Making Sense of the Heroin-Crime Link*
| Author | Ian Dobinson |
| Date | 01 December 1989 |
| Published date | 01 December 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486588902200405 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
AUST
&
NZ
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINOLOGY
(December 1989) 22 (259-275)
MAKING SENSE OF THE HEROIN-CRIME LINK*
Ian Dobinsont
259
Abstract
This article explores the heroin/crime relationship in Australia by drawing across
data from three reports produced
by
the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and
Research. It
is
contended that the relationship between heroin use and crime
is
best
understood in terms of the antecedents and consequences ofregular heroin use, and
the social context in which both drug use and crime occur. It
is
argued that causal
theories have "camouflaged" these factors. The implications for policy are briefly
reviewed.
Introduction
The use of illicit drugs
is
perceived as being one of the most significant problems
facing society in the 1980s. The Australian Drug Summit of
1985
resulted in the
largest anti-drug campaign in this country's history -the National Campaign
Against Drug Abuse (NCADA). One of the primary concerns of
NCADA
is
the
relationship between drugs and crime, and in this regard, heroin
is
the drug
of
major
concern.
Since
1983
the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has undertaken a
series
of
three studies in order to provide profile data about regular heroin users as
well
as
to explore the relationship between heroin use and crime. The groups
studied were: gaoled property offenders who regularly used heroin (Dobinson and
Ward, 1985), regular heroin users seeking treatment (Dobinson and Ward, 1987)
and active regular heroin users who are regular sellers of that drug (Dobinson and
Poletti, 1989). These studies not only explore the relationship between heroin use
and crime, and its consequences, but also shed some light on the antecedents
of
heroin use.
The first ofthe reports (Dobinson and Ward, 1985) provided adetailed discussion
of some
of
the theories which attempt to explain the drugs/crime nexus. Three
alternative explanations are offered
in
the literature:
The
major
conceptual alternatives are that (1) narcotics use "causes" crime; (2) narcotics use
is
aresult
or
an outcome
of
acriminal disposition; and (3) narcotics use and crime are spuriously related as a
consequence
of
their shared
or
mutual predisposing antecedent causes
....
(Speckart and Anglin,
1986a: 742).
With reference to the American situation, Speckart and Anglin (1986a: 742) go
on to say that "in all attempts to disentangle these three alternatives using
longitudinal statistical modes and other approaches, no definitive resolution of the
controversy could be obtained . . .". The reasons for this are based on the
heterogeneous quality
of
user behaviours and that "invariance
of
behaviour cannot
be consistently demonstrated". In other words, the user-related behaviours
of
*This article
is
arevised version
of
a
paper
presented to the Fifth Annual Criminology Conference,
Sydney 1989.
The
opinions in the article are those of the author and do
not
represent those
of
the
NSW
Bureau
of
Crime Statistics
and
Research, its Director
or
the
Attorney
General
of
New South
Wales.
tLecturer, University
of
Hong Kong. Formerly
of
the NSW Bureau
of
Crime Statistics and Research.
260 I
DOBINSON
(1989) 22
ANZJ
Crim
subjects vary so widely over time and place that, depending on when such behaviour
is
observed, evidence in support
of
one
or
other
of the three alternative theories
may be adduced.
Whilst few (with the exception of Speckart and Anglin, 1986a) have attempted
an
overview
of
the relevant merits
of
these conceptualisations, it
is
of
interest to
review the overseas literature that has attempted to demonstrate the existence of
each
of
these theories.
It
will become clear that the notion ofdrug use causing crime
predominates, reflecting current policy which seems preoccupied with attempts to
remedy
or
"cure" the drugs/crime problem.
Whil~
research has not been able to specifically demonstrate that heroin use
"causes" crime, strong relationships have been identified between the commission
of
crime and regular heroin use during the so-called addiction career. American
research (Ball et aI, 1980), for example, found apositive relationship between crime
and periods
of
regular heroin use as well as negative relationship where periods
of
non use occurred. These researchers found significant decreases in criminal activity
amongst their sample during so called "drug free days".
One
of
the most prolific writers in this area, James Inciardi (see, for example,
Inciardi, 1979), has consistently demonstrated arelationship between income
generating property crime and the regular use
of
heroin. More recently, Johnson
and his team (Johnson
et
aI, 1985) researched in great detail the economics
of
street
heroin users, again showing that individuals are primarily motivated to commit
crimes in order tp support adrug dependency.
Although involvement in crime prior to heroin use may be supportive
of
the
"crime causes drug use" theory, others (McGlothlin, Anglin and Wilson, 1978) have
suggested that the increase in the frequency of crime and changes in the seriousness
of
criminal activity also support the notion
of
"drug use causing crime". Speckart
and Anglin (1986b), for example, showed positive co-variation between levels
of
heroin usage and arrest rates. In other words, as use increased so did the arrest rate
and vice versa.
This relationship has also been demonstrated by comparing usage variance and
involvementin less
or
more serious criminality. Chaiken and Chaiken (1982), for
example, found that robbery primarily occurs at the highest levels ofuse and as such
high usage rates are predictive of the occurrence of robbery.
The
concept
of
"drug use causing crime", however, has predominated drug
treatment evaluation. From this perspective, it
is
argued that treatment
effectiveness can be measured in terms
of
pre and post treatment crime rates.
In
a
study
of
an English methadone programme (Bennett and Wright, 1986) it was found
that self-reported non-drug crime (theft) had decreased following respondents'
placement in the programme. It was also stated that while some individuals
continued to commit non-drug crime, it was for reasons unrelated to use.
In
a
comparative study of individuals on methadone and those not in treatment, it was
found that:
Methadone clients are not only less involved in criminal activity than users not in
treatment,
but
also
among those clients who do continue criminal activity, there
is
less involvement in more serious crimes
such as robbery, burglary
or
dealing heroin and cocaine.
(Hunt,
Lipton and Spunt, 1984: 687)
In summary, those who have demonstrated that heroin use "causes" crime have
done so by showing an economic
or
statistical relationship between criminal activity
and levels
of
heroin use. Increasing levels of use may, therefore, tend to multiply
the amount
of
property crime, while also having aqualitative effect
on
the types of
crime committed. Conversely, periods of decreasing use
or
cessation
of
use are
related to decreasing rates
of
criminal activity.
To continue reading
Request your trial