ual offending sequences. Because use of hard drugs is usually . ~ . . . . viewed as a more serious cr1m1nogen1c factor than alcohol use, there is a ten- dency among researchers to create hier- archical indices of psychoactive sub- stance use in which the independent effect of alcohol use by drug users is not consiclered. For example, Johnson, Wish, and Huizinga (1983) analyze the sub- stance use-clelinquency relationship for two groups: those who use alcohol only and those who use ([rugs or drugs and alcohol. This approach assumes, without testing, that drug use is the primary criminogenic effect. The fact that alcohol is a legal (drug encourages such a view. It is important, however, to consider sepa- rately whether alcohol use, which is often quite heavy among (lrug users, makes an inclepen~lent contribution to the occur- rence of criminal behavior as part of a polyclrug-use pattern.

94 Gender and Race The variables of gender and race re- ceive little attention in this paper, mainly because the literature on problem cirink- ing and criminal careers rarely considers gentler and race effects. When these vari- ables are included in analyses, the finc3- ings are not markedly different for gentler or racial groups. There is evidence that suggests that white-black racial differences in drinking patterns exist and that they have implica- tions for the problem drinking-criminal career relationship. For example, a na- tional survey of state correctional inmates showed a substantial difference by racial group in the percentage of inmates cIas- sifiect as heavy drinkers 50 percent for whites versus 21 percent for blacks (Bu- reau of Justice Statistics, 1983c). The lit- erature that is relevant to the relation between problem drinking and individ- ual offending sequences, however, does not permit assessment of white-black clif- ferences. The same holds for gentler; the literature does not address the question of gender effects in the problem c3rinking- criminal career relationship. Moreover, there seems no reason to believe that problem drinking explains much varia- tion in serious crimes by women. Be- cause women probably commit less than one-fifth of the serious crimes and be- cause the gender variable does not ap- pear to bear on the problem drinking- criminal career relationship, gentler is not considered here in any detail. Making Inferences About Alcohol Effects Despite years of study, a great (leal remains to be understood about the be- havioral effects of alcohol use both acute (short-term) ant! chronic (Iong-term) effects. Woods and Mansfielcl (1983) ar- gue that pharmacological changes in neu CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS rat functioning brought about by ethanol are "nonspecific." tones and Vega (1972, 1973) found that a rapid increase in BAC causes behavioral effects. Several re- searchers report that racial-ethnic groups differ in their reactions to drinking (Wolff, 1972; Fenna et al., 1976; Marco and Ran- (lels, 19831; others report that individual psychology influences the effects of aTco- hol (McCord and McCord, 1962; Zucker, 1968; McClelland et al., 1972~. Pernanen (1976, 1981) suggests that the effects of alcohol use on cognition probably inter- act with environmental cues in complex ways. In sum, the "state of the art" in understanding the behavioral effects of drinking from pharmacologic and psycho- logical perspectives is not far advanced. Evidence of the complexity of the sub- ject is pointed out by Cordelia (19851. Her analysis suggests that for some types of criminal activity, notably organized crime or planned property crime committed in collaboration with two or more people, problem drinking may act as a bar to criminal activity. Offenders with drinking problems may be viewed as undepend- able and not recruited into criminal en terprises. This scenario suggests an in- verse relationship between problem drinking and organized, rational criminal activity. In recent years the importance of social and cultural factors in mediating alcohol's behavioral effects, as well as the interpre- tation of those effects, has been recog- nized. MacAndrew and Edgerton (1969) generated important insights about the influence of social and cultural factors. They showed how "drunken comport- ment" was affected by cultural factors and, conversely, how some cultures make provision for untoward behavior after drinking during specified "time out" pe- riods. Room (1983) argues that the causal link between alcohol use and behavior is a sociocultural rather than a pharmacolog- ical one.

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES Three points about sociocultural influ- ences on the alcohol use-behavior inter- action are relevant for this paper. These points have to do with expectancy, dis- avowal, and attribution. The behavior of indivicluals after drink- ing is influenced by effects they expect alcohol to have, quite asicle from actual effects attributable to drinking. Lang et al. (1975) fount! that indivicluals who had been told they c3 rank alcohol, even though they had not, became more ag- gressive in controlled laboratory experi- ments. Tamerin, Weiner, and Mendelson (1970) measured mate alcoholics' expec- tations about how they would fee! after drinking and macle observations about actual behavior after drinking. Their sam- ple of 13 accurately predicted they wouIcl become more aggressive after drinking. However, the subjects inaccurately pre- dicted other effects of drinking (euphoria, sexuality) and their subsequent (after drinking) assessment of their behavior was more concordant with their predrink- ing predictions than with their actual be- havior. Brown et al. (1980) assesses] ex- pectancies associated with moderate alcohol consumption among two samples (N = 125 and N = 440~. Factor analysis of 216 yes-no items produced six behavior- al-expectancy dimensions-one of which was "aggressiveness." Expectancies var- ied by demographic factors (age, sex) and by drinking experience. Drinking is sometimes used as an ac- count (Scott and Lyman, 1968) or devi- ance-clisavowal technique. McCaghy (1968) showed how some men convicted of sexual offenses against children used drinking to excuse their behavior. Mosher (1983) points out how recent ABSCAM-convictecT offenders have at- tempted to excuse or justify their behav- ior by reference to the effects of alcohol. Coleman and Straus (1979) argue that some men drink to give themselves an excuse to beat their wives. 9S The attribution of blame to alcohol in the absence of clear justification is also observable at the macro level. Gusfield (1963) analyzed the nineteenth century temperance movement and argues that the abolition of alcohol became the sub- ject of a moral crusade as the vehicle for playing out the conflict between compet- ing societal interests. In a review of the famiTy-violence literature Hamilton ant! Collins (1981) argue that a "malevolence assumption" underlies much of the pub- lic debate about alcohol. When alcohol is found to be associated with undesirable events and circumstances, it is assumed to be at fault. The major points to be ma(le about previous work on the expectancy, dis- avowal, and attributive aspects of alco- hol's effects on behavior are that percep- tions and interpretations complicate the causal-inference task and make it difficult to assess the validity of self-perceptions of alcohol's effects. Alcohol occupies unique phenomenological territory, an(1 caution is warrantee! when attributing effects to its use. There is no doubt that drinking affects behavior. Explaining how that happens is (lifficult. Moreover, there is a tendency to ascribe blame to drinking without justification. ASSESSMENT OF THE LITERATURE This section of the paper reviews the literature on the relation of problem drinking to in(liviclual offending se- quences. The juvenile, young adult, and later adult life-cycle segments are treated separately. The period that has received most attention by researchers is the young adult period. As will be seen, there are good reasons for this attention. The separation of the analysis into ju- venile, young adult, and later acLult peri- o(ls also reflects society's drinking norms. Most drinking during the juvenile years is illegal and disapproved by adult society.

96 Nevertheless, drinking is quite common among juveniles. In young adulthood drinking is legally permissible. In fact, heavy drinking accompanied by deviant or disruptive behavior is the norm for young adults in some contexts (for exam- ple, in the military or at fraternity parties). Drinking norms shift again for oicler adults. Family and career responsibilities are expected to mitigate or preclude the heavy use of alcohol, ant] behavior after drinking is expected to meet a higher level of decorum than is expected in the young adult years. There is consiclerable variation around age-gracled drinking norms. For example, young adults might be held to higher behavioral standards regarding alcohol use in some contexts, such as at a family reunion. OIcler adults may be permitted to act like young adults in some situa- tions, such as at a football game. Nonethe- less, drinking and its behavioral conse- quences display age regularities. For this reason, and because the literature itself is roughly organized in this way, the follow- ing review is organized around the three life-cycle segments. As mentioned ear- lier, the reviews will also be roughly organized by sample type (general popu- lation, alcohol treatment, ancI criminal justice) when the literature permits such a separation. The Juvenile Period During the juvenile years any con- sumption of alcohol is a potential prob- lem because drinking is illegal for those uncler statutory drinking age, which ranges from age 18 to 21. Illegal purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages, however, is not of interest here unless it is associated with other criminal behavior during the juvenile years or later in the life cycle. Specifically, this review fo- cuses on the following questions: Does the age at which drinking begins have CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS any power to predict involvement in serious crime? Do drinking problems clur- ing the juvenile years predict later crimi- nal careers or aspects of individual of- fending sequences, such as career length or offense specialization? Little previous work has focused on these questions so the answers are necessarily incomplete. Considerable previous work has fo- cusecT on drug use during the juvenile years. Most of that work will not be exam- ined here because another paper in this volume (Wish and Johnson) focuses on drug abuse and indiviclual offending se- quences. Some work has included aTco- ho] use as an aspect of drug use. More commonly, the literature treats alcohol use, drug use, and other clelinquencies (such as truancy, running away from home, ant! precocious sexual behavior) as aspects of a configuration of problem be- haviors (lessor an(l lessor, 1977~. This view of juvenile clelinquency is a func- tion of the acljuclication process for juve- niles and of the typical pattern of conduct of delinquents who come to the attention of the juvenile justice system. Juveniles are more likely to be "adjudicated clelin- quent" than to be convicted of a particu- lar offense, and typically juvenile offend- ers (like adult offenders) exhibit a mixture of problems and illegal involvements. In comparison with the prevalence of prob- lem behavior and delinquency, involve- ment in serious crime is Tow during the juvenile years. It is also low in compari- son with the young adult years. Elliott and Huizinga (1983), for example, show how rates of participation in serious crime by youths in a national sample are Tow in comparison with participation rates for minor crimes and status offenses. In- volvement in felony assault, robbery, fel- ony theft, and hard-drug use tends to be Tower than involvement in minor assault, minor theft, vandalism, and school delin- quency for males and females and across social classes.

PROBLEM DRINKlI!IG AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES General-Population Stuclies Alcohol use is very common among high-school-age youths. National surveys conclucted in 1974 and 1978 shower! that 87 to 89 percent of the tenth through tweed graders hacl some experience with alcohol (Rachel et al., 19801. Sub- stantial proportions cirank frequently. Twenty-seven to 29 percent in the two surveys drank once a week or more. Heavy drinkers, defined as those cirink- ing at least weekly and taking five or more drinks per drinking occasion, constituted 15 percent of the samples. Basecl on cri- teria of frequency of drunkenness and perceived alcohol-related negative conse- quences, approximately 3 in 10 were cIas- sified as misusers of alcohol. Alcohol misusers were significantly more likely than alcohol users to report having trou- ble with the police; 4.1 percent of male alcohol users and 25.4 percent of mate alcohol misusers had trouble with the police because of drinking. The corre- sponding percentages for female alcohol users and misusers were 2.4 and 11.5, respectively. The finclings from studies of general- population samples of juveniles are that delinquency, as noted above, typically constitutes a varier! configuration of prob- lem behaviors. lessor and lessor (1977) and lessor, Chase, and Donovan (1980), analyzing data from the national surveys of high school students referred to above, found that problem drinking was associ- ated with marijuana use and general de- viance. lessor and associates argue fur- ther that the different forms of problem behavior develop from common etiologi- cal configurations. lessor et al. (1968), in a study of a tri-ethnic community, found that different measures of deviance correlate and that theoretical findings were fairly similar across ctifferent sex, age, and ethnic groups. White, Johnson, and Garrison 97 (1983), in samples (N = 1,381) of 12-, 15-, and 18-year-olds from New Jersey house- holds, found a "synchronous" clevelop- ment of both substance use (alcohol anct drugs) and criminal behavior. The sub- stance-use variable was a stronger predic- tor ofthe intensity of delinquent behavior than the reverse. Rathus, Fox, and Ortins (1980) used a shortened version of the MacAndrew Al- coholism Scale and a self-reported clelin- quency scale in a study of 786 mate and 886 female high school students in a micl- dIe-cIass suburban community. The sam- ple was 97 percent white. The MacAn- c3rew scale was found to predict alcohol abuse successfully, but it also was found to have "global predictive power." The scale preclictec3 some drug use and other delinquency, such as property ant] per- sonal crimes. The authors interpret this to indicate that problem drinking is part of a general pattern of deviance. Ryclelius (1983a,b) interviewed and collectecl blood samples in 1980-1981 from 2,300 young men who came to a military recruiting office in Swollen as a result of the compulsory military-service law. Data for 1,004 of the subjects were analyzed. Approximately 99 percent were between 17 ancI 19 years of age; 93 per- cent were 18 years old. The amount of pure alcohol consumed within the month prior to the interviews was estimated from self-reports of beer, wine, ant! spirits consumption. During the interviews, 21 percent aclmitted minor criminal of- fenses; 6 percent reported committing theft and burglary; 2 percent reported committing assault and malicious dam- age; 9 percent had been convicted of crimes; and 5 percent were known for public drunkenness. Ryclelius cIassifiect the subjects accord- ing to their consumption of pure alcohol and compared high consumers with nonconsumers on a number of climen- sions. The high consumers were more

98 likely than the nonconsumers to be drug users and to be involved in other crimes. The percentage of high consumers versus nonconsumers who engaged in various offenses are shown below (from Ryclelius, 1983a:Table 71: High Consumers versus Noncon sumers (percent) Pilfering, illegal driving 45 versus 9 Stealing and burglary 38 versus 1 Conviction, any crime 35 versus 3 Known for public drunkenness 35 versus 1 Assault, malicious mischief 14 versus 1 All differences are statistically significant below the .001 level according to the chi-square statistic. In subsequent psychological testing of 50 high consumers and 50 nonconsumers, the high consumers were found to have psychopathic personality traits and the nonconsumers were found to have nor- mal personalities (Ryclelius, 1983b). Dif- ferences were found between the two groups on 13 of 15 scales included in the test. In summary, the evidence from gener- al-population studies of juveniles is that problem drinking covaries with other forms of deviance and with serious crim- inal behavior. The relationship of prob- lem drinking to deviance and crime is best conceived as one involving a com- mon etiology in the juvenile years. Delinquent-Population Studies Studies of delinquent populations also confirm the strong covariation of alcohol use and delinquency. Blane and Hewitt (1977) reviewed a number of studies and concluded that CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS 1. Age at first drink is earlier for delin- quents than nondelinquents, 2. Prevalence of drinking is higher among (lelinquents than among nonde- linquents, 3. Drunkenness is more prevalent among delinquents than among nonde- linquents, 4. Pathological drinking symptoms are more common among <delinquents than among nonclelinquents. Pearce and Garrett (1970) gave a subitem questionnaire to 292 delinquents from two youth detention homes and 466 non- delinquent high school students in Idaho and Utah. They found the following clif- ferences between delinquents and non- delinquents in drinking behavior: 1. Delinquents drank at a younger age; 2. The first drink for delinquents was likely to be with friends; for nondelin- quents, it was likely to be at home with parents; 3. Delinquents drank again sooner af- ter the first drinks 4. Drinking prevalence and frequency were higher for delinquents; 5. Delinquents were more likely to have drunk hard liquor. Bell and Champion (1979), in surveys of general-population and delinquent sam- ples in Great Britain, found that frequent alcohol use was much more common among delinquents than among general- population samples and that the level of alcohol use preclicte(1 frequency of delin- quency. Dawkins ant! Dawkins ~ 1983) exam- inecl the relationship between drinking frequency and criminal behavior among 342 residents of a juvenile training school. A questionnaire was a(lministered to collect data about a variety of factors, including (drinking frequency and in- volvement in 21 kinds of nonserious and serious illegal behaviors in the year be

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES fore entering training school. The authors focused on whether the correlation be- tween drinking frequency and illegal be- havior differed for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Multiple regression analyses revealed that drinking had strong net ef- fects on minor delinquency in each racial group. Drinking frequency was found to explain statistically significant variation in serious and nonserious delinquency for whites and blacks. Drinking fre- quency did not explain involvement in serious delinquency for Hispanics but was associated with nonserious delin- quency for this ethnic group. The authors did not clear with the temporal-order is- sue, that is, whether frequent drinking prececlec3, followecI, or was coterminous with involvement in illegal behavior. The analyses do show that the empirical asso- ciation of drinking frequency and crimi- nal behavior was robust among white ant] black training-school residents. Vingilis (1981) is not convinced by the evidence on drinking and clelinquency because of methodological problems, es- pecially the failure of much research to use control groups. Vingilis appears pre- parecl to acknowledge that delinquents drink more than nondelinquents but thinks that delinquents charged with al- cohol-relatec3 crimes are similar to clelin- quents involved in nonaTcohol-related crimes. However, use of"alcohol-relatec! trouble with the law" as an indicator of public drinking may not distinguish de- linquents in a meaningful way. Etiology of Drinking and Crime in Juveniles Evidence on the common etiology of problem drinking and other deviance in the juvenile period an(1 on the covariation of problem drinking and delinquency cloes not address directly the major issue of this paper: that is, to what extent is problem drinking an important factor in 99 the onset, continuation, and pattern of criminal careers. Two studies give more specific insights about the relationship of problem drinking to individual offending sequences for juveniles. VirkLunen (1977) studied recidivism among 741 juvenile offenders convicted in 1965 in Finland. He divided the of- fenders into those with juvenile arrests for drunkenness anc! those with no such arrests; using the records of FinTand's Criminal Register, he examined recicli- vism for the years 1970-1975 (5 to 10 years after the initial contact). Virkkunen found that those who hac! juvenile drunk- enness arrests were more likely to recidivate and were more likely to have arrests for violent (22 versus 12 percent) and property crimes (47 versus 36 per- cent), as well as for traffic offenses. Johnson, Wish, and Huizinga (1983) analyzed National Youth Survey data (El- liott, Huizinga, and Ageton, 1982) with a focus on serious drug use anti high-rate, serious delinquency. They created a hier- archical typology of drug users: users of heroin or cocaine (5 percent), users of pills or psychedelics (7 percent), mari- juana users (19 percent), alcohol users (29 percent), and non-(lrug users (41 percent). Users of alcohol in acIdition to drugs are included in the first three categories. Heavy drug users (heroin, cocaine, pills, psychedelics) were also found to be heavy users of alcohol. Data on criminal activity were collected from self-reports (luring interviews. Johnson and colleagues show that among the hierarchical groups those cIas- sified as heavy drug users were responsi- ble for a clisproportionately large number of index crimes. Those who used only alcohol were comparatively unlikely to commit in(lex offenses or multiple index offenses although they were more likely than nonusers of any drug to commit minor delinquencies. The authors con- clude that alcohol use by itself is not

100 associated with either the likelihood or the frequency of involvement in serious crime in the juvenile years. It shouIc3 be pointed out, however, that this conclu- sion floes not deal fully with the effects of alcohol because alcohol use by those who use other drugs is subsumes! in the cirug- use categories. The findings do suggest that alcohol use by itself is not important to the occurrence of inclex offenses during the juvenile years. Petersilia, Greenwood, and Lavin (1978) interviewed 49 California prison inmates incarcerated for armed robbery. The inmates were asked to reconstruct their criminal careers for their juvenile, young aclult, and later aclult years. They were also asked about their use of alcohol and drugs ancI were cIassifiec3 as alcohol involved, drugs involvecI, involved with both drugs ancI alcohol, or not involved with either drugs or alcohol. Twenty-five to 30 percent of the inmates were cIassi- fied as alcohol involved in the three ca- reer periods. The major change over the three career segments was an increased tendency toward drug involvement. Inmates classified as alcohol involved hac! the lowest median offense rates in each of the three career periods although, as discussed earlier, they were more likely than the three other groups to be arrested for offenses they committed. In terms of specific offense types the alco- hol-only offenders had comparatively high rates of aggravated assault and auto theft cluring the juvenile period ant! com- paratively high rates of burglary and forg- ery in the young adult period. During the later aclult period, the aTcohol-only of- fenders had high forgery ant! Tow robbery rates in comparison with the other groups. The offense-specific fin(lings should be viewed as tentative because of sample size (N = 14 aTcohol-involvec3 offenders and because of the challenging cognitive task involvecl in reconstructing criminal careers over very Tong periods. CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS There is more potential in existing Ton- gituclinal ciata on alcohol use and criminal behavior than has thus far been realized. Two examples of fertile data sets for ad- clitional stucly are the National Youth Sur- vey data (Elliott et al., 1983) ant! the Rutgers Health and Human Develop- ment Project data, which are still being accumulated (see White, Johnson, and Garrison, 1983; Pandina, Labouvie, and White, 19841. Summary: Juveniles The evidence reviewed here for the juvenile perioc! suggests the following: 1. Drinking problems do not, by them- seIves, appear to be an important factor in the onset of serious criminal involvement in the juvenile years. 2. Those who drink, drink heavily, or have problems as a result of drinking are more likely to be involved in other forms of deviant behavior. The best current as- sessment is that there are common etiol- ogies for the juvenile syndrome of prob- lem behavior. 3. Juveniles who are heavy consumers of alcohol have psychopathic personality traits (Rydelius, 1983b). 4. Juvenile offenders with arrests for drunkenness are more likely than juve- nile offenders with no drunkenness ar- rests to have official records of violent and property crime as aclults (Virkkunen, 19771. The Young Adult Period The young adult period] begins be- tween ages 18 and 21 and continues to age 35 or 40. The literature does not distribute neatly into the three life-cycle segments used in this paper, so that some of the work reviewed in this section will cover portions of the juvenile and later adult periods. Problem (lrinking is relatively high in

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES the young adult years-especially among males (Cahalan and Room, 1974; Blane and Hewitt, 1977; Bray, Guess, et al., 1983~. The Cahalan and Room national survey of men aged 21 to 59, for example, found that among men aged 21 to 24, 40 percent had experienced at least one al- cohol-related problem in the past 3 years; 20 to 22 percent of those between ages 25 and 39 had one or more alcohol-related problems in the past 3 years. Arrest, con- viction, and incarceration are also com- paratively common in the young adult period (U.S. Department of Justice, 1975; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1983), although the prevalence of offending ap- pears to be the highest in the juvenile years (Langan and Farrington, 1983; Wolfgang, 1983~. Even though both prob- lem drinking and criminal involvement are high in the young adult period, the relationship between the two is not well understood. The following sections sum marize what is known. General-Population Studies of Young Adults O'Donnell et al. (1976) analyzed c1ata from 1974 interviews with a national sam- ple of 2,510 young men aged 20 to 30. Ninety-two percent of the sample were current alcohol users. During the inter- views the young men were asked to re- port the extent of their alcohol use ant! also their involvement in 10 categories of crime. The respondents were classified by the extent of their alcohol use: no use, experimental, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy use. The prevalence of self-reported in- volvement in crime in the previous year increased with the extent of their alcohol use in the previous year. This was true for the alcohol-related offenses of public in- toxication and driving while intoxicated and also for auto theft, breaking and en- tering, and shoplifting. A direct associa 101 tion between drinking level and crime prevalence was not apparent for armed robbery, stealing face-to-face, gambling, writing bad checks, and forging prescrip- tions. Respondents were not asked to re- port their involvement in assaultive of- fenses. Bohman et al. (1982) stucTiecI the rela- tionship of alcohol abuse and criminality among 862 Swedish men born out of wedlock between 1930 and 1949 in Stockholm, Sweden, and aclopted by nonrelatives at an early age. The authors were interested in whether genetic and environmental factors prectisposec3 incli- viduals to adult criminality. The subjects ranger] between ages 23 and 43 at the time of last information. Data were ob- tained from the Excise Board (registration of alcohol abuse) Health Insurance Office records anct the Criminal Register. The Excise Board records include a variety of information about alcohol offenses, sanc- tions, and treatment. Criminal record in- formation incluclect recorclect offenses, convictions, and sentences. Those who had an official criminal rec- ord as well as a record of alcohol abuse were more recidivistic, had served longer jail terms, and hacI committed more vio- lent crimes than criminals without alco- hol-abuse records. Criminals without alcohol-abuse records had more often committee! property offenses. Bohman and colleagues found that the correlation between age of onset of first alcohol abuse and first crime was .61. In 18 per- cent of cases the first crime came before first alcohol abuse; in 22 percent of cases, alcohol abuse preceded crime; and in 60 percent of cases the two occurred within 2 years of each other. In summarizing their finclings the authors commented on the problem of causal attribution iBoh- man et al., 1982:12391: Our major conclusion is that different genetic and environmental antecedents influence the development of criminality depending on

102 whether or not there is associated alcohol abuse. Consequently, it is crucial to distin- guish antisocial personality disorders from criminality symptomatic of alcohol abuse in fixture clinical and etiologic studies. In partic- ular, criminality without alcohol abuse is char- acterized by petty property offenses whereas alcohol-related criminality is more often vio- lent and highly repetitive. Robins (1978) examined alcohol use and arrests among a sample of more than 600 Vietnam veterans. The veterans were identifier] through Army records and in- terviewed twice. Twenty-three percent of the sample hacT an arrest in their second or third year back from Vietnam; most arrests were for trivial offenses. Four per- cent were arrested for property crimes, and 2 percent were arrested for violent crimes. Heavy drinking was common among the veterans, and there was a strong relationship between daily heavy drinking and arrest. When juvenile devi- ance was controlled, however, the heavy drinking-arrest relationship almost ctisap- pearec3. Robins concludes that daily heavy drinking does make a significant contribution to arrest but accounts for only about 2 percent of the variance inde- penclent of early deviance and drug use. McCord (1983) examined alcoholism and various criminal career indicators for 400 of the Cambridge Somerville Youth Study subjects. The Cambridge Somer- ville subjects were youths identified as in neecl of clelinquency prevention services because they were at high risk of becom- ing clelinquents. McCord collected of- ficial records of arrest for the subjects in the late 1970s and classified them as alco- holics or nonalcoholics based on inter- view data about drinking and arrests for alcohol-related offenses. She found the alcoholics had more serious criminal ca- reers than the nonalcoholics. They had significantly more convictions overall and more convictions for crimes against the person. CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS Robins an,(1 her colleagues have ana- lyzecI data on alcohol abuse and crime for a sample of 223 black men born in St. Louis between 1930 and 1934 (Robins, Murphy, and Breckenridge, 1968; King et al., 1969; Robins, 1972; Robins and Wish, 1977~. The sample was stratified on the basis of the father's presence or absence in the home during childhoocI, low or high guarl(lian-occupation status, an mitt or no school problems versus more serious school problems. A variety of pub- lic record systems (school, police, Selec- tive Service, public welfare, prison) were searched for information about each sub- ject, and 223 of the original sample of 235 were interviewed. Sixty-two percent of the sample hac! a history of heavy cirink- ing. Heavy drinking and recent alcohol problems were associated with arrests for offenses not related to drinking (King et al., 1969~. The authors believe alcohol abuse is a crucial intervening variable for a variety of social, economic, and legal troubles. In two acIditional articles reporting analyses of the same data, Robins (1972) and Robins an(1 Wish (1977) attempted to deal with the causality issue that is, does alcohol abuse explain variation in arrest or incarceration independent of other factors anti (toes alcohol abuse exist prior to arrest an(1 incarceration? In the 1972 article Robins uses an actuarial- table technique to analyze the order of onset of alcohol problems and incarcera- tion. Alcohol problems were measure(1 by family complaint, aTcohol-related health problems, an arrest for drunkenness, or job-relatecl problems due to drinking. Data were gathered by interview and search of police, court, prison, an(1 parole records. Even though alcohol problems an(1 incarceration correlate(1 0.24, when other factors and temporal order were controlled, alcohol problems did not pre- lict incarceration. Robins an(1 Wish (1977) conceptualize

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES deviance as both quantitative (number of different types of deviance) en c] quaTita- tive (certain types of deviance are system- atically related to other types of deviance processes. Using the interview and rec- ord clata for the 223 black men, they analyzecl 13 types of deviance by age of onset. One of the variables was drinking before the age of 15; this was one of the strongest predictors of other kinds of deviance, anct arrest was one of the out- comes predicted. After the number of earlier types of deviance was controlled, however, early drinking was no longer a significant predictor of arrest, although it appeared to make a contribution to ex- plained variance. These findings indicate, perhaps not surprisingly, that early onset of alcohol use cloes not by itself explain significant variation in whether an indi- vidual eventually gets an arrest record. It is reasonable to think that early drinking effects interact with other factors, such as subsequent drinking behavior. Alcohol Problems and Criminality in "Captured" Samples of Young Adults Robins (1966) studied 524 people who had been referred to a guidance clinic in St. Louis as children 30 years before and compared them with a sample of 100 control subjects from the same commu- nity 30 years after high school graduation. The subjects were interviewed and a number of public recorct sources were used to accumulate life histories for the 624 subjects. The study was conceived mainly as a study of sociopathic personal- ity. Robins found that subjects cTiagnosecT as alcoholics during adulthood (but not meeting criteria for sociopathy) were more likely than "well" adults to have an arrest and incarceration history. In this early work Robins did not attempt to control for the temporal order or the con- founding effects of other factors. Thus, it is not possible to infer much about the ]03 drinking problem-criminal career rela- tionship, except that the two factors ap- pear to covary. Guze et al. (1962) conducted structured psychiatric interviews in 196~1961 with 223 offenders who were on probation, on parole, or soon to be discharged from correctional institutions. Forty-three per- cent hac3 symptoms in three of five symp- tom groups and were therefore ciassifiec! as alcoholic. The alcoholic offenders had more arrests than the nonalcoholics; for example, 50 percent of the alcoholics but only 10 percent of the nonalcoholics had 10 or more previous arrests. (ATcohol- related offenses have not been excluclecl from this comparison.) The alcoholics were significantly more likely than nonalcoholics to be arrested for auto theft, but their arrest rates for robbery, burglary, larceny, forgery, and passing bad checks were not significantly higher than the rates for the nonalcoholics. The alcohol- ics were more likely to report excessive fighting both before ant! after age 18. No differences were found in the prevalence of delinquency, antisocial behavior, or crime before the age of 15 for the aTco- holic and nonalcoholic groups. A large majority of subjects who reported delin- quency or crime before age 15 said their delinquency preceded heavy drinking. Goodwin. Crane, and Guze (1971) reinterviewed the felons in the Guze et al. (1962) sample, described above, 8 years later. Interviews were conclucte with 176 of the original 209 subjects fount] at follow-up. The alcoholics (N = 118) had many more problems than the nonalcoholics, although a substantial number of the alcoholics were in remis- sion at the time of the interview. The alcoholics who had stopped drinking had fewer arrests ant! imprisonments than those who had not. Nonetheless, those originally labeled alcoholics were more likely than the nonalcoholics to have ar- rests and incarcerations for any offense

104 and for fights. Goodwin and colleagues conclude that excessive drinking intensi- fies or prolongs criminal behavior. Lindelius and Salum (1973, 1975, 1976) studied samples of men tre ate cI for aTco- holism in a hospital in Stockholm, Swe- clen, or registered at the Bureau for Homeless Men in Stockholm. The au- thors gathered data about criminal careers from the records ofthe Criminal Register. This central criminal record system per- mits estimation of a general-population risk of being in the register anti, thus, comparison of criminal-recorc! preval- ences for the total population ant! for samples of individuals, such as alcoholics and homeless men. In the 1973 article, Lindelius and Salum classify 1,026 mate alcoholics treated in the hospital between 1956 and 1961 on the basis of the severity of their physical symptoms of alcoholism. Thirty- six percent had tremors without psycho- sis at admission (group 1~; 19 percent hac3 hallucinations with (disorientation (group 21; and 45 percent had tremors, hallucina- tions, and disorientation (group 31. Re- cordec! drinking offenses were examiner] separately. The alcoholics were more likely to appear in the Criminal Register than the general population, but the se- verity of alcoholism as measured by med- ical symptoms dic3 not have much power to explain involvement in serious crimi- naTity. Group 3 had a Tower percentage (37) of individuals in the Criminal Regis- ter than groups 1 and 2 combined (45 percent). An exception to this statement is the finding that assault and battery arrests were high among group 3 alcoholics un- cler age 40 in comparison with this rate for groups 1 and 2. Recidivism was high for all three alcoholic groups but cTid not differ among the groups. Linclelius and Salum (1976) compared the officially recorded criminaTit,v of the sample of treated alcoholics just cle- scribed with that for (1) 139 men treated CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS for alcoholism who hac3 no convictions for drunkenness or alcoholism and (2) 202 men registered at Stockholm's Bureau for Homeless Men. The men who had no drunkenness or alcholism record (even though they were treated for alcoholism) were no more likely than the general population to have a criminal record. The official criminal-record rate for the home- less men was highest of the three sam- ples. However, the authors did not con- troT for age in the comparison of the three samples, and the homeless men were older than the other samples. The com- parison of the criminal records for the three samples is as follows: Alcoholics Alcoholics (physical (no drunk withdrawal Homeless conviction) symptoms) men . Mean number of convictions 1.6 3.0 5.3 Percent with vio lent offense 0 23 35 Percent with prop erty offense Percent with sexual offense O Percent with 16 17 84 4 7 driving-under- the-influence offense 0 28 The authors conclude that very different findings can result depending on whether one studies the role of alcohol among identified offenders or criminality among alcoholics. A number of studies of prison samples have examined alcoholism and problem drinking among inmates. These studies find high rates of problem drinking among inmates (Institute for Scientific Analysis, 1978; Crawford et al., 1982; Col- lins and Schlenger, 1983; Bureau of Jus- tice Statistics, 1983c). Washbrook (1977) is an exception. Without presenting sys- tematic evidence on the point, the author claims that interviews with 5,000 English prisoners showed half to have drunk on

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES the clay of the incarceration offense, but that alcohol was relevant to only a small percentage ofthe offenses, and less than 5 percent of the inmates were alcoholic. (The term "relevant" was not defined.) More relevant than the alcoholism rate of prisoners for purposes of this paper is whether inmates who are problem drink- ers have individual offending patterns that differ from those of offenders who do not have drinking problems. The evi- dence suggests they clot Five studies show that prisoners with drinking prob- lems have higher assault rates than pris- oners without drinking problems. MayfieTc3 (1976) studied offenders in- carceratecT in North Carolina prisons for assault offenses. He found that the prob- lem drinkers had more previous arrests for aTcohol-relatec3 offenses, more nonal- cohol-relatect arrests, and more previous arrests for assault than the incarcerated violent offenders who did not have a drinking problem. An Institute for Scientific Analysis (1978) report on drinking and criminal career patterns showed that those cIassi- fied as heavy drinkers were more likely to be incarcerated for a violent offense than for another kind of offense. Data were gathered cluring interviews of 310 in- mates in Califomia, and a quantity-fre- quency index was used to estimate aTco- hoT consumption. Bamard, Boozer, and Vera (1979) looked at the history of alcohol use among 88 Florida prisoners who had been charged with rape. Data were collected from informal interviews anct institutional records. Twenty-seven percent were cIas- sified as alcoholics. The diagnosis was based on the inmate's satisfying any three of six criteria measuring (lrinking history and consequences of drinking. The aTco- holic prisoners hac3 more previous arrests and more previous arrests for violent of- fenses than the nonalcoholics. Chaiken and Chaiken (1982) in a study 105 of 2,190 jail and prison inmates in CaTifor- nia, Michigan, and Texas found that self- reported problem drinking in the imme- diate preincarceration period was a strong predictor of self-reported assault rates in the preincarceration period. Gibbens and Silberman (1970) stuctied 404 inmates in three London prisons, excluding short-sentence drunkenness offenders. The authors interviewed the inmates and dividect them into heavy drinkers and others. (The authors do not clearly describe how the inmates' drink- ing behavior was cIassified.) The heavy drinkers were more likely than nondrink- ers to have a history of two or more "aggressive" offenses. The heavy drink- ers were also more likely to be recon- victed during a 9- to 12-month follow-up period. Two other studies examined incarcer- atec3 samples and consiclerec! drinking problems. Myers (1982) interviewed 50 Scottish prisoners incarcerated for violent offenses and 50 prisoners incarcerated for nonviolent offenses. Although the typical drinking levels of the two groups did not slider, the violent prisoners were more likely than the nonviolent prisoners to report (lrinking at the time of the incar- ceration offense. Drinking was higher than usual for both groups in the week prior to the incarceration offense. Ec3warcts, Hensman, and Peto (1971) compared two groups of mate prisoners who were incarcerated in 1965. A short- term group (N = 188) was serving sen- tences of 3 months or less; a Tong-term group (N = 312) was serving sentences of 1 year or more. The authors collected data using an 80-item semistructured inter- view. An alcohol-(lependence score was constructed on the basis of responses to questions about morning shakes and morning clrinking. In the Tong-term group, those convicted of violent offenses had higher aTcohol-dependency scores than those convicted of nonviolent of

106 Lenses, while the reverse was the case for short-term offenders not incarcerated for a drunkenness offense. Long-term offend- ers convicted earlier of violent offenses also tract elevated aTcohol-dependency scores. Discussion: Young Adults The evidence cited in the previous two sections suggests the following for the young adult years: 1. Problem drinking covaries directly with self-reportecI criminality and arrest. 2. ATcohol-treatment samples have higher-than-expectec3 official crime rates, and incarcerated offenders have higher- than-expected problem drinking rates. 3. Problem drinkers have higher-than- expectec3 records of involvement in vio- lent crime and self-report clisproportion- ately high rates of violent behavior. 4. When temporal order ant] other fac- tors are controlled, the explanatory power of problem drinking for individual of- fencTing sequences is reduced or elimi- nated. The foregoing and other literature discuss some ofthe causal aspects ofthe problem drinking-crime interaction. Three aspects of the etiological issue are cliscussecI briefly below: (1) the relationship of prob- lem drinking and antisocial personality clisorcler (psychopathic or sociopathic personality), (2) the notion that the tem- poral orcler may be crime ~ problem drinking and not the reverse, and (3) the idea that there are distinct problem drink- er-offencler types that confound attempts to unclerstanct the relationship between problem drinking and individual offend- ing sequences. Problem Drinking and Antisocial Per- sonality. One way to conceptualize the covariation of problem drinking ancI crim- inal behavior is to view each of the factors CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS as aspects of a configuration of behaviors that make up a deviant life-styTe. In other worcis, drinking problems and criminal behavior simply represent sets of behav- iors that occur together as a result of a common etiology or life orientation. This conception appears to fit the empirical findings fairly well; that is, there is strong covariation between problem drinking and criminal careers, but it is difficult to show the former to be a cause ofthe latter. But, while this mode] may fit the facts, it is not helpful for specifying causal factors to guide prevention and treatment strate- g~es. An analogue of the problem drinking- criminal behavior relationship is that of problem drinking ant! antisocial person- ality (ASP) disorcler. An ASP clisorder is defined, according to the American Psy- chiatric Association's (1980) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor- ders, as continuous and chronic antisocial behavior in which the rights of others are violated, inclucling 3 or more of 12 symp- toms before age 15 an(1 4 or more of 9 symptoms after age 18. Alcohol abuse ant! clepenclence are commonly found among those cliagnose(1 as ASP (Guze, Goodwin, anti Crane, 1969; lames, Gregory, and tones, 1980; Hare, 19831. Robins (1966:260) asker] the question "Are alcoholics mild sociopaths?" She answered the question negatively by sug- gesting that alcoholics' symptoms are di- rectly attributable to excessive alcohol intake and that it is possible to distinguish the symptoms of the two disorders. The question is important here because it would be helpful to know how drinking problems and ASP disorders are related to each other. If the disorder types are confound with each other, attempts at etiologic unclerstanding of the problem drinking-inclividual offending sequences relationship are complicated. Several writers whose works were re- viewe<1 earlier suggest that "psycho

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES pathic" personality traits are important to the problem drinking-criminal career re- lationship (Goodwin, Crane, anc3 Guze, 1971; Linclelius and Salum, 1973, 1975; Bohman et al., 1982; Rydelius, 1983b). Conceptual and empirical refinement of this relationship will serve understanding of the problem cirinking-criminal career relationship because it appears that com- mon causal factors may be involved. Temporal Order of Problem Drinking and Criminal Careers. Some of the em- pirical evidence indicates that criminal behavior is more likely to precede prob- lem drinking than the reverse (Guze et al., 1962; Robins, Murphy, and Brecken- ricige, 1968; Lindelius anc3 S. alum, 19751. In the Guze et al. research, for example, 66 to 87 percent of those in the sample said their delinquency or crime preceded heavy drinking. In their assessment of the literature, Roizen anc3 Schneberk (1977) argue it is more logical to infer that crime causes "chronic inebriacy" than the reverse. What does seem clear from the literature is that the temporal-orcler issue is not a simple one. Often crime comes before problem (lrinking, although the more common pattern appears to be both problem drinking anc3 crime occur- ring initially within a short time of each other. A major aspect of this question is how "problem drinking" is clefine(1. Early on- set of drinking was a criterion measure used by Robins anc3 Wish (19771. Heavy intake is the measure used by others (Bu- reau of Justice Statistics, 1983a); still oth- ers use physical symptoms or Diverse consequences of drinking (Guze et al., 1962; Linclelius ant! Salum, 19731. With this diversity in the measurement of prob- lem drinking, it is not surprising that finclings on the temporal-or(ler issue are not consistent. It is helpful to distinguish several di- mensions of problem drinking: (1) early 107 (age) (lrinking, (2) heavy intake or symp- tomatic (binge, moming, et cetera) cirink- ing, (3) problem consequences (family, employment, police problems, et cetera), (4) physical symptoms (tremors, cirrhosis, et cetera), and (5) whether problem cirink- ing is a current problem. These general dimensions can be further refined. For example, heavy drinking can be definecl in terms of frequency, number of {Irinks per drinking occasion, and a quantity- frequency index. A "current'' problem can be defined by different periods, such as past year or past 3 years. During the young adult period, measures (2), (3), and (5) above tend to be the most appropriate and frequently used measures of problem drinking. It is also apparent from what is known about the age at which criminal careers start that problem drinking, with the exception of age at first use, often starts after the age at first serious offense. On the surface, this suggests that problem drinking is not etiologically important to the onset of criminal careers. Although problem drinking may not be important to the onset of criminal careers, that does not mean that it may not be important to the continuation anc3 specific nature of the career. It is this latter point that is the most important general infer- ence to be (lrawn from the relationship between problem drinking and inclivid- ual offending sequences in the young adult years. Problem drinking appears to intensify or prolong serious involvement in criminal behavior. Most of the litera- ture reviewed earlier supports such an interpretation. Problem-Drinker and Offender Types. It may be vaTic3 and appropriate to focus scientific and policy attention on subsets of problem drinkers and offender types. The literature does not provi(le much specific guidance for such a focus, but it (loes seem clear that some problem- drinker types are more important to incli

108 vidual offending sequences than others. Some of the evidence is notes] below. Roebuck and Johnson (1962) identified the "Negro drinker and assaulter as a criminal type" from an examination of the arrest records of 400 offenders entering the District of Columbia Reformatory in 1954 and 1955. This offender type could also be distinguished from other offender types on the basis of a number of back- grounc! and socialization factors. McCord (1983) examined adult alcoholism and criminal outcomes for boys rated as "ag- gressive" by their teachers and found that being so rated was relater! to later ele- vated rates of alcoholism and crime. Coil] (1982) ant] Ryclelius (1983b) be- lieve there is an important subgroup of aTcohol-abusing offenders that can be dis- tinguishecT by an un(lerlying personality abnormality. The abnormality is gener- ally clescribed as psychopathy. Tarter (1983) distinguished type-I (pri- mary) and type-II (secondary) alcoholics. While there is some ambiguity about the exact definition of the two types, it is the type-II alcoholic who is viewed as most likely to engage in criminal behavior related to problem drinking. Type-II al- coholics are male and engage in moderate to heavy drinking. Typed alcoholics dis- play more severe symptoms of chronic alcoholism. A similar distinction is made by Blane and Chafetz (1979), who talk about two "alcoholics." One type is the traditional clinical, diagnostic, and treat- ment type. The other, a more transitory type, is characterized by frequent heavy drinking and adverse consequences. Tarter (1983) compared two groups of primary and secondary alcoholics on a variety of measures and concluded that the primary alcoholic is a vaTic! clinical subtype. Primary alcoholics were more likely than secondary alcoholics to clis- play antecedent minimal brain dysfunc- tion symptoms. Secondary alcoholics were more likely to display symptoms of CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS psychological abnormality. While the im- portance of age or the number of years of drinking to type-I and type-II alcoholism needs to be assessed, there is the sugges- tion that types of individuals may be identified who are at high risk of problem drinking and serious criminal involve- ment. Finally, after examination of problem drinking remission rates among a group of felons, Goodwin, Crane, and Guze (1971:144) concluder! "criminal alcohol- ics may represent a different variety of alcoholism from that seen in psychiatric private practice or hospital alcoholism wards." The above evidence suggests that problem (lrinking is important to inclivid- ual offending sequences only for some types of people. Stated another way, there appear to be individual characteristics that increase the likelihood that serious criminal behavior related to problem drinking will occur. Additional work shouIcl focus more specifically on at- tempting to identify the antecedent anct ongoing individual factors that are relater! to problem drinking and criminal behav- ior. Such a focus wouIcl be "efficient" from both scientific and policymaking perspectives. Later Adult Years: Drinking and Crime The magnitude of the association be- tween problem drinking and individual offending sequences is highest (luring the young adult years, but it may also be important for a subset of offenders and offenses committed cluring micldle age (approximately ages 35 to 55~. Few seri- ous crimes are committed by those over age 55. Past work has often identified the crime problem of old age as one of "chronic inebriacy" (Pittman and Gor- don, 1958~. Epstein, Mills, and Simon (1970) estimate that four of five arrests of

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES the elderly are for drunkenness. Shichor and Kobrin (1978) make a similar point. Arrest, conviction, and incarceration for aTcohol-defined offenses, however, are not of primary interest in this paper. Middle-aged and older offenders have not received much attention from crimi- nologists or policymakers. The major rea- son for this is the relatively infrequent arrest of older offenders for serious crimes. Only 11.6 percent of all offenders arrested for index crimes in 1981 were 35 years of age or older (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1982~. Attention to the mid- cIle-age or later years has been even less frequent in the study of criminal careers. Some previous work suggests that there may be a relationship between problem drinking and late onset of criminal ca- reers; finclings, however, are not consis- tent. Edwards, Kyle, and Nicholls (1977) studied a group of 935 mate and female alcoholic patients discharged from hospi- tals in England between 1953 and 1957. The mean age of the sample was 45.2. Scotland Yard criminal records, which usually do not include juvenile or drunk- enness offenses, were searched for each of the subjects for the period up to the end of 1957. This included the periods before and after hospitalization. Thirty-two percent of the men and 17 percent of the women hack a conviction record. Mean age at first conviction for the men was 34.9; for the women, it was 37.4. For both sexes, age at first convic- tion was skewer! upward in comparison with general crime statistics. General sta- tistics show that only 21 percent of a group of first offenders were over age 40. In the sample under study 32 percent of the men and 45 percent of the women were aged 40 or older at first conviction. Gibbens and Silberman (1970) also found an excess of alcoholics among those first convicted after age 30. Controlling for age, the alcoholics were also found to 109 have "excess" recidivism rates after hos- pitalization compared with a control group. Langan and Greenfeld (Bureau of Jus- tice Statistics, 1983a) studied career pat- terns in crime using the nationwide survey of state correctional inmates con- ducted in 1979. The survey includes in- terviews with a random sample of 11,397 state prison inmates. The authors were interested in studying criminal careers that had spanned a long period, so they limited their analysis to inmates who were at least age 40 at the time of current prison admission. Inmates were classified into four groups according to whether their criminal careers included incarcera- tion between ages 7 and 17 and between ages 18 and 39. Forty-seven percent of the sample of 827 inmates aged 40 or more experienced their first incarceration at age 40 or older (type 41. Almost half of all "incarceration careers" of inmates aged 40 or oIcler did not begin until rela- tively late. The next largest group (38.2 percent) consisted of those who had no juvenile incarceration but had at least one adult incarceration before age 40 (type 31. Approximately two-thircls of the type-4 offenders were currently incarcerated for a violent crime. Langan and Greenfeld compared the typed inmates with the three other types on the basis of drinking at the time of current incarceration offense, drunk at the time of current incarceration offense, and ever treated for alcohol abuse. The type-4 offender was not more likely than the three other types to have been drinking, drunk, or previously treated for alcohol problems. In fact, the percentages of type-4 inmates in the drinking, drunk, and treated categories were lower than those for the three other types and in some comparisons the type-4 percentages were substantially and significantly lower than those of the three other groups. These finclings are not consistent with the

110 findings cited above that showed prob- lem drinkers to be offenders of late onset. The inconsistency is perhaps an example of disparate fin(lings (lepencling on whether aTcohol-treatment or criminal- offender samples are studied. In a study of 187 men identified as "chronic police case inebriates," Pittman ancI Gordon (1958) constructed criminal career histories from arrest records. Men incarcerates! for public intoxication were selectecI at random from those serving sentences of 30 days or longer in a county prison in Rochester, New York. They av- eragec] 47.7 years of age. The men had to have served at least one previous sen- tence for public intoxication. The sample is a narrowly defined one, so that gener- alizability is limitecI, but the criminal ca- reer histories provide some interesting information. The men in the sample averaged 16.5 recorclec3 arrests for all offenses; the mean number of arrests increases with age from 6.8 for those uncler 35 to 22.9 for those aged 55 and older. Mean number of ar- rests for public intoxication was 12.8 for all ages, ranging from 4.1 for those under age 35 to 18.6 for those 55 and oIcler. A total of 22.5 percent of all arrests were for charges other than public intoxication. The mean number of arrests on charges other than public intoxication does not increase significantly with age after 35. The authors (Pittman and Gordon, 1958:261) infer: The explanation for the failure of other of- fenses to increase with age lies in the fact that at the end of the first utilized age period, 35, there is a trend for the inebriates who have been involved in more serious crimes, such as automobile theft or burglary, to cease this type of criminal activity, and for the intoxication pattern of behavior to emerge as an adaptation to the life situation. Thirty-seven percent of the sample had been arrested on serious charges, but Pitt CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS man an(1 Gordon note that those serious offenses tended to occur earlier in the career and reiterate that the "new" pat- tern of arrest for public drunkenness is a reaction to failed criminal careers. While the "biphasic" criminal career pattern is not inconsistent with this interpretation, the notion of an alcoholic adaption to a failed criminal career by Pittman and Gordon is speculative. If problem drinkers are late-onset of- fenders but also have short criminal ca- reers, the above findings may not be in- consistent with each other. In other words, the Edwards, Kyle, and Nicholls (1977) sample may start late and stop quickly. The best tentative conclusion about the effect of problem drinking on serious criminal behavior by those over age 3S is that there is no relationship. The issue needs further study, however, be- cause so little attention has been paid to the question. SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS In this section, fin(lings from the three career-segment reviews are summarized, the magnitude ofthe association between problem drinking and criminal careers is cliscussecl, important methoclological is- sues are notecl, and implications for fu- ture research are drawn. Summary of Findings The best inference regarding the im- portance of problem (lrinking to the onset of criminal careers is that of no relation- ship. Some caution about this conclusion is necessary because age at first drink an the beginning of problem drinking are not adequately clistinguished in past work. Drinking at an early age is often viewed as a problem of itself. Most of the available evidence, however, indicates that involvement in crime precedes prob

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES lem drinking or that the two start at ap- proximately the same time. A second major inference that is war- ranted by past research is that there is strong covariation between problem drinking and incliviclual offending se- quences. It is not possible to infer confi- dently that the covariation indicates prob- lem drinking is a causal factor. Common etiologies may be involved. It floes ap- pear justified to conclucle that inclivicluals who have drinking problems tend, more than individuals without drinking prob- lems, to continue serious criminal activity during young adulthood. Some research- ers have seen this as the tendency of problem drinking to extend or intensify the criminal career. A robust finding justified by the works reviewed and other evidence is that prob- lem drinkers who have criminal careers or offenders with drinking problems are disproportionately likely to have official records for, and to self-report involve- ment in, violent crime. No fewer than 10 of the studies reviewed shower] this pat- tem, although the finding is most clear among i(lentified criminal justice popula- tions. The connection between problem drinking and violent behavior is consicI- ered robust, also, because the fincling is replicated in the literature that examines assaultive criminal events. In that litera- ture, alcohol has been found present in the offender, victim, or both offender and victim in very substantial percentages of homicides, forcible rapes, aggravated as- saults, ancl other violent crimes. Recent aggregate-level analyses also find a direct relationship between levels of alcohol consumption and levels of violence (Bielewicz ant] Mokalewicz, 1982; Lenke, 1982; Olsson and Wikstrom, 1982) There is little doubt that drinking is etio- Togically important to the occurrence of some violent behavior. It is not possible to identify what spe- cific factors combine with alcohol to pro duce violent behavior. It is clear that some men are at high risk of aTcohol- relatec3 violence, but the identification of indiviclual risk factors has not progressecI beyond the specification of general char- acteristics, such as aggressiveness or psy- chopathic personality traits. Correlates of these global descriptions have been noted, but the etiological tie among drinking, violence, and other characteris- tics has not been made. It may be possi- ble to make some such connections from a meta-analysis of past work, but this has not as yet been accomplished. Finally, although several researchers have noted a relationship between drink- ing problems and the late onset of crimi- nal careers, the assessment in this paper cloes not show that. If late onset of crimi- nal careers is measured by involvement in serious crime, problem drinking has not been shown to be etiologically impor- tant. The ambiguity may be related to sample selection or to the failure of past research to separate serious from aTcohol- relatecl offenses. How Much Crime Does Problem Drinking Explain? At the outset of this paper it was states! that alcohol use is never a sufficient cause of a criminal career. However, the evi- dence reviewed here, as well as other evidence, demonstrates aclequately that problem drinking is associated with crim- inal behavior, especially violent criminal behavior in the young adult years. The question remains of how much crime is explained by problem drinking. A quan- titative answer cannot be provi(led on the basis of previous work. Individual offencl- ing frequencies have not been compared for offenders with and without drinking problems. It is not even possible to com- pare the explanatory power of problem drinking with that of other inclepenclent variables because the alcohol-use vari

112 able has rarely been incluclec3 in relevant multivariate analyses. Methoclological difficulties aside, there are several reasons why the kinds of anal- yses that would permit a quantitative as- sessment of problem ctrinking's contribu- tion to criminal careers have not been undertaken: 1. Alcohol use and problem drinking are common phenomena in the noncrimi- nal population and thus do not stanc! out as criminogenic factors. 2. Alcohol is an inexpensive drug so that, unlike expensive drugs (such as her- oin and cocaine), there is no economic compulsion associated with its heavy use. 3. A theoretical framework for under- standing how problem drinking causes criminal behavior does not exist. This lack oftheoretical direction, coupled with the fact that drinking is pervasive in of- fender populations, causes concern that the observed relationship between prob- lem drinking and criminal careers is a spurious one. The third point is the most important, but it need not be a serious impediment to the development of quantitative esti- mates of problem drinking's contribution to criminal behavior. Appropriate data and techniques exist to begin clevelop- ment of comparative As and regression coefficients for problem drinking. These would provide estimates of the magni- tude of problem drinking's power to ex- plain criminal careers. The development of theory has been inhibited by the tendency of criminolo- gists to view explanatory factors in a sim- plistic way. Thornberry and Christenson (1984) point out that causal conceptions have tended to be unidirectional and that such conceptions do not mode] criminal behavior very well. They show how un- employment and crime are related to each other in a reciprocal way. Problem drinking is likely to have a similar rela CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS tionship to criminal behavior. A recipro- cal conception may resolve some of the ambiguities in earlier work and lay the foundation for real understanding of the role of alcohol in the etiology of criminal behavior. Methodological Issues The single most important method- ological aspect of determining whether a causal relationship exists between prob- lem drinking and criminal careers is the nature of the stu(ly populations. General- population ant] captured-sample (i.e., in- stitutional, treatment) study findings are not seriously inconsistent with each other, but differences in findings do exist. Mentioner] above was the fact that the problem drinking-violence relationship is strongest among identified criminal jus- tice samples. One possible reason for this finding is relatecI to the probability of arrest. If the findings that suggest that problem drinkers are more likely to be arreste(1 than offenders who do not have a drinking problem are accurate, problem drinkers who are violent offenders may be overrepresented in criminal justice populations. Measurement of problem drinking neects to be clone more carefully in future research. Measures should be quantity- frequency indicators or indicators of spe- cific drinking-relatecl consequences. Ar- rests for aTcohol-relatecl offenses shouIcl not be use(1 as an indicator of problem drinking in research to examine the rela- tionship between drinking and crime. Alcohol use should also be measured and analyzed separately, not as part of an overall ([rug-use inclicator. The latter ap- proach confounds the effects of alcohol and drug use and may mask the effects of alcohol because drug use overrides aTco- ho] use in hierarchically constructed in- dices. "Current" and "ever" drinking problems also need to be clistinguished.

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES There is a considerable spontaneous re- mission of problem drinking over the life cycle, and failure to distinguish past and current drinking problems limits infer- ences that can be ctrawn about the effects of problem drinking over the life cycle. Two substantive foci may be helpful to unclerstancling the causal relationship between problem drinking and criminal careers: (1) conceptual and empirical clis- entanglement of the problem rlrinker-an- tisocial personality-criminal career asso- ciation anal (2) development of a problem cTrinker-offencler typology. The first point involves attempting to clarify conceptu- ally and empirically how much overlap exists among the three categories. The ASP disorder designation is a clinical one partially baser! on criteria that also clefine criminal behavior. Examples of ASP ctis- orcler diagnostic criteria that are also crime categories are assault, theft, vanclal- ism, and driving while intoxicated. Other ASP diagnostic criteria include referral to . ~ . ~. ~r ~ ~3 same persons, as cliscussed above and as noted in the APA diagnostic manual. The close association and shared conceptual elements of problem drinking, criminal careers, ant] ASP disorder suggest the need for careful definition and elabora tion of the constructs. With conceptual refinement and subsequent empirical analysis, the causal structure of the asso ciation between problem drinking and criminal careers wouIc3 likely be cIarifiecI. Development of a problem drinker offencler typology is recommenclec] to bring into sharper focus the contribution of inclivi(1ual characteristics (genetic, de velopmental, psychological, and so on) to the problem ctrinking-criminal career as sociation. It is clear that problem drinking is not a criminogenic factor for all individ uals. It would be helpful if individual risk factors, which could serve as typology dimensions, could be identified. Identifi cation of risk factors serves multiple pur poses. Risk factors can provide theoretical Juvenile court, multiple arrests, and a get-direction and, if they are strong predic ony conviction (American Psychiatric As-tors, can inform clinical and policy deci sociation, 19801. The ASP disorder alsosigns as well. includes symptom categories, such as dis turbed interpersonal relations and inabil ity to sustain employment categories that do not necessarily involve antisocial or illegal behavior. However, there is considerable overlap in the factors that define ASP disorder and criminal careers. The ASP disorder and criminal career concepts also share conceptual and em pirical elements in a temporal sense. The criminal career concept implies repeti tious involvement in crime over some number of years. The ASP disorder diag nosis requires onset of three or more diagnostic criteria before age 15 and man ifestation of at least four specified symp toms subsequent to age 18. Thus, both concepts are consistent with over-time continuity in illegal or deviant behavior. The ASP disorder and problem-drink ing categories tend often to coexist in the Recommendations and Implications The problem drinker-criminal career relationship is worthy of further study. A two-step process is recommended. Some work could start immediately with the use of existing data. Examples of longitu- dinal data that provide opportunities for relevant analysis are the National Youth Survey (NYS), the Rutgers Health and Human Development data, the 1945 Philadelphia birth cohort data, and the data from three Racine birth cohorts. The data sets provide information about onset, prevalence, and incidence of criminal be- havior and include over-time measures. Information about alcohol use is limited in the Philadelphia and Racine cohorts, but both the NYS and the Rutgers survey include detailed information about alco

114 hot use over time. Thus, moclels could be developed to trace the covariation and correlates of drinking and crime in the same individuals over time.) The 1979 survey of state correctional inmates (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1983a) also can address problem cirinker- criminal career issues. The inmate survey includes information from more than 10,000 individuals about incarceration, criminal careers, and alcohol use and amount consumed during the year before anct at the time of the incarceration of- fense. Information is also included about drug use. There is considerable potential in the inmate data for modeling the rela- tionship of substance use ant] crime. The Treatment Outcomes Prospective Study, which includes data for more than 11,000 individuals who entered publicly funcled drug abuse treatment programs in 197~1981, is also a potentially valuable resource.2 The ciata include a retrospec- tive longitudinal dimension and prospec- tive follow-up of a substantial percentage of the 11,000 subjects. Detailed data were collected about alcohol and drug use and self-reported involvement in serious crime. Data on age at first drink and age at first offensets) provide an opportunity to begin analyses at onset times and to fol- low subjects over many years. After the problem drinking-criminal ca- reer relationship is further clarified by iFor information on the data bases mentioned, contact the principal investigator, as follows: Na- tional Youth Survey, Delbert Elliott, The Behav- ioral Research Institute, University of Colorado; Rutgers Health and Human Development data, Robert Pandina, Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers University; Racine, Wisconsin, birth cohorts, Lyle Shannon, Iowa Urban Community Research Cen- ter, University of Iowa; Philadelphia birth cohorts, Marvin E. Wolfgang, Center for Studies in Crimi- nology and Criminal Law, University of Pennsylva- nia. 2For information on this data base, contact the author. CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS analyses of existing data, it is likely that new longitudinal research will be actvis- able. New research could be carefully designed based on what is known and learned in secondary analyses. A focused, well-informed longitudinal design would have a good chance to clarify how prob- lem drinking, by itself or in combination win other factors, contributes to criminal careers. Few implications for private or public decision making are apparent from the findings of this review. One recommen- clation echoes Robins and Wish (19771. That recommendation is to attempt to delay the onset of drinking. While the early onset of drinking does not appear to be a sufficient cause of problem drinking or criminal behavior, it does appear to be an important factor. Delaying the start of drinking could have a payoff in terms of preventing crime; this approach, were it to work, would also have the advantage of reducing aTcohol-relatect costs connected with health care, decreased productivity, and motor vehicle accidents. It is virtually certain that alcohol use is a factor in some violent crime. This re- view and other evidence support that inference. Violent crime has very high dollar costs and is also responsible for costs not so easily measured, such as altered life-styTes due to the fear of crime. Better understanding of the problem drinking-criminal career relationship could set the stage for informed attempts to reduce those costs. REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association 1980 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 3d edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association. Barnard, G., Holzer, C., and Vera, H. 1979 A comparison of alcoholics and non-alcohol- ics charged with rape. Bulletin of the Amer- ican Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 7:432~440.

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES ~ 75 Bell, D., and Champion, R. 1979 Deviancy, cleli~>quency and drug use. Brit- ish Journal of Psychiatry 134:269-276. Bielewicz, A., and Moskalewicz, J. 1982 Temporary prohibition: the Gdansk experi- ence, August, 1980. Contemporary Drug Problems Fall:367-381. Blane, H., and Chafetz, M., eds. 1979 Youth, Alcohol, and Social Policy. New York: Plenum Press. Blane, H., and Hewitt, L. 1971 Alcohol and Youth An Analysis of the Lit- erature, 196~1975. Final report prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. Bohman, M., Cloninger, C., Sigvardsson, S., and von Knorring, A. 1982 Predisposition to petty criminality in Swed- ish adoptees. I. Genetic and environmental heterogeneity. Archives of General Psychia- try 39: 123~1241. Bray, R., Schlenger, W., Craddock, S., Hubbard, R., and Rachal, J. 1982 Approaches to the Assessment of Drug Use in the Treatment Outcomes Prospective Study. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Bray, R., Guess, L., Mason, R., Hubbard, R., Smith, D., Marsden, M., and Rachal, J. 1983 1982 Worldwide Survey of Alcohol and Nonmedical Drug Use Among Military Per- sonnel. Report prepared for the Department of Defense. Research Triangle Institute, Re- search Triangle Park, N.C. Brown, S. Goldman, M., Inn, A., and Anderson, L. 1980 Expectations of reinforcement from alcohol: their domain and relation to drinking pat- terns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 48(8~:419-426. Bureau of Justice Statistics 1983a Career patterns and crime. Bureau ofJustice Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 1983b Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1981. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De- partment of Justice. 1983c Prisoners and alcohol. Bureau ofJustice Sta- tistics Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De- partment of Justice. Cahalan, D., and Cisin, I. 1976 Drinking behavior and drinking problems in the United States. In B. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds., The Biology of Alcoholism. Vol. 4: Social Aspects of Alcoholism. New York: Plenum Press. Cahalan, D., and Room, R. 1974 Problem Drinking Among American Men. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Center of A1- cohol Studies. Cahalan, D., Cisin, S., and Crossley, H. 1969 American Drinking Practices: A National Study of Drinking Behavior and Attitudes. New Haven, Conn.: College & University Press. Chaiken, J., and Chaiken, M. 1982 Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa Mon- ica, Calif.: Rand Corporation. Cold, J. 1982 Alcoholism and violence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 9:1-13. Coleman, D., and Straus, M. 1979 Alcohol Abuse and Family Violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Boston, Massachusetts. Collins, J., ed. 1981 Drinking and Crime: Perspectives on the Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Criminal Behavior. New York: Guilford Press. Collins, J., and Schlenger, W. 1983 The Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorder Among Admissions to Prison. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology 35th Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado. Cordelia, A. 1985 Alcohol and property crime: explaining the causal nexus. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 46(2): 161-171. Crawford, A., Hinton, J., Dochertv, C., Dishman, D., an(] Mulligan, P. 1982 Alcohol and crime. I. Self-reported alcohol consumption of Scottish prisoners. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 43(5) :610 613. Dawkins, R., and Dawkins, M. 1983 Alcohol use and delinquency among black, white, and Hispanic adolescent offenders. Adolescence 58(72~:799~09. Eckardt, M., Harford, T., Kaelber, C., Parker, E., Rosenthal, L., Ryback, R., Salmoiragthi, G., Vanderveen, E., and Warren, K. 1981 Health hazards associated with alcohol con- sumption. Journal of the American Medical Association 246(6):64~666. Edwards, G., lIensman, C., and Peto, J. 1971 Drinking problems among recidivist prison- ers. Psychological Medicine 1:388~399. Edwards, G., Kyle, E., and Nicholls, P. 1977 Alcoholics admitted to four hospitals in En- gland. III. Criminal records.Journal of Stud- ies on alcohol 38(9):1648-1664.

116 Elliott, D., and Huizinga, D. 1983 Social class and delinquent behavior in a national youth panel. Criminology 21(2): 149-177. Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., and Ageton, S. 1982 Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. The National Youth Survey Project Report No. 21. Report prepared for the Of lice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, and for the Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency, the Na- tional Institute of Mental Health. Behavioral Research Institute, Boulder, Colo. Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B., and Canter, R. 1983 The Incidence and Prevalence of Delinquent Behavior: 197~1980. Boulder, Colo.: Be- havioral Research Institute. Epstein, L., Mills, C., and Simon, A. 1970 Antisocial behavior of the elderly. Compre- hensive Psychiatry 11~11:3~42. Federal Bureau of Investigation 1982 Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, 1981. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 1983 Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, 1982. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Fenna, D., Mix, L., Schaefer, O., and Gilbert, J. 1976 Ethanol metabolism in various racial groups. In M. Everett, J. Waddell, and D. Heath, eds., Cross-Cultural Approaches to the Study of Alcohol. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Fillmore, K. 1975 Relationship between specific drinking problems in early childhood and middle age: an exploratory 20-year follow-up study. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 36:819~40. Fishburne, P., Abelson, H., and Cisin, I. 1980 National Survey on DrugAbuse: Main Find- ings, 1979. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Depa~tl~ent of Health and Human Services. Gibbens, T., and Silberman, M. 1970 Alcoholism among prisoners. Psychological Medicine 1:73-78. Goodwin, D., Crane, B., and Guze, S. 1971 Felons who drink: an 8-year follow-up. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 32: 13~147. Gusfield, J. 1963 Symbolic Crusade. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Guze, S., Goodwin, D., and Crane, J. 1969 Criminality and psychiatric disorder. Ar- chives of General Psychiatry 20:583~91. CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS Guze, S., Tuason, V., Gatfield, P., Stewart, M., and Picken, B. 1962 Psychiatric illness and crime with particular reference to alcoholism: a study of 223 crim- inals. Journal of Nervous and Mental Dis- eases 134:512~21. Hamilton, C., and Collins, J. 1981 The role of alcoholism in wife beating and child abuse: a review of the literature. Pp. 253-287 in J. Collins, ea., Drinking and Crime: Perspectives on the Relationships Between Alcohol Consumption and Crimi- nal Behavior. New York: Guilford Press. Hare, R. 1983 Diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder in two prison populations. American Journal of Psychiatry 140~71:887~90. Hubbard, R., Collins, J., Allison, M., Cavanaugh, E., and Rachal, J. 1982 Validity of self-reports of illegal activities and arrests of drug treatment clients. In Pro- ceedings of the American Statistical Associ- ation, 1981. Washington, D.C.: American Statistical Association. Institute for Scientific Analysis 1978 Drinking Patterns and Criminal Careers: A Study of 310 Imprisoned Male Felons. Final report prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Institute for Scientific Analysis, San Francisco, California James, J., Gregory, D., and Jones, R. 1980 Psychiatric morbidity in prisons. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 31(101:674~77. Jessor, R., and Jessor, S. 1977 Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Devel- opment: A Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press. Jessor, R., Chase, J., and Donovan, J. 1980 Psychological correlates of marijuana use and problem drinking in a national sample of adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 70~6~:6044613. Jessor, R., Graves, T., Hanson, R., and Jessor, S. 1968 Society, Personality, and Deviant Behavior: A Study of a Tr~-Ethnic Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Johnson, B., and Goldstein, P. 1984 Highlights from the Final Report: Economic Behavior of Street Opiate Users. Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc., and New York State Division of Substance Abuse Services, New York. Johnson, B., Wish, E., and Huizinga, D. 1983 The Concentration of Delinquent Offend- ing: The Contribution of Serious Drug In- volvement to High Rate Delinquency. Re- port prepared for the National Institute of

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES Justice and the New York State Division of Substance Abuse Services. Behavioral Re- search Institute, Boulder, Colorado. Johnston, L., Bachman, J., and O'Malley, P. 1981 Student Drug Use in America. National In- stitute on Drug Abuse. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Johnston, L., O'Malley, P., and Eveland, L. 1976 Nonaddictive drug use and delinquency: a longitudinal analysis. Pp. 32~350 in Re- search Triangle Institute, Appendix to Drug Use and Crime: Report of the Panel on Drug Use and Criminal Behavior. Report pre- pared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Re- search Triangle Institute. Jones, B., and Vega, A. 1972 Cognitive performance measured on the as- cending and descending limbs of the blood- alcohol curve. Psychopharmacologic 23:99- 114. 1973 Fast and slow drinkers. Blood-alcohol vari- ables and cognitive performance. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 34:797~06. King, L., Murphy, G., Robins, L., and Darvish, H. 1969 Alcohol abuse: a crucial factor in the social problems of Negro men. American Journal of Psychiatry 125(12~: 1682~1690. Lang, A., Goeckner, D., Adesso, V., and Marlatt, G. 1975 Effects of alcohol on aggression in male so- cial drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychol- ogy 84~5~:508-518. Langan, P., and Farrington, D. 1983 Two-track or one-track justice? Some evi- dence from an English longitudinal survey. Journal of Criminal Law ~ Criminology 74(2):519-546. Lenke, T. 1982 Alcohol and crimes of violence: a causal analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems Fall:35~365. Lindelius, R., and Salum, S. 1973 Alcoholism and criminality. Acta Psychi- atrica Scandinavica 49:306-314. 1975 Alcoholism and crime: a comparative study of three groups of alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 36(11~:1452~1457. 1976 Criminality among homeless men. British Journal of Addiction 71: 149-153. MacAndrews, C., and Edgerton, R. 1969 Drunken Comportment: A Social Explana- tion. Chicago, Ill.: Aldine. Mandell, W., and Ginzburg, H. 1976 Youthful alcohol use, abuse, and alcoholism. Pp. 167-242 in B. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds., Social Aspects of Alcoholism. Vol. 4: ~7 The Biology of Alcoholism. New York: Plenum Press. Marco, L., and Randels, P. 1983 Metabolism and drug interactions of ethanol. Pp. 57-80 in E. Gottheil, K. Druley, T. Skoloda, and H. Waxman, eds., Etiologic Aspects of Alcohol and Drug-Abuse. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas. Marquis, K. 1981 Quality of Prisoner Self-Reports: Arrest and Conviction Response Errors. Report pre- pared for the National Institute of Justice. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation. Mayfield, D. 1976 Alcoholism, alcohol intoxication, and as- saultive behavior. Diseases of the Nervous System 37:228-291. McCaghy, C. 1968 Drinking and deviance disavowal: the case of child molesters. Social Problems 16:43- 49. McClelland, D., Davis, W., Kalin, R., and Wanner, E., eds. 1972 The Drinking Man. New York: Free Press. McCord, I. 1983 Alcohol in the service of aggression. Pp. 270-279 in E. Gottheil, K. Druley, T. Skoloda, and H. Waxman, eds., Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Aggression. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas. McCord, W., and McCord, J. 1962 A longitudinal study of the personality of alcoholics. Pp. 41~430 in D. Pittman and C. Snyder, eds., Society, Culture, and Drink- ing Patterns. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Mosher, J. 1983 Alcohol: both blame and excuse for criminal behavior. Pp. 437-460 in R. Room and G. Collins, eds., Alcohol and Disinhibition: Na- ture and Meaning of the Link. National In- stitute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Research Monograph No. 12. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Myers, T. 1982 Alcohol and violent crime re-examined: self- reports from two sub-groups of Scottish male prisoners. British Journal of Addiction 77:399~13. Nobel, E., ed. 1978 Third Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare.

118 O'Donnell, J., Voss, H., Clayton, R., Slatin, G., and Room R. 1976 Young Men and Drugs-A Nationwide Sur- vey. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Re- search Monograph 5. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare. Olsson, O., and Wikstrom, P. O. H. 1982 Effects of the experimental Saturday closing of liquor retail stores in Sweden. Contempo- rary Drug Problems Fall:32~353. Pandina, R., Labouvie, E., and White, PI. 1984 Potential contributions of the life span devel- opmental approach to the study of adoles- cent alcohol and drug use: the Rutgers Health and Human Development Project, a working model. Manuscript submitted for publication to the Journal of Drug Issues. Pearce, J., and Garrett, H. 1970 A comparison of the drinking behavior of delinquent youth versus nondelinquent youth in the states of Idaho and Utah. Jour- nal of School Health March:131-135. Pernanen, K. 1976 Alcohol and crimes of violence. Pp. 3S1~44 in B. Kissin and EI. Begleiter, eds., Social Aspects ofAlcoholism. Vol. 4: The Biology of Alcoholism. New York: Plenum Press. 1981 Theoretical aspects of the relationship be- tween alcohol use and crime. Pp. 1~9 in I. Collins, ea., Drinking and Crime: Perspec- tives on the Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Criminal Behavior. New York: Guilford Press. Petersilia, J., Greenwood, P., and Lavin, M. 1978 Criminal Careers of Habitual Felons. Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Of- fice. Peterson, M., and Braiker, H. 1980 Doing Crime: A Survey of California Prison Inmates. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corpo- tation. Pittrnan, D., and Gordon, C. 1958 Criminal careers of the chronic police case inebriate. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 19:25~268. Rachal, J., Guess, L., Hubbard, R., Maisto, S., Cavanaugh, E., Waddell, R., and Benrud, C. 1980 Adolescent Drinking Behavior. Vol. I: The Extent and Nature of Adolescent Alcohol and Drug Use: The 1974 and 1978 National Sample. NTIS No. PB 81-199267. Spring- field, Va.: National Technical Information ret . service. Rathus, S., Fox, J., and Ortins, J. 1980 The MacAndrew Scale as a measure of sub- stance abuse and delinquency among ado CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS lescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology 36(2):579-583. Robins, L. 1966 Deviant Children Grown Up: A Sociological and Psychiatric Study of Sociopathic Per- sonality. Baltimore, Md.: Williams & Wil- kins. 1972 An actuarial evaluation of the causes and consequences of deviant behavior in young black men. Pp. 137-154 in M. Roff, L. Rob- ins, and M. Pollack, eds., Life History Re- search in Psychopathology. Vol. 2. Minneap- olis: University of Minnesota Press. 1978 Alcohol and crime in veterans. Pp. 7~94 in L. Otten, ea., Colloquium on the Correlates of Crime and the Determinants of Criminal Behavior. Proceedings. McLean, Va.: Mitre Corporation. Robins, L., and Wish, E. 1977 Childhood deviance as a developmental process: a study of 223 urban black men from birth to 18. Social Forces 56:449~73. Robins, L., Bates, W., and O'Neal, P. 1962 Adult drinking patterns of former problem children. In D. Pittman and C. Snyder, eds., Society, Culture and Drinking Patterns. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Robins, L., Murphy, G., and Breckenridge, M. 1968 Drinking behavior of young urban Negro men. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alco- hol 29:657483. Roebuck, I., and Johnson, R. 1962 The Negro drinker and assaulter as a crimi- nal type. Crime and Delinquency 8 (1) :21-33. Roizen, J., and Schneberk, D. 1977 Alcohol and crime. Pp. 292~22 in M. Aarens, T. Cameron, J. Roizen, R. Roizen, R. Room, D. Schneberk, and D. Wingard, eds., Alcohol, Casualties and Crime. Report pre- pared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Social Research Group, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Roizen, R., Cahalan, D., and Shanks, P. 1978 Spontaneous remission among untreated problem drinkers. In D. Kandel, ea., Long;i- tudinal Research on Drug Abuse. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Room, R. 1983 Alcohol and crime: behavioral aspects. En- cyclopedia of Crime and Justice. New York: MacMillan. Rydelius, P. 1983a Alcohol-abusing teenage boys: testing a hy- pothesis on alcohol abuse and personality factors using a personality inventory. Acid Psychiatrica Scandinavica 68:381-385.

PROBLEM DRINKING AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING SEQUENCES 1983b Alcohol-abusing teenage boys: testing a hypothesis on the relationship between alcohol abuse and social background fac- tors, criminality and personality in teenage boys. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 68: 368~380. Scott, M., and Lyman, S. 1968 Accounts. American Sociological Review 33:46-62. Shichor, D., and Kobrin, S. 1978 Note: criminal behavior among the elderly. Gerontologist 18~2~:213-218. Tamerin, J., Weiner, S., and Mendelson, J. 1970 Alcoholics expectancies and recall of expe- riences during intoxication. American Jour- nal of Psychiatry 126(12): 1697-1704. Tarter, R. 1983 The causes of alcoholism: a biophysical anal- ysis. Pp. 173-201 in E. Gottheil, K. Druley, T. Skoloda, and H. Waxman, eds., Etiologic Aspects of Alcohol and Drug abuse. Spring- field, Ill.: Charles C Thomas. Tarter, R., and Alterman, A. 1984 Neuropsychological deficits in alcoholics: etiological considerations.Journal of Studies on Alcohol 45~11: 1-9. Thornberry, T., and Christenson, R. 1984 Unemployment and criminal involvement. American Sociological Review 42:298-411. Trice, H., and Roman, P. 1972 Spirits and Demons at Work: Alcohol and Other Drugs on the Job. Ithaca, N.Y.: Hoff- man Printing Company. U.S. Department of Justice 1975 Surveys of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities Advance Report. National Crim- inal Justice Information and Statistics Ser- vice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Vingilis, E. 1981 A literature review of the young drinking offender. Is he a problem drinker? British Journal of Addiction 76:27-46. Virkkunen, M. 1977 Arrests for drunkenness and recidivism in juvenile delinquents. British Journal of Ad- diction 72:201-204. Washbrook, R. 1977 Alcoholism versus crime in Birmingham, England. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 21(2): 166-173. White, H., Johnson, V., and Garrison, C. 1983 The Drug-Crime Relationship Among Ado- lescents and Their Peers. Report prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute of Jus ~9 Wolff, P. lice, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. 1972 Ethnic differences in alcohol sensitivity. Science 175:44~450. Wolfgang, M. 1983 Delinquency in two birth cohorts. American Behavioral Scientist 27(1):7~86. Woods, S., and Mansfield, J. 1983 Ethanol disirthibition: physiological and be- havioral links. Pp. 4-23 in R. Room and G. Collins, eds., Alcohol and Disinhibition: Na- ture and Meaning of the Link. National Insti- tute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Re- search Monograph 12. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Zucker, R. 1968 Sex-role identity patterns and drinking be- havior of adolescents. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 29:868-884. BIBLIOGRAPHY Banay, R. 1942 Alcoholism and crime. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 2:686-716. Barnard, G., Vera, H., Vera, M., and Newman, G. 1982 Till death do us part: a study of spouse murder. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 10(41:271-280. Bohman, M. 1978 Some genetic aspects of alcoholism and criminality: a population of adoptees. Ar- chives of General Psychiatry 35:26~276. Burt, M., and Biegel, M. 1980 Worldwide Survey of Nonmedical Drug Use and Alcohol Use Among Military Personnel: 1980. Report prepared for the U.S. Depart- ment of Defense. Burt Associates, Bethesda, Md. Cloninger, C. Sigvardsson, S., Bohman, M., and von Knorring, A. 1982 Predisposition to petty criminality in Swed- ish adoptees. II. Cross-fostering analyses of gene-environment interaction. Archives of General Psychiatry 39:1242-1248. Elliott, D., and Ageton, A. 1976 The relationship between drug use and crime among adolescents. Pp. 297~21 in Research Triangle Institute, Appendix to Drug Use and Crime: Report of the Panel on Drug Use and Criminal Behavior. Report prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Re- search Triangle Institute.

120 Glueck, S., and Glueck, E. 1937 Later Criminal Careers. New York: Com- monwealth Fund. Gottheil, E., Druley, K., Skoloda, T., and Waxman, H. 1983a Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Aggression. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas. 1983bEtiologic Aspects of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Springfield, Ill: Charles C Thomas. Kandel, D. 1980 Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Annual Review of Sociology 6:235-285. Keller, O., and Vedder, C. 1968 Crimes that old persons commit. Gerontolo- gist 8:43-50. Kissin, B., and Begleiter, H., eds. 1976 Social Aspects of Alcoholism. Vol. 4: The Bio- logy of Alcoholism. New York: Plenum Press. Lang, A. 1983 Drinking and disinhibition: contributions from psychological research. Pp. 48-99 in R. Room and G. Collins, eds., Alcohol and Disinhibition: Nature and the Meaning of the Link. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Research Mono- graph 12. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Lowman, C. 1981 Facts for planning. No. 1: Prevalence of al- cohol use among U.S. senior high school students. Alcohol Health and Research World 6(1):29 10. McCord, J. 1981 Alcoholism and criminality: confounding and differentiating factors.Journal of Studies on Alcohol 42~9~:739-748. Moberg, D. 1953 Old age and crime. Journal of Criminal Law 43:76~776. CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service 1979 Profile of State Prison Inmates: Sociodemo- graphic Findings from the 1974 Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus- tice. Otten, L., ed. 1978 Colloquium on the Correlates of Crime and the Determinants of Criminal Behavior. Pro- ceedings. McLean, Va.: Mitre Corporation. Pittman, D., and Snyder, C., eds. 1962 Society, Culture, and Drinking Patterns. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Plant, M. 1979 Drinking Careers: Occupations, Drinking Habits, and Drinking Problems. London: Tavistock Publications. Rachal, J., Williams, J., Brehm, M., Cavanaugh, E., Moore, P., and Eckerrnan, W. 1975 A National Study of Adolescent Drinking Behavior, Attitudes and Correlates. Report prepared for the National Institute on Alco- hol Abuse and Alcoholism. Research Trian- gle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Research Triangle Institute 1976a Appendix to Drug Use and Crime: Report of the Panel on Drug Use and Criminal Behavior. Report prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute. 1976b Drug Use and Crime. Report of the Panel on Drug Use and Criminal Behavior. NTIS No. PB 259-16715. Springheld, Va.: National Technical Information Service. Shuntich, R., and Taylor, S. 1972 The effects of alcohol on human physical aggression. Journal of Experimental Re- search in Personality 6:3~38.

Next: 4. Co-offender Influences on Criminal Careers »
Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals,": Volume II Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $110.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Volume II takes an in-depth look at the various aspects of criminal careers, including the relationship of alcohol and drug abuse to criminal careers, co-offending influences on criminal careers, issues in the measurement of criminal careers, accuracy of prediction models, and ethical issues in the use of criminal career information in making decisions about offenders.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!