1,250 word count and there is a total of 4 questions (not including in-text citation and references as the word count), a minimum of three scholarly sources are required in APA format. For the three scholarly sources, one from the textbook that’s posted below and the other two from an outside source (library articles-EBSCO). Let’s be sure to write it in own work 100% and give appropriately when using someone’s else work. Complete: a minimum of 1,250 words (total assignment) and three scholarly sources. 1 Explain the three hypotheses regarding the relationship between drug use and the causes of drug-related crime. 2 Define the three major types of drug related violence in the Goldstein tripartite model of drugs and violence (The Drug-Violence Connection). 3 Explain the four stages of production and distribution of the illicit drug business. 4 Using your text and the internet, research Pablo Escobar (The Columbian King of Cocaine) and give a biography of him. Include how he rose to power and how his reign ended. 5 Define the practice of “money laundering” and describe in detail some of the techniques used.
2200_unit_3.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
M05_LEVI0484_03_SE_C05.qxd
11/24/10
3:46 PM
Page 87
chapter
5
R
I
C
A
R
D
In the last couple of years we have found a, large number
Drugs and Crime
of marijuana plots in the Chattahoochee National Forest.
A to escape
Growers are planting their marijuana in this area
D that I never
forfeiture laws. So I came up with this idea
thought would work but I figured was worth R
a try. I typed a
I found in the
letter and left it at one of the larger plots we
E caught by
national forest. The letter said, “You have been
After you have completed this chapter,
you should have an
understanding of
● The relationship between
drug use and crime
● The structure of the illicit drug
trade
● Production and trafficking of
heroin
● Production and trafficking of
cocaine
● Production and trafficking of
marijuana
● Production and trafficking of
methamphetamine
N had you
the Lumpkin County Sheriff’s Office. We have
● Production and trafficking of
hallucinogens
N
E
by calling the following number, your penalties for growing
● Drug-related crime and
gangs
marijuana will be doubled.”
● Common methods of money
laundering
under constant surveillance. If you do not turn yourself in
2
4
grower call me and turn himself in. He claimed that he was
7
only growing marijuana for personal use. I didn’t even
9
have to pick him up. He drove to the sheriff’s office and
T
turned himself in. Incredible but true!
S
I couldn’t believe it, but it actually worked. I had one
—A sheriff’s deputy from Lumpkin County, Georgia
Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3E by Ken Charles F. Levinthal.
Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education.
M05_LEVI0484_03_SE_C05.qxd
11/24/10
3:46 PM
Page 88
For law-enforcement officers and other criminal
justice professionals who contend with drugs and crime
on a daily basis, the drug–crime connection is all too
real and an inarguable fact of contemporary society. As
stated in a training manual sponsored by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, “If there is a
reduction in the number of people who abuse drugs in
your community, there will be a reduction in the commission of certain types of crime in your community.”
For the general public, the news headlines reporting
acts of social violence linked to the world of illicit drugs
are relentless. Wherever we look, illicit drugs and crime
are seen as being bound together in a web of greed and
callous disregard for human life.
Currently, research on drugs and crime is supported
primarily by two federal agencies, the National Institute
of Justice (NIJ) and the National Institute on Drug
Abuse (NIDA). There is an increasingly close collaboration between NIJ and NIDA as they tackle the complex
issues surrounding a major social problem in the United
States today. This chapter will concern itself with the
facts as well as the still-unanswered questions about
drugs and crime in our society.1
Defining Drug-related Crime
Crimes that involve illicit drugs can be divided into two
general categories: (1) drug-defined offenses and (2) drugrelated offenses. Drug-defined offenses are violations
of laws prohibiting the possession, use, distribution, or
manufacture of illegal drugs. The possession of cocaine,
the cultivation of marijuana, and the sale of methamphetamine are all examples of drug-defined offenses.
Today, more than 50 percent of all federal prison
inmates are serving time for drug-defined offenses,
more than for any other type of criminal offense. While
rates of illicit drug use in the United States have
declined by roughly 50 percent since 1979 (see
Chapter 2), the number of adult drug arrests has tripled.
In 2009, the number of arrests for drug-abuse violations
exceeded 1.6 million. It is reasonable to conclude,
therefore, that the increase in incarceration rates of drug
drug-defined offense: Violation of laws that prohibit
the possession, use, distribution, and manufacture of
illegal drugs.
drug-related offense: Offense in which a drug contributes to the commission of a crime, either by virtue
of the drug’s pharmacological effects or the economic
need to secure the drug itself.
88
■
Part One
offenders reflects an intensified effort to step up druglaw enforcement rather than an increase in drug use.
Since the mid-1980s, state and federal legislatures have
enacted a wide range of criminal laws with respect to
the selling and possession of illicit drugs, and judges
have imposed longer prison sentences for drug offenders. The average time currently served by someone convicted of a drug offense is 42 months, slightly less than
the length of sentence for those convicted of arson and
possession of explosives or weapons.2
Drug-related offenses are offenses that do not involve
a violation of a drug law per se, but rather a violation of
a law of some other type. The crime a drug user comR might be caused by the acute effects of the drug
mits
itself or the need on the part of the drug user to gain
I
money to purchase drugs. While these crimes most
C come to mind as those associated with drug use, it
often
is A
important to recognize that a drug-related crime can
also relate to violent behaviors that are associated with a
R
drug-dealing
life. Violence can result from disputes over
territory
between
rival gangs involved in drug dealing,
D
punishment for defrauding a buyer, retaliation toward
, informants, or acts committed simply to enforce
police
discipline. Drug use, the drug business, and the violence
connected with both are all aspects of a lifestyle that
A
increases
one’s risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator
ofD
drug-related crime. As we will see, it is the character of
the drug-use lifestyle that is primarily responsible for the
R
complex relationship between drugs and crime.
I
E
Understanding
Drug Use
N
and
Crime
N
E use and the commission of criminal
Drug
acts are
strongly correlated. It is virtually impossible to find an
empirical study that has failed to find a relationship
2
between
these two behaviors. Not surprisingly, individuals4who drink alcohol and/or use drugs are significantly
more likely to commit crimes than are individuals who
7 drink nor use drugs.
neither
9 Historically, the process by which drug use and
crime is linked has been explored through three
T perspectives. The first perspective is called the
major
enslavement
model, also referred to as the “medical
S
model.” It asserts that individuals become forced into a
life of crime and drug abuse, either from social situations such as poverty or from a personal condition such
as a physical disorder. In other words, criminal activity
and drug use or abuse arise together from a common
adverse circumstance in one’s life. The predisposition
Drugs and Society: The Criminal Justice Perspective
Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3E by Ken Charles F. Levinthal.
Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education.
M05_LEVI0484_03_SE_C05.qxd
11/24/10
3:46 PM
Page 89
model, also referred to as the “criminal model,” asserts
that drug abusers are far from law-abiding citizens in the
first place and that they have already been involved in
criminal activity prior to initial drug use. A predisposition toward criminal activity is increased by the fact that
criminals exist in social subcultures in which drug use is
readily accepted and encouraged. The intensification
model, essentially a combination of the previous perspectives, asserts that drug use tends to perpetuate a life
of crime. In the words of one prominent researcher,
“Drug use freezes its devotees into patterns of criminality
that are more acute, dynamic, unremitting, and enduring than those of other [non-drug-using] offenders.” In
R
short, criminal careers have already begun, but they are
intensified by one’s involvement with drug use. The
I
intensification model is able to account for two basic
C
facts in the drug–crime research literature: (1) criminal
careers typically begin prior to drug use and (2) crimiA
nal activity declines substantially during times of drug
R
abstinence.3
D
,
Collecting the Statistics on Drugs
and Crime
Figure 5.1 shows information gained from a recently
A
revised version of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
Percentage Testing Positive for Any of Ten Drugs
0
Atlanta, GA
Charlotte, NC
20 40 60 80 100
65
56
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
82
70
Indianapolis, IN
62
Minneapolis, MN
63
D
R
Marijuana
I
37 E
36 N
49 N
45
E
(ADAM) Program, known as ADAM II, conducted on an
annual basis since 2006 by the U.S. Department of Justice. In ADAM II, a sampling of individuals who have
been apprehended for a serious offense in ten selected
U.S. metropolitan sites are tested through urinalysis for a
number of illicit drugs within 48 hours of arrest.
ADAM II statistics indicate that drug use among an
arrestee population is much higher than in the general
U.S. population. In 2009, the majority of arrestees tested positive for at least one illicit drug, with the percentage varying from 56 percent in Charlotte, North
Carolina to 82 percent in Chicago. From 12 percent to
28 percent of arrestees (depending upon the region of
the country) tested positive for more than one substance. In general, the most common substances identified during testing were, in descending order:
marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.
ADAM II statistics confirm our suspicions about
the correlation between drug use and criminal behavior.4 But do they indicate a causative relationship? Can
we conclude from the ADAM II statistics that drug use
caused crime to occur because drugs were in an
arrestee’s bloodstream? That prison inmates are more
likely than not to have been drug users prior to their sentencing may suggest that drug users are more likely than
nonusers to commit crimes, but does this imply that
Percentage Testing Positive
Cocaine
Heroin
Methamphetamine
Multiple Drugs
37
3
<1
14
25
2
<1
12
33
18
1
28
29
5
4
19
44
22
7
1
17
47
19
6
4
18
0
25
13
20
31
27
<1
23
New York, NY
41 2
32
9
69
Portland, OR
40 4
16
10
65
Sacramento, CA
46 7
11
6
68
Washington, DC
47 9
29
15
49 74
T
FIGURE 5.1
S
Urine test results for illicit drug use among male adult arrestees in ten U.S. cities in 2009. The most
common substances identified during testing were, in descending order: marijuana, cocaine,
heroin, and methamphetamine, though distinct regional differences can be noted. Methamphetamine use was identified with arrestees primarily in the western regions of the U.S.
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy (2010, June). ADAM II. 2009 Annual report. Arrestee
Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.
Chapter 5
Drugs and Crime
Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3E by Ken Charles F. Levinthal.
Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education.
■
89
M05_LEVI0484_03_SE_C05.qxd
11/24/10
3:46 PM
Page 90
drug use was responsible for the criminal offense for
which these individuals were incarcerated?
In order to untangle the sometimes confusing body
of research concerning the possible causal relationship
between drugs and crime, it is useful to break down
the question into three specific theoretical positions:
(1) drug use causes crime, (2) crime causes drug use,
and (3) both drug use and crime share common causes.
Hypothesis I: Drug Use Causes Crime
Throughout the history of the United States, it has been
commonly believed that there exists a causative relationship between drug use and crime. The establishment of laws restricting access to certain drugs has been
based on the premise that drug use causes crime and that
these laws serve to reduce the criminal behavior that
drug-taking behavior produces.
Unfortunately, as discussed in Chapter 3, racial and
ethnic prejudices have often played a role in the creation of legislation of this type. The legal prohibition of
a particular drug has been associated, at times, with
society’s fear of a given drug’s effect on a threatening
minority group. Some of these fears have included the
belief that opium would facilitate sexual contact
between Chinese and white Americans (see Chapter 7),
that cocaine would cause southern blacks to rape white
women (see Chapter 8), or that marijuana would incite
violence among Mexicans (see Chapter 10). In order to
evaluate the supposition that drug causes crime,
research studies have focused on the possibility that a
causal relationship might be either pharmacologically
or economically driven.
Pharmacological violence refers to the effect of a
drug having a direct physiological influence on an
offender committing an act of violence. The implication is that a specific drug caused violent behavior as a
result of the drug being present in the individual’s system. Although the ADAM II statistics show that a large
proportion of people have some drug in their system at
the time of arrest (or the time of testing, up to 48 hours
afterward), it is difficult to say whether the offense was
committed as a result of the influence of that drug.
The main criticism of pharmacological explanations
stems from the fact that the length of time for which
pharmacological violence: Violent acts committed
while the perpetrator is under the influence of a particular psychoactive substance, with the implication that
the drug itself caused the violence to occur by altering
one’s mental state.
90
■
Part One
traces of drug use can be detected in a standard urinanalysis drug test can range from a matter of days to
two months in the case of marijuana (see Table 12.3).
Therefore, testing positive for a drug indicates only that
the individual might have become violent while under
the influence of the drug, if indeed that drug has the
potential for creating an acute episode of violence in
the first place.
In some instances, the physiological nature of the
drug itself makes the possibility of a pharmacological
explanation for interpersonal violence quite unlikely.
Marijuana, for example, makes the user more lethargic than active, in effect quite mellow in circumR in which there may be some interpersonal
stances
conflict. Heroin produces a passive state of mind
I
(hence the expression, “being on the nod”), thus
C
reducing
the inclination toward violent behavior. In
fact,
as
rates
of heroin abuse rise, the incidence of
A
crimes against individuals (as opposed to crimes
R property) declines.5
against
D On the other hand, psychoactive stimulants such
as methamphetamine and cocaine or the hallucinogen
, (known as “angel dust”) produce an on-edge
PCP
frame of mind and a social paranoia that can potentially
lead to violent behavior (see Chapters 8 and 9). Yet,
A in these cases, we need to be careful in interpreteven
ing
Dstudies linking violence with the abuse of these
drugs.6 For example, in a study conducted at an Atlanta
R
medical center, more than half of all patients being
treated
I for acute cocaine intoxication were reported to
be aggressive, agitated, and paranoid just prior to and
E
at the time of hospital admission. It is impossible to
N
determine
whether these patients were mentally unstable
prior
to
their taking cocaine. People who have
N
long-standing psychological problems may be overrepE
resented
in any population of cocaine abusers. 7 Crack
cocaine has the reputation of making the crack smoker
irritable, paranoid, and inclined to lash out at another
2 at the slightest provocation, but whether these
person
effects
4 are due to being under the influence of the drug
is unclear. The same mood states and tendencies
7 violence are observed during time of crack withtoward
drawal
9 as well as crack intoxication.
Of all the psychoactive drugs that we could consider,
T one with the most definitive and widely reported
the
links
S to violent behavior toward individuals is alcohol.
Of course, millions of people drink alcohol and never
become violent, but the chances that violence will
occur are increased when people are drinking. In such
cases, the violence is clearly pharmacological because
the effects of being drunk from the ingestion of alcohol
are apparent almost immediately. On a domestic level,
Drugs and Society: The Criminal Justice Perspective
Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3E by Ken Charles F. Levinthal.
Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education.
M05_LEVI0484_03_SE_C05.qxd
11/24/10
3:46 PM
Page 91
males involved in violent spousal abuse commonly
report having been drinking or having been drunk
during the times that abuse has occurred. Moreover,
violent crime outside the home is strongly related to
alcohol intoxication. The more violent the crime,
the greater is the probability that the perpetrator of
the crime was drunk while committing it. Studies
show that a majority of all homicides and almost a
majority of all sexually aggressive acts (rapes and
attempted rapes) are committed while the offender is
drunk. From the victim’s perspective, alcohol intoxication on the part of the offender accounts for about
20 percent of occasions in which a violent act of any
R
kind has been committed. 8 The linkage between
alcohol and violence will be explored in more detail
I
in Chapter 13.
C
Economic explanations of the drug–crime link refer
to the possibility that drug use will cause users to commit
A
a crime for the specific purpose of obtaining money to
R
buy drugs. A drug-related crime committed under these
circumstances is referred to as an economically compulD
sive crime.
,
The extent to which economically compulsive
criminal behavior occurs can be quite extreme. A 1990
study of crack cocaine users, for example, showed that
A
59 percent participated in 6,669 robberies over a twelvemonth period, averaging thirty-one robberies per indiD
vidual. While most of these robberies were carried out
R
to obtain drugs, they were not always break-ins and
holdups. Sometimes the crime involved the theft of
I
drugs from drug dealers or other users.9 Nonetheless, a
E
large proportion of the crimes committed to obtain
N
drug money involved violent acts directed against individuals within the community. Particular targets included
N
storekeepers, children, and the elderly.
E
When considering property crime as a means for
financing drug abuse, we can ask the question: To what
extent is this particular crime related to “market condi2
tions” (that is, the price of the drug at the time)? In the
early 1970s, when heroin abuse was particularly prob4
lematic, it was the case that elevations in heroin prices
(caused by reducing its availability) coincided with 7
a
higher level of property crime; when heroin prices
9
were low, the crime level decreased. The implication
T
was that heroin abusers committed property crimes in
order to maintain a stable consumption of heroin.
S
Therefore, the deliberate elevation of heroin prices
tended to increase the incidence of property crime
among heroin users. On the other hand, price increases
for heroin had no impact on the incidence of other
forms of criminal behavior nor did it reduce the number of heroin users.10
Does the heroin price/property crime relationship
as noted in the 1970s hold for other historical periods
and other drugs of abuse? In the case of methamphetamine abuse during the 1990s, the picture appears to
have been somewhat different. The passage of federal
legislation in 1995 and 1997 greatly restricted public access to ingredients used in the manufacture
of methamphetamine (see Chapter 8) and resulted
in dramatically higher methamphetamine prices.
Higher prices led to a general reduction in methamphetamine-related property crimes and a decline in
methamphetamine use, particularly among light
users. Since methamphetamine abuse was a relatively
new phenomenon at the time, the preponderance of
methamphetamine users were in a “light user� ...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
