Drugs
Although drugs have always been available in the United States, it could be argued that their use has increased, and that this might be associated with crime. Most of the research on crime and drugs focuses on psychoactive drugs, which alter conscious awareness or perception. Such drugs (as well as some others) may result in (1) psychological dependency (when the person craves a drug); (2) addiction (the body becomes physically dependent on the drug and withdrawal from the drug causes physical and psychological symptoms); and (3) tolerance (greater doses are necessary to produce the same effect).
Table 1 provides a common pharmacological classification of psychoactive drugs of interest to criminologists.
Table 10.1. Pharmacological classification of drugs
Type of drug / Characteristics / Common drugsCentral nervous system depressants / Remove social inhibitions, relieve anxiety, impair judgment / Alcohol, barbiturates, minor tranquillizers
Narcotics / Highly addicting, relieve pain (analgesic), euphoria / Heroin, morphine, codeine, and Demerol
Central nervous system stimulants / Stimulates alertness, wakefulness, euphoria / Amphetamines, cocaine and its derivatives, nicotine
Hallucinogens / Non-addicting, hallucinations, sense of timelessness, mystical insights / LSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin
Phencyclidine / Non-addicting, mental confusion, unfocused aggression, pain relief / PCP
Marijuana / Effects dependent on the dose
The United States has developed a rather elaborate classification scheme for classifying drugs in its criminal codes. Federal codes use this scheme, but most states have also adopted it. Drugs are classified from Schedule I drugs to Schedule V drugs, with I the most restricted (banned altogether), and Schedule V the least restricted. There are a variety of regulations regarding these restrictions. Sometimes, for example, a physician prescribes a drug that allows the patient to get as many refills as he or she needs. If it is a narcotic, however, the physician will prescribe a certain amount, and if the patient wants more, he must consult with him/her again. Thus drugs vary in terms of the restrictions placed on them.
The classification scheme is theoretically based on two factors: (1) the medical usage of the drug; and (2) its potential for abuse. LSD, for example, can be abused and potentially has some harmful effects (people have been known to inadvertently hurt themselves under the influence), and has no known medical usage (although some people claim to have brilliant insights while tripping). As such, it is a Schedule I drug. Narcotics have a high potential for abuse, as they are very addicting. They have an important medical use, however, as painkillers. Most of them are legal, but with tight restrictions imposed on their usage and on the physicians who prescribe them. Heroin is not legal, and a Schedule I drug, because it is highly addicting, and the rationale is that there are other narcotics that can be used for medical purposes. This distinction has been somewhat controversial, because morphine and Demerol are also very addicting, and some researchers believe that heroin is a more effective painkiller than other narcotics for terminally ill patients. The classification of other drugs are sometimes hotly debated--for example, some citizens have argued that marijuana is not as serious a threat in terms of abuse as has been publicized, and has been found useful in terms of certain medical treatments (for example, glaucoma).
Thus, there are a number of criticisms of the current classification system. It should be noted that alcohol does not appear in the federal code, as it is a legal drug that is regulated by city and state statutes. Some critics have pointed out that if alcohol were to be classified using the federal rationale, it would be a Schedule I drug. Its potential for abuse is rather high (statistically, most of us have personal knowledge of one or more people who are alcoholics, or on their way to alcoholism). Additionally its medical usage (despite the phrase "for medicinal purposes") is really quite limited. Although it can be used as a painkiller, narcotics are much more effective.
Considerable effort has been spent classifying drugs both from a pharmacological standpoint as well as legally. There is a clear link between drug use and criminality. The focus of attention of the public has tended to be on illegal drugs. However, there is a clear link between alcohol use and crime, and this is not a particularly recent phenomenon. One of the reasons London developed the first police department was because the public acquired access to alcohol (specifically gin), and the volunteer watchmen were no longer able to control the citizens of the city. A number of studies have examined the link between alcohol and crime. An early Philadelphia study found that alcohol was involved in more than two-thirds of homicides, and in about 40% of rape cases. Surveys of prison inmates have indicated that they report drinking more than other young men, and in one study 25% of the inmates admitted to having "got drunk and hurt someone," within the last three years.
Most of the research in recent years has focused on the link between drugs and crime. A fairly substantial percentage of prison inmates admit to the use of illegal drugs. A California study, for example, found that 40% of the inmates admitted to using "heavy drugs" in the last three years. There are obvious self-report problems with these studies. The drug forecasting studies (DUF studies) do urine testing of arrestees (for research purposes only) in selected urban areas, avoiding the problems of self-report. These studies have indicated that about 75% of arrestees have traces of illegal drugs in their systems. Currently heroin and crack have been most associated with chronic serious offending.
Three major hypotheses have been advanced to explain the drugs-crime connection. The psychopharmological hypothesis suggests that drugs contribute to crime by reducing inhibitions (as in the case of alcohol), or stimulating aggressive behavior (as in the case of stimulants such as amphetamines and cocaine). Crimes of passion often occur while people are under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence indicates that even when crimes are planned, many offenders use drugs in order to obtain the courage to undertake the activity.
A second hypothesis, the economic compulsivity hypothesis, is based on the observation that some people turn to crime after they have become addicted to a drug. Addiction to drugs, especially expensive illegal drugs, contributes to crime because people must commit crimes in order to support their habit. Studies have found that some individuals were relatively law-abiding, but began to commit crimes when legitimate jobs were not sufficient to pay for their drugs, or when they lost their jobs because of the effects of the drug on their behavior.
The lifestyle hypothesis states that offenders use drugs and commit crimes as part of a lifestyle. This lifestyle is based on illegal activity, seeking thrills, "living on the edge." The argument for this hypothesis is that some offenders were committing crimes before they began using drugs. Although such offenders increase their rate of offending if they become addicted to drugs, in order to support a habit, their criminal behavior was established independently of their use of drugs. It has been noted in drug rehabilitation centers that some criminals continue to engage in crime even if they become "clean." However, their rate of criminal activity tends to decrease, since their lifestyle becomes less expensive. For the lifestyle hypothesis, then, drugs are a contributory factor in the rate of criminal offending, rather than a direct cause.
Although some theorists debate as to which is the "correct" hypothesis, many research now believe that all three hypotheses are validity, describing differing subsets of users. An ongoing controversy, of course, is how to handle drugs and drug offenders. The current policy in the United States has been an aggressive crackdown on drug activity. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has tripled in size over the last 15 years, and many state prisons have become seriously overcrowded as a result.
Television
Another major trend in the United States that has had considerable on how we spend our time has been the advent of television, beginning in the early 1950s. Certainly from a trend standpoint one could make an argument that television preceded the rise in the crime rate by a few years, and might affect criminal behavior. The effects of television and other forms of media (such as movies) have been extensively studied. Of particular concern has been the potential relationship between media portrayal of violence and the violent crime rate.
Virtually all Americans watch television. It is estimated that the average American watches television for four hours a day, and that the average child watches 35 hours a week (about the same length of time he is in school). A person sees an average of 9 violent acts per hour in prime time. A child sees an average of 25 violent acts per hour in cartoons. Does this viewing lead to subsequent aggression? The answer is still disputed, but the consensus is that violence does lead to aggressive behavior by those who watch the programs.
A number of experiments have examined the impact of viewing violent behavior. In a classic set of studies, children were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, and showed either a violent or a nonviolent show. Afterwards each group was ushered into playrooms that had inflatable dolls and sticks lying around. The group that had seen the violent show used the sticks to hit the dolls significantly more often than the control group. Similarly, studies of adults have indicated that adults who have seen a violent show will administer significantly more shocks to a person than those who have seen a nonviolent show. (note: the person receiving the shocks was not actually shocked, but rather working with the researcher). Thus, it does appear that people who have seen violence act more aggressively when given the opportunity to do so. The problem with these types of studies, though, is that ordinarily people usually have the opportunity to act aggressively without penalty after having observed a violent show. These studies are artificial, and might not represent real life very well. If the question is whether violent shows really affect people, other types of studies are needed.
One type of study asks people with violent histories and people with nonviolent histories about their preferences for TV shows and movies. Such studies clearly indicate that violent people have a much stronger preference for violent shows than people who are nonviolent. Thus it is possible that violent shows contribute to the violence of people with violent histories. However, such shows might not be the cause of a person's violence. It is possible that an already violent person might prefer shows that have activities that he/she already likes.
There are a number of hypotheses about how violent depictions might affect behavior. Such shows might give people ideas about violence, and might wear away the inhibitions that society tries to instill in its people to discourage violence. People might become excited when viewing violence, or it might desensitize them to violence. Violent shows might lead people to think that violence is common, even acceptable behavior, depending on how it is presented.
There has been concern that people will imitate what they see in television and movies. Certainly there have been isolated instances when this has happened. John Hinckley attempted to assassinate former President Ronald Reagan after viewing the movie Taxi Driver, basing his rationale closely on the movie's plot. However, he was clearly mentally ill. Researchers have studied imitative learning extensively, including imitation of behavior depicted by the media. Research generally indicates that people are more likely to imitate those who they perceive to be similar to them. Thus children are more likely to imitate the Power Rangers or the three Stooges than they are cartoon characters such as Daffy Duck or the Roadrunner.
Once again, it would appear that television and movies have differing effects on individuals. Only a few imitate violent acts that they view on television. There is some evidence that people tend to notice and imitate those behaviors that appeal to them, and to selectively ignore those that they dislike. A study of children watching Mr. Rogers indicating that aggressive children tended to ignore his messages, while cooperative children rated as cooperative by others demonstrated more cooperative behavior after viewing the show. In other words, people tend to incorporate those messages that they want to hear.
Less is known about the potential positive effects of television and movies. Certainly they can be used to educate people. They can be used to communicate a message--if a person commits a crime and is caught and punished, that might reinforce societal rules. Property crime is far more common than violent crime, but little is known about the effects of television and movies on such crimes. A person who believed in the envy, or relative deprivation, hypothesis, might argue that the media contributes to crime because it constantly depicts people with lots of consumer goods enjoying the good life, which might lead people to want to take a short-cut to obtain some of these things. There are a number of areas that need further research.
Pornography
A number of research studies have examined the effects of pornography, particularly as they relate to sex crimes. In the early 1970s, President Nixon assembled a panel to assess the effects of pornography, as movies became more explicit and pornographic magazines more visible. This commission concluded that pornography had little effect on sex crimes. They cited studies that indicated that non-sex offenders viewed pornography without noticeable effects, and that on the average they viewed more pornography than sex offenders. Studies indicated that subjects exposed to large amounts of pornography became desensitized, and then bored, with the materials. They cited a study of Denmark, which had legalized pornography. Statistics indicated no increase in sex crimes; furthermore, Danes tended not to buy it after the first few months of legalization, although there was a thriving market for foreigners.
Nixon was not particularly pleased with their conclusions. President Reagan raised the issue again in the late 1980s, and another commission formed. This group found that pornography could have detrimental effects, and were accused of political bias. In actuality, the conclusions appeared to be the result of the fact that the nature of pornography had changed over the 20-year period. The second commission's findings were partially based on pornography that was often violent in nature, showing people being forced into acts, or humiliated. As was the case with the findings concerning violence, viewing sex and violence appears to stimulate aggression in individuals. A series of experimental studies indicated that this was the case.
Thus, the two commissions were not necessarily contradictory. Nixon's commission primarily addressed pictures of nude females, or movies in which adults were consenting to the activity. The second commission's studies also included pictures and movies that also portrayed violence, which was somewhat different. They found that attitudes tended to change after viewing this type of pornography, that viewers were more likely to think it was all right to force another person into sexual activity. They recommended restrictions on such types of pornography.
Another difference was that the second commission noted the increase in child pornography. Research indicated that participation by children in such activities had long-term negative effects on them, and the commission concluded that strong measures should be taken to discourage this form of pornography.
The research on television, movies and pornography have been controversial because they raise first amendment issues concerning freedom of speech. Furthermore, the research does not provide clear-cut answers, because people respond differently to such materials. Some ignore it, others view media but do not appear to be affected, and it appears to have a detrimental effect on some people. The same debate is now being raised concerning video games available to children and adolescents. And then, of course, there is the internet…
.
1