1. 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
&
Steven Belenko, Ph.D.
Temple University

2. 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).

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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 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.

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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) = , p= <.001

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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) = , p= <.001

14. 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) = , p= <.001

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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%

21. 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)

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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

25. Thank You!
Michele Pich, M.A., M.S. Rowan University Glassboro, NJ USA Steven Belenko Ph.D. Temple University Philadelphia, PA USA