Substance Abuse and Violent Crime: An Analysis of the Psychopharmacological Model in a Sample of United States Inmates Michele Pich, M.A., M.S. Rowan University pich@rowan.edu & Steven Belenko, Ph.D. Temple University sbelenko@temple.edu

Drug & Crime Nexus: Goldstein’s Tripartite Conceptual Framework 3 Models: (Goldstein, 1985) Economic Compulsive Systemic Psychopharmacological The nexus between drug and alcohol use and violent crime has long been of interest to researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. The understanding of if and how drugs and crime are related has the potential to greatly influence dispositional decisions including sentencing, rehabilitation efforts, and additional support services for those involved. But the question remains, does drug use lead to violent crime? While Goldstein's Tripartite conceptual framework (1985) incorporates three different models for looking at the connections of drugs and crime (economic compulsive, systemic, and psychopharmacological).

Commit violent crime to get $ Economic Compulsive Need $ to pay for drugs Commit violent crime to get $ Some drug users engage in economically oriented violent crime in order to support costly drug use Need $ to pay for drug  commit violent crime to get $ 62% states not for financial gain to buy drugs in this sample

Drug Hierarchy violence Systemic VIOLENCE Punishment Territory Disputes Drug Hierarchy violence Violence is intrinsic to involvement with any illicit substance… Systemic violence refers to the traditionally aggressive patterns of interaction within the system of drug sales, distribution, and use. Some examples: 1. Disputes over territory between rival drug dealers. 2. assaults and homicides committed within dealing hierarchies as a means of enforcing normative codes. 3. robberies of drug dealers and the usually violent retaliation by the dealer or his/her bosses. 4. elimination of informers. 5. punishment for selling adulterated or phony drugs. 6. punishment for failing to pay one's debts. 7. disputes over drugs or drug paraphernalia 8. robbery violence related to the social ecology of copping areas. Substantial numbers of users of any drug become involved in drug distribution as their drug-using careers progress and, hence, increase their risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator of systemic violence

Psychopharmacological Ingest substance Excitability / Irrational Violent Behavior The Pychopharmacological model suggests that some individuals as a result of short or long term ingestion of specific substances, become excitable, irrational, and may exhibit violent behavior. Most likely: -ETOH -stimulants -barbiturates -PCP NOT: -THC -Opiates -Can be drug use by offender or victim (can contribute to user’s violent behavior, or use make one more likely to be violently victimized) (Ex/ high ETOH consumption in rape, although often these rapes go unreported b/c victim either embarrassed, doesn't want to talk to police while drunk/high, may not remember what offender looks like or details of crime ,or suspect that if it is known that they were drunk/high that reporting event would be futile b/c they would not be seen as a credible witness)

Current Study: Sample 8,077 State sentenced inmate respondents Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Corrections Facilities 2004 data set Self-report surveys administered between October 2003 and May 2004 Analyses include discussion of the relationship between drugs and violent (vs. non-violent) crime this paper focuses on testing the psychopharmacological violence model with data from approximately 8,000 State sentenced inmate respondents from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Corrections Facilities 2004 data set which contains data from self-report surveys that were administered between October 2003 and May 2004. Analyses include discussion of the strength of the relationship between drugs and violent (vs. non-violent) crime. The varying impact of use of different drugs in relation to whether the crime is violent and the severity of injury to the victims is also discussed.

Methods Interviewees were selected from a list including all inmates using a bed the previous night Random selection through computerized process Approximately 1:85 males and 1:24 females chosen

Current Study: Inmate Sample Demographics 81% Male / 19% Female Age: mean = 36 (SD 11) Marital Status: 53% Never married 17% Married 21% Divorced 3% Widowed 17% Hispanic 50% White / Caucasian 42% Black/ African American 6% American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% Asian 1% Pacific Islander 4% Other Race Mostly male -never married -White or Af Am

Victim Under the Influence of Drugs/ETOH? > 50% of victims were under the influence; more so from drugs other than alcohol than from alcohol

Perpetrator Under the Influence of Alcohol WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 72% 28% 58% 43% ETOH use by perpetrator (↑) increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (3, N= 7,216) = 145.42, p= <.001

Perpetrator Under the Influence of Heroin WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 40% 60% 64% 43% Heroin use by perpetrator (↓) decreased increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (1, N= 6,614) = 58.40, p= <.001

Perpetrator Under the Influence of Other Opiates WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 36% 64% 63% 37% Other Opiate use by perpetrator (↓) decreased increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (1, N= 6,710) = 16.29, p= <.001

Perpetrator Under the Influence of Methamphetamine WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 33% 67% 64% 36% Methamphetamine use by perpetrator (↓) decreased increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (1, N= 6,542) = 159.85, p= <.001

Perpetrator Under the Influence of Valium or Other Tranquilizers WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 68% 32% 63% 37% Use of Valium or Other Tranquilizers by perpetrators (↑) increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (1, N= 6,502) = 159.85, p= <.001

Perpetrator Under the Influence of Crack WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 44% 56% 65% 35% Crack use by perpetrator (↓) decreased increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (1, N= 6,491) = 84.84, p= <.001

Perpetrator Under the Influence of Cocaine (other than Crack) WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 52% 48% 65% 35% Cocaine (other than crack) use by perpetrators (↑) increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (1, N= 5,677) = 32.05, p= <.001

Perpetrator Under the Influence of PCP WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 89% 11% 62% 38% PCP use by perpetrator (↑) increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (1, N= 6,665) = 20.72, p= <.001

Perpetrator Under the Influence of LSD WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 87% 13% 62% 38% LSD use by perpetrator (↑) increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (1, N= 6,168) = 11.73, p<.001

Perpetrator Under the Influence of Marijuana WAS CRIME VIOLENT? YES NO 65% 35% 62% 38% THC use by perpetrator (↑) increased likelihood of committing a violent crime ᵪ² (1, N= 4,558) = 1.73 , p= 0.10

Drugs Not Significant in Current Sample: Drug Type Use During Offense Crime Violent? Yes No Speed/Other Amphetamine YES 61% 39% ᵪ² (1, N= 6,458) = 0.05, p= n.s. NO 62% 38% Quaaludes 44% 56% ᵪ² (1, N= 6,799) = 4.65, p= n.s. Other Barbiturates 65% 35% ᵪ² (1, N= 6,541) = 0.17, p= n.s. 37% Ecstasy 69% 31% ᵪ² (1, N= 6,787) = 0.38, p= n.s. 63%

Summary of Findings: Perpetrator Drug Use Drugs that ↑ likelihood: of violent crime Drugs that ↓ likelihood of violent crime: Drugs n.s. in likelihood of this sample Alcohol (p<.001) Heroin (p<.001) Speed or other Amphetamines Valium (p<.001) Other Opiates (p<.001) Quaaludes Cocaine [o/t crack] (p<.001) Methamphetamine (p<.001) Other Barbiturates PCP (p<.001) Crack (p<.001) Ecstasy LSD (p<.001) THC (p<.10)

Limitations Based on offender self-report Offenders may not be aware of victim’s intoxication status at the time of the offense Missing data Possible covariates with other substances of contexts

Discussion/Conclusions: Substances warranting further inquiry: Alcohol, Heroin, Other Opiates, Methamphetamine, Valium/Other Tranquilizers, Crack, Cocaine (other than Crack), PCP, LSD, Marijuana Goldstein’s Psychopharmacological Model cannot be ruled out for these drugs Some results contrary to Goldstein’s initial predictions (Goldstein, 1985) Contextual effects matter (Cope, 2015) Implications for prevention: targeted treatment for relapse preventions Results contrary to Goldstein’s initial predictions: Crack ↓ THC ↑ Barbiturates – n.s. Drug use may have a reverse psychopharmacological effect and ameliorate violent tendencies. Sometimes if someone is prone to acting violently may engage in self medication in order to control their violent impulses.  treatment for co-occurring disorder may be warranted, and this may explain the unexpected results.

Future Directions Test the data for each of the 3 models in Goldstein’s Tripartite Framework Running regression analyses to control for potential covariates (including use of multiple substances) Determine if severity of victim injury is related to whether the perpetrator or victim was under the influence

Thank You! Michele Pich, M.A., M.S. Rowan University Glassboro, NJ USA pich@rowan.edu +1 856 256 4669 Steven Belenko Ph.D. Temple University Philadelphia, PA USA sbelenko@temple.edu +1 215 204 2211