FREE ESSAY ON CRIME AND DRUG USE

CRIME AND DRUG USE

The link between drug use and crime is not a new one. For more than twenty years, both the
National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Justice have funded many
studies to try to better understand the connection. One such study was done in Baltimore
on heroin users. This study found high rates of criminality among users during periods of
active drug use, and much lower rates during periods of nonuse (Ball et al. 1983,
pp.119-142). A large number of people who abuse drugs come into contact with the criminal
justice system when they are sent to jail or to other correctional facilities. The
criminal justice system is flooded with substance abusers. The need for expanding drug
abuse treatment for this group of people was recognized in the Crime Act of 1994, which
for the first time provided substantial resources for federal and state jurisdictions. 
In this paper, I will argue that using therapeutic communities in prisons will reduce the
recidivism rates among people who have been released from prison. I am going to use the
general theory of crime, which is based on self-control, to help rationalize using
federal tax dollars to fund these therapeutic communities in prisons. I feel that if we
teach these prisoners some self-control and alternative lifestyles that we can keep them
from reentering the prisons once they get out. I am also going to describe some of
today's programs that have proven to be very effective.
Gottfredson and Hirschi developed the general theory of crime. It According to their
theory, the criminal act and the criminal offender are separate concepts. The criminal
act is perceived as opportunity; illegal activities that people engage in when they
perceive them to be advantageous. Crimes are committed when they promise rewards with
minimum threat of pain or punishment. Crimes that provide easy, short-term gratification
are often committed. The number of offenders may remain the same, while crime rates
fluctuate due to the amount of opportunity (Siegel 1998). 
Criminal offenders are people that are predisposed to committing crimes. This does not
mean that they have no choice in the matter, it only means that their self-control level
is lower than average. When a person has limited self-control, they tend to be more
impulsive and shortsighted. This ties back in with crimes that are committed that provide
easy, short-term gratification. These people do not necessarily have a tendency to commit
crimes, they just do not look at long-term consequences and they tend to be reckless and
self-centered (Longshore 1998, pp.102-113).
These people with lower levels of self-control also engage in non-criminal acts as well.
These acts include drinking, gambling, smoking, and illicit sexual activity (Siegel
1998). Also, drug use is a common act that is performed by these people. They do not look
at the consequences of the drugs, while they get the short-term gratification. Sometimes
this drug abuse becomes an addiction and then the person will commit other small crimes
to get the drugs or them money to get the drugs. In a mid-western study done by Evans et
al. (1997, pp. 475-504), there was a significant relationship between self-control and
use of illegal drugs.
The problem is once these people get into the criminal justice system, it is hard to get
them out. After they do their time and are released, it is much easier to be sent back to
prison. Once they are out, they revert back to their impulsive selves and continue with
the only type of life they know. They know short-term gratification, the quick fix" if
you will. Being locked up with thousands of other people in the same situation as them is
not going to change them at all. They break parole and are sent back to prison.
Since the second half of the 1980's, there has been a large growth in prison and jail
populations, continuing a trend that started in the 1970's. The proportion of drug users
in the incarcerated population also grew at the same time. By the end of the 1980's,
about one-third of those sent to state prisons had been convicted of a drug offense; the
highest in the country's history (Reuter 1992, pp. 323-395).
With the arrival of crack use in the 1980's, the strong relationship between drugs and
crime got stronger. The use of cocaine and heroin became very prevalent. Violence on the
streets that is caused by drugs got the public's attention and that put pressure on the
police and courts. Consequently, more arrests were made. 
While it may seem good at first that these people are locked up, with a second look,
things are not that good. The cost to John Q. Taxpayer for a prisoner in Ohio for a year
is around $30,000 (Phipps 1998). That gets pretty expensive when you consider that there
are more than 1,100,000 people in United States prisons today (Siegel 1998). Many
prisoners are being held in local jails because of overcrowding. This rise in population
is largely due to the number of inmates serving time for drug offenses (Siegel 1998). 
This is where therapeutic communities come into play. The term "therapeutic community"
has been used in many different forms of treatment, including residential group homes and
special schools, and different conditions, like mental illness, alcoholism, and drug
abuse (Lipton 1998, pp.106-109). In the United States, therapeutic communities are used
in the rehabilitation of drug addicts in and out of prison. These communities involve a
type of group therapy that focuses more on the person a whole and not so much the offense
they committed or their drug abuse. They use a "community of peers" and role models
rather than professional clinicians. They focus on lifestyle changes and tend to be more
holistic (Lipton 1998, pp. 106-109). By getting inmates to participate in these programs,
the prisoners can break their addiction to drugs. By freeing themselves from this
addiction they can change their lives. These therapeutic communities can teach them some
self-control and ways that they can direct their energies into more productive things,
such as sports, religion, or work. 
Seven out of every ten men and eight out of every ten women in the criminal justice
system used drugs with some regularity prior to entering the criminal justice system
(Lipton 1998, pp. 106-109). With that many people in prisons that are using drugs and the
connection between drug use and crime, then if there was any success at all it seems like
it would be a step in the right direction. 
Many of these offenders will not seek any type of reform when they are in the community.
They feel that they do not have the time to commit to go through a program of
rehabilitation. It makes sense, then, that they should receive treatment while in prison
because one thing they have plenty of is time. 
In 1979, around four percent of the prison population, or about 10,000, were receiving
treatment through the 160 programs that were available throughout the country (National
Institute on Drug Abuse 1981). Forty-nine of these programs were based on the therapeutic
community model, which served around 4,200 prisoners. In 1989, the percentage of
prisoners that participated in these programs grew to about eleven percent (Chaiken
1989). Some incomplete surveys state today that over half the states provide some form of
treatment to their prisoners and about twenty percent of identified drug-using offenders
are using these programs (Frohling 1989).
The public started realizing that drug abuse and crime were on the rise and that
something had to be done about it. This led to more federal money being put into
treatment programs in prisons (Beckett 1994, pp. 425-447). The States were assisted
through two Federal Government initiatives, projects REFORM and RECOVERY. REFORM began in
1987, and laid the groundwork for the development of effective prison-based treatment for
incarcerated drug abusers. Presentations were made at professional conferences to
national groups and policy makers and to local correctional officials. At these
presentations the principles of effective correctional change and the efficacy of
prison-based treatment were discussed. New models were formed that allowed treatment that
began in prison to continue after prisoners were released into the community. Many drug
abuse treatment system components were established due to Project REFORM that include: 39
assessment and referral programs implemented and 33 expanded or improved; 36 drug
education programs implemented and 82 expanded or improved; 44 drug resource centers
established and 37 expanded or improved; 20 in-prison 12-step programs implemented and 62
expanded or improved; 11 urine monitoring systems expanded; 74 prerelease counseling
and/or referral programs implemented and 54 expanded or improved; 39 post release
treatment programs with parole and 10 improved; and 77 isolated-unit treatment programs
started.
In 1991, the new Center for Substance Abuse Treatment established Project RECOVERY. This
program provided technical assistance and training services to start out prison drug
treatment programs. Most of the states that participated in REFORM were involved with
RECOVERY, as well as a few new states.
In most therapeutic communities, recovered drug users are placed in a therapeutic
environment, isolated from the general prison population. This is due to the fact that if
they live with the general population, it is much harder to break away from old habits.
The primary clinical staff is usually made up of former substance abusers that at one
time were rehabilitated in therapeutic communities. The perspective of the treatment is
that the problem is with the whole person and not the drug. The addiction is a symptom
and not the core of the disorder. The primary goal is to change patterns of behavior,
thinking, and feeling that predispose drug use (Inciardi et al. 1997, pp. 261-278). This
returns to the general theory of crime and the argument that it is the opportunity that
creates the problem. If you take away the opportunity to commit crimes by changing one's
behavior and thinking then the opportunity will not arise for the person to commit these
crimes that were readily available in the past.
The most effective form of therapeutic community intervention involves three stages:
incarceration, work release, and parole or other form of supervision (Inciardi et al.
1997, pp.261-278). The primary stage needs to consist of a prison-based therapeutic
community. Pro-social values should be taught in an environment that is separate from the
normal prison population. This should be an on-going and evolving process that lasts at
least twelve months, with the ability to stay longer if it is deemed necessary. The
prisoners need to grasp the concept of the addiction cycle and interact with other
recovering addicts.
The second stage should include a transitional work release program. This is a form of
partial incarceration in which inmates that are approaching release dates can work for
pay in the free community, but they must spend their non-working hours in either the
institution or a work release facility (Inciardi et al. 1997, pp. 261-278). The only
problem here is that during their stay at this facility, they are reintroduced to groups
and behaviors that put them there in the first place. If it is possible, these recovering
addicts should stay together and live in a separate environment than the general
population. 
Once the inmate is released into the free community, he or she will remain under the
supervision of a parole officer or some other type of supervisory program. Treatment
should continue through either outpatient counseling or group therapy. In addition, they
should also be encouraged to return to the work release therapeutic community for
refresher sessions, attend weekly groups, call their counselors on a regular basis and
spend one day a month at the facility (Inciardi et al. 1997, pp. 261-278). 
Since the early 1990's, the Delaware correctional system has been operating this
three-stage model. It is based around three therapeutic communities: the KEY, a
prison-based therapeutic community for men; WCI Village, a prison-based therapeutic
community for women; and CREST Outreach Center, a residential work release center for men
and women. According to Inciardi et al. (1997, pp.261-278), the continuing of therapeutic
community treatment and sufficient length of follow up time, a consistent pattern of
reduction of drug use and recidivism exists. Their study shows the effectiveness of the
program extending beyond the in-prison program. 
New York's model for rehabilitation is called the Stay'n Out Program. This is a
therapeutic community program that was established in 1977 by a group of recovered
addicts (Wexler et al. 1992, pp. 156-175). The program was evaluated in 1984 and it was
reported that the program reduced recidivism for both males and females. Also, from this
study, the "time-in-program" hypothesis was formed. This came from the finding that
successful outcomes were directly related to the amount of time that was spent in
treatment.
Another study, by Toumbourou et al. (1998, pp. 1051-1064), tested the time-in-program
hypothesis. In this study, they found a linear relationship between reduced recidivism
rates and time spent in the program as well as the level of treatment attained. This
study found that it was the attainment of level progress rather than time in the
treatment that was most important.
The studies done on New York's Stay'n Out program and Delaware's Key-Crest program are
some of the first large-scale evidence that prison-based therapeutic communities actually
produce a significant reduction in recidivism rates and show a consistency over time. The
programs of the past did work, but before most of the programs were privately funded, and
when the funds ran out in seven or eight years, so did the programs. Now with the
government backing these types of programs, they should continue to show a decrease in
recidivism. 
It is much more cost effective to treat these inmates. A program like Stay'n Out cost
about $3,000 to $4,000 more than the standard correctional costs per inmate per year
(Lipton 1998, pp. 106-109). In a program in Texas, it was figured that with the money
spent on 672 offenders that entered the program, 74 recidivists would have to be
prevented from returning to break even. It was estimated that 376 recidivists would be
kept from returning using the therapeutic community program (Eisenberg and Fabelo 1996,
pp. 296-318). The savings produced in crime-related and drug use-associated costs pay for
the cost of treatment in about two to three years.
The main question that arises when dealing with this subject is whether or not people
change. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, the person does not change, only the
opportunity changes. By separating themselves from people that commit crimes and commonly
do drugs, they are actually avoiding the opportunity to commit these crimes. They do not
put themselves in the situation that would allow their low self-control to take over.
Starting relationships with people who exhibit self-control and ending relationships with
those who do not is a major factor in the frequency of committing crimes.
Addiction treatment is very important to this country's war on drugs. While these abusers
are incarcerated it provides us with an excellent opportunity to give them treatment. The
will not seek treatment on their own. Without treatment, the chances of them continuing
on with their past behavior are very high. But with the treatment programs we have today,
things might be looking up. The studies done on the various programs, such as New York's
Stay'n Out and Delaware's Key-Crest program, prove that there are cost effective ways
available to treat these prisoners. Not only are they cost effective, but they are also
proven to reduce recidivism rates significantly. These findings are very consistent
throughout all of the research, there are not opposing views.
I believe that we can effectively treat these prisoners while they are incarcerated and
they can be released into society and be productive, not destructive. Nothing else has
worked to this point, we owe it to them, and more importantly, we owe it to ourselves. We
can again feel safe on the streets after dark, and we do not have to spend so much of our
money to do it.
Bibliography
References
Ball, J.C., J.W. Shaffer, and D.N. Nurco. 1983. "Day-to-day criminality of heroin addicts
in Baltimore: a study in the continuity of offense rates." Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
12: 119-142.
Beckett, K. 1994. "Setting the Public Agenda: "Street Crime" and Drug Use in American
Politics." Social Problems. 41(3): 425-447.
Chaiken, M.R. 1989. "In-Prison Programs for Drug-Involved Offenders." Research in Brief.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Eisenberg, M., and Tony Fabelo. 1996. "Evaluation of the Texas Correctional Substance
Abuse Treatment Initiative: The impact of policy research." Crime and Delinquency. 42(2):
296-318.
Evans, T.D., F.T. Cullen, V.S. Burton, R.G. Dunaway, and M.L. Benson. 1997. "The social
consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime." Criminology. 35:
475-504.
Frohling, R. 1989. "Promising Approaches to Drug Treatment in Correctional Settings."
Criminal Justice Paper No. 7. National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC.
Inciardi, J.A., S.S. Martin, C.A. Butzin, R.M. Hooper, and L.D. Harrison. 1997. "An
effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders." Journal of Drug
Issues. 27(2): 261-278.
Longshore, D. 1998. "Self-Control and Criminal Opportuinty: A Prospective Test of the
General Theory of Crime." Social Problems. 45(1): 102-113.
Lipton, D.S. 1998. "Therapeutic communities: History, effectiveness, and prospects."
Corrections Today. 60(6): 106-109.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1981. "Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons." Treatment
Research Report Series. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO.
Phipps, B. 1998. "Criminology class lecture notes."
Reuter, P. 1992. "Community Crime Prevention: a review and synthesis of the literature."
Justice Quarterly. 5(3): 323-395.
Siegel, L.J. 1998. Criminology. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Toumbourou, J.W., M. Hamilton, B. Fallon. 1998. "Treatment level progress and time spent
in treatment in the prediction of outcomes following drug-free therapeutic community
treatment." Addiction. 93(7): 1051-1064.
Wexler, H.K., D. Lipton, G.P. Falkin, and A.B. Rosenbaum. 1992. "Outcome evaluation of a
prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treatment." In C.G. Leukkfeld and F.M.
Tims (eds.), Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and Jails. pp. 156-175. Washington, DC: U.S.
GPO.