FREE ESSAY ON CRIME AND DRUG USE

CRIME AND DRUG USE

Crime and Drug Use 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 
Bibliography
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.