What is the relationship between drug use and crime?

Whether drug-use causes crime or crime triggers drug-use remains unclear

Notwithstanding the fact that an unauthorised production, distribution or use of narcotics constitutes a crime in itself under Criminal Law and 64% of prisoners in England and Wales reported having used illicit substances in the four weeks before custody (Prison Reform Trust, 2014:7), it seems difficult to establish a logical interpretation to clarify the relationship between drug use and crime. Regarding this point, Philip Bean claimed that "for whilst there is considerable anecdotal evidence, aided by some research that drug use causes crime, the closer we get to establishing a causal connection, the more difficult things become" (Bean, 2008:19). Although it is crucial to conceptualise a causal relationship between drug use and crime in order to devise an effective solution to drug-related problems, Bean noted that "most studies go no further than establishing a correlation or say that drug use is associated with criminality" (Bean, 2008:22). This essay will attempt to disclose the relationship between drug use and crime. A brief introduction to the two key explanatory models, which examine the drug-crime link, will be given, followed by a proposal for tackling drug-related issues.

Whilst there have been various attempts to clarify the drug-crime relationship, since both drug use and crime comprehend an extensive range of human behaviours, some academics have deliberately restricted the subject of research to the particular forms of drug use or acquisitive crime in order to understand the causality more precisely (Hale, 2009:171). James A. Inciardi's research on heroin use and street crime is one such example, which examined 356 active heroin users, including 239 males and 117 females (Newburn, 2013:496-499). Inciardi discovered a very frequent involvement in criminal activities among these heroin users that the 356 persons participated in the study "reported involvement in a total of 118,134 criminal offences during a twelve month period", which is averaging over 300 offences per participant (Newburn, 2012:498). Unsurprisingly, however, 99.6% of the male participants and 98.3% of the female participants reported having ever committed crime and 93.7% and 83.8% respectively reported having been arrested at least once (Newburn, 2012:497). According to Inciardi, "most of these offences committed for the purpose of supporting the economic needs of a drug-using career", such as burglary, robbery, theft, prostitution and drug sales (Newburn, 2012:497).

Both male and female heroin users have committed a number of crimes to support their habits, however, there is considerable gender differences in the forms of crime. For example, whilst male users are more likely to commit violent property crimes, including burglary and robbery, female users are more likely to commit non-violent property crimes, such as shoplifting and prostitution (Newburn, 2012:497). One possible explanation for the gender disparities in the forms of crime is the impact of abstinence symptom on testosterone levels, which is widely known as a substance that facilitates aggression and criminality (Goleman, 1990). Mendelson's clinical research on testosterone and heroin use elucidates the effects of heroin addiction on the human body that whilst a constant use of heroin is closely associated with lowering testosterone levels, the recovery of testosterone levels has been observed after about one month of heroine abstinence (Mendelson, 1975:1). It is known that men's testosterone levels are higher than women's levels, however, it can be argued that the recovery of testosterone levels among male heroin users, who may suffer from addiction withdrawal symptoms, triggers unstable physical and mental conditions thereby commit crimes. Although the authenticity of the effects of testosterone has been challenged by many professionals (Wright, 2009:208-209), assuming that testosterone has such an effect that increases ferocity and male heroin users originally have a higher level of testosterone, it may be possible to explain the differences in the forms of crime. However, it certainly requires further research to reinforce this argument.

Whereas Inciardi's study on heroin use and street crime suggests that there is a certain level of correlation between them, it is still difficult to assume that the research contains a conclusive evidence to establish a causal relationship between drug use and crime. Although Inciardi implicated that property crimes are basically driven by heroin addiction, whether the involvement in drug use causes crime or the involvement in criminal activity induces drug use remain unclear and Mendelson's testosterone study presented the possibility that there are some other ways to explain the relationship between heroin use and crime.

Whilst Inciardi's research indicated several approaches to conceptualise the relationship between drug use and crime, Bean argued that there are two major explanatory models in relation to the drug-crime link, which may possibly be used as evidence to describe the relationship. According to Bean, these two models are drug use leads to crime or crime leads to drug use (Bean, 2008:23-24).

Regarding the first model, Newburn stated that "there are a number of ways in which it is theoretically possible for drug use to lead crime" that can be broadly categorised into three key explanations, namely pharmacological, financial, and systemic explanations (Newburn, 2013:500). Pharmacological explanations, for instance, concern with the effects of narcotics on the individual's action. It assumes that drug addicts offences are resulted from "the ingestion of specific substances where users become excitable, irrational or exhibit criminal and violent behaviour" (Bean, 2008:27) and numerous studies regarding the impact of narcotics use on the human body have revealed that drugs have a significant physical and psychological effects on users (NHS, 2015). Although the effects of narcotics, such as severe depression, anxiety and paranoia, seem relevant to criminal activities, Bean argued that "it is not easy to determine" that these unpleasant effects directly trigger crimes as it cannot exclude the possibility that "the need to raise money to buy drugs or the nature of illicit markets may stimulate or augment a great deal of criminal behaviour" (Bean, 2008:27). Hence, the nature of link between pharmacological effects of drugs and criminal tendencies "tends to be less direct, being at least partly dependent on, or mediated by, the characteristics and disposition of the individual as well as more general cultural expectations" (Newburn, 2013:500). Financial explanations, in contrast, are "given most attention in the research literature" and it is also used by Inciardi to describe the relationship between heroin use and street crime (Newburn, 2013:500). According to Newburn, not just Inciardi's study but also many other studies on drug-related crimes indicated that imminent financial needs among drug addicts drive them to commit property crime to support their habits. Therefore, financial explanations are based on the assumption that "the drug user is unable to control their consumption and unable to fund their use through regular employment", which forces them to commit crime (Newburn, 2013:500). Lastly, systemic explanations attempt to link "drug use with crime through broader contextual factors", by expanding the attention to the whole drug markets and drug distribution networks (Bean, 2008:27). That is to say that the involvement in drug use usually links drug users to criminal activities, which are associated with drug markets, such as disputes over drug selling, conflict with the police or police corruption (Newburn, 2013:500-501). Bean noted that systemic approaches open up "new ways of thinking and a corresponding range of new opportunities for research on the pervasive impact of the drug problem" (Bean, 2008:34).

Conversely, however, the second model is based on the assumption that people who have criminal tendencies or people who have already involved in criminal activities lead to drug use. According to Measham and South, some studies provide evidence that drug users would have been already involved in criminal activities before they started using narcotics (Maguire et al., 2012:706). It seems possible to argue that the involvement in criminal-oriented lifestyle would be likely to lead criminals to encounter the availability of illicit substances sold within that culture and their deviant lifestyle would facilitate deviant drug use with relative ease (Maguire et al., 2012:706). Whilst Inciardi's research suggested that heroin use causes crime, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that "while money from criminal activity might then pay for the drugs, it was not drug addiction or use per se which led to the perpetration of crime" (Maguire et al., 2012:706).

In addition to these two explanatory models, there are some other models that attempt to understand the drug-crime relationship, such as a model, which assumed that drug use and crime have a common aetiology (Bean, 2008:24). However, none of these models have successfully established a strong causal relationship yet and Bean noted, "whilst there is a clear and significant statistical relationship, causal connections are more difficult to establish" (Bean, 2008:23). 

Although it is difficult to establish a clear relationship, if researchers should succeed in establishing a reliable theory to explain the drug-crime relationship, the impact of it on the field of social policy will be significant. If drug use causes crime then treatment for substance abuse should be anticipated to reduce crime rates and if crime triggers drug abuse then drug treatment will not affect crime rates, in which case the adequate response is to treat the criminality (Bean, 2008:22).

In conclusion, there are two key explanatory models that examine the drug-crime relationship, namely drug use causes crime and crime causes drug abuse. Inciardi's research on heroin use and street crime suggested that the financial explanations for drug-crime relationship is relatively reliable, however, it is difficult to claim that the research has produced conclusive evidence. Although whether drugs cause crime or crime triggers drug use remains unclear despite there have been many studies to elucidate the relationship, it is crucial to mention that the successful establishment of a causal relationship between drug use and crime will formulate an effective approach to reduce drug-related issues.