Offending: Drug-related expertise and decision making
Introduction
The pervasive link between drug use and crime has been well-documented in jurisdictions across the US, Canada, United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand (e.g., Bradford and Payne, 2012, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2012, Glaze and Herberman, 2013, Löbmann and Verthein, 2008, McSweeney et al., 2007, Mitchell et al., 2006, Motiuk et al., 2005, Mumola and Karberg, 2008, Neale et al., 2005, Ramsay et al., 2005). Etiological explanations for this link, including the types of drugs and crimes involved, fall into three categories: direct effects whereby one variable causes the other (i.e., drug-use-causes-crime or crime-causes-drug-use), indirect effects (i.e., drug use and crime are both caused by other variables), and non-causal or spurious relationships (i.e., a general association between crime, drug use and other problem behaviors). Until recently, attempts to qualify the strength of the drug–crime connection has produced conflicting results (e.g., Chaiken and Chaiken, 1990, Gandossy et al., 1980, Hough, 1996) although a recent meta-analysis by Bennett, Holloway, and Farrington (2008) not only provided support for a direct causal link but also revealed (a) the strength of the relationship differed as a function of drug type and (b) that specific drugs were associated with the commission of different types of offenses. There is, however, greater heterogeneity in drug-related crime than that described in Bennett et al.'s (2008) study. For example, direct effects theories also include a psychopharmacological explanation that posits drug intoxication results in impaired judgment which, in turn, leads to crime (Goode, 1997) and the notion that criminals use drugs to celebrate the successful commission of an offense (Menard, Mihalic, & Huizinga, 2001). Common-cause theories, on the other hand, highlight a range of psychological, sociological, and environmental factors as third-party variables. One such theory is that proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) who have argued that both drug use and crime are caused by low self-control. Finally, systemic or non-causal explanations include lifestyle accounts whereby drug use and crime are seen as intrinsic elements of a broader deviant lifestyle (Goldstein, 1985, Goode, 1997).
Etiological theories not only highlight the diverse range of crimes in which drugs are implicated but also the potential for different levels of expertise across and within crime genres. Unfortunately, recent empirical research focusing exclusively on expertise in drug-using offenders is lacking and a comprehensive review of the literature failed to identify any studies that examined expertise in offenders whose primary goal was to commit income-generating crime to finance an addiction. This is somewhat surprising given the involvement of drug-addicted offenders in economically-compulsive crimes such as shoplifting, theft, robbery, and burglary (see Bennett et al., 2008). The typical offending pattern here is one of repeat acquisitive crime and, in some cases, the commission of multiple crimes in quick succession in order to build a temporary “financial surplus” and extend the period between offenses (Hochstetler, 2002). That said, drug use has been identified as one of several outcomes in some studies investigating decisions to commit robbery (e.g., Jacobs & Miller, 1998) while in Clare's (2011) comparison of the perceptual and procedural skills of expert and novice burglars, drug use was found to be highly prevalent within the sample. By comparison, more attention has been paid to the role of decision making in the realm of systemic crime, in particular effective apprehension avoidance techniques (Jacobs, 1996a; Jacobs & Miller, 1998), differentiating police officers from drug clients (Jacobs, 1996b), managing retaliation (Jacobs, Topalli, & Wright, 2000), and drug smuggling (Che & Benson, 2014).
Another limitation in the research from a criminal expertise perspective is the lack of attention paid to the antecedent crime: drug use, particularly when use is associated with addiction. Cognitive processes such as automaticity, attentional bias, and implicit memory – identified as key factors in, for example, burglary expertise (e.g., Lewandowsky, Little, & Kalish, 2007; Nee & Meenaghan, 2006) – are strongly implicated in the addiction process (e.g., Baker et al., 2004, Robinson and Berridge, 2003, Waters et al., 2012). An obvious analogy is Ward & Hudson's (2000) implicit theory of sexual offending given the key elements of addictive behavior (Tiffany, 1990), self-regulation (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996), and script theory (Anderson, 1995) that underpin their model. Other factors with the potential to impact on automaticity which might also play a role in drug-related crimes with addicted offenders include affect (see Van Gelder, 2013) and the recently formulated selfish goal model (Huang & Bargh, 2014). The latter describes how inconsistencies in judgment and behavior can be understood in terms of competing conscious and unconscious goal influences.
In view of the issues raised above, the primary goals of this paper are threefold. First, decision making research conducted in the domains of direct causal effects (burglary) and non-causal relationships (apprehension avoidance, detection) will be reviewed in the context of criminal expertise and rational decision making (e.g., Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Second, expertise will be considered from the perspective of addiction and how this relates to the crime of illegal drug use with a focus on how constructs known to facilitate functional expertise (e.g., automaticity) might also be implicated in the development of dysfunctional expertise. The review will conclude with a consideration of how this body of research might inform behavior change in the field of drug-related crime and drug rehabilitation. An important frame of reference here is that of criminal expertise, which will be examined from the perspective articulated by Nee and Ward (2015--in this issue). In drawing together different strands of research, they have proposed a definition of functional expertise whereby lower level skills are a function of automatic or unintentional appraisals of the environment (Step 1) and superior automatic recognition of offense-related environmental cues (Step 2). With practice, complex cognitive schema are activated (Step 3) which then provide access to exemplars and heuristics that guide rapid responses, in the form of previously successful behavioral scripts, and relatively automatic criminal behavior (Step 4). Nee and Ward hypothesize that, depending on task complexity and the individual undertaking that task, there is the possibility that behavior may become more conscious (and thus more controllable) between steps 3 and 4. Prior to reviewing criminal expertise as it relates to causal crime links and addiction, a useful starting point is to briefly reflect on several factors that, while beyond the scope of this paper, warrant further investigation within the broader scope of understanding criminal expertise in the field of drug-related crime.
Section snippets
Specialization and criminal expertise
It is generally accepted that offenders display considerable diversity across the life course and, as such, cannot be categorized into mutually exclusive taxonomic groups (e.g., Brame et al., 2004, Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990, Lussier et al., 2005, Piquiro et al., 2003). Despite the substantial literature base to support this claim, there is empirical evidence for specialization, particularly in the short-term (e.g., Armstrong, 2008, McGloin et al., 2007, Shover, 1996, Sullivan et al., 2006).
Expertise and drug-related crime
One of the most cited bodies of research investigating offender decision-making, and by extension expertise, in drug-related systemic crime is that undertaken by Jacobs, 1996a, Jacobs, 1996b and Jacobs and Miller (1998) which focused primarily on the methods used by crack cocaine dealers to handle drugs, drug buyers, and the environments in which drug dealing occurred as a means of minimizing police surveillance and decreasing apprehension risk. Undertaken in the US, the studies involved male
Addiction and expert decision making
Although the consumption of illicit drugs is perhaps the most simplistic example of a direct causal link between drug use and crime, much less attention is paid – in the correctional context at least – to the underlying decision to initiate drug use as compared, for example, to motivating an offender to change his or her drug-using behavior. This is reflected in the content of many prison-based group treatment programs which typically focus on issues such as understanding the link between
Affect and decision making
Affect is often treated as separate from cognition but is, as Ward and Nee (2009, p. 173) point out, “central to and inextricable from” the offender's decision-making processes. Implicated in the commission of violent and sexual offenses (e.g., Ariely and Loewenstein, 2006, Davey et al., 2005, Howells and Day, 2006), drug-related offending also falls into the category of crimes where the perpetrator is likely to experience intensive feelings (e.g., as a result of craving or withdrawal) or
Conclusion
What does the preceding review say about expertise and drug-related crime? At the broadest level, it suggests a somewhat neglected area of research that warrants further investigation. Drug-related crime is a diverse area that incorporates many of the offenders and offenses covered in this special edition. Offenders who use drugs break into houses (Nee, 2015--in this issue), commit arson (Butler & Gannon, 2015--in this issue), molest children (Fortune et al., 2015--in this issue), engage in
References (129)
- et al.
Automaticity in social–cognitive processes
Trends in Cognitive Science
(2012) - et al.
The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2008) Killer decisions: The role of cognition, affect and ‘expertise’ in homicide
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2015)- et al.
The scripts and expertise of firesetters: A preliminary conceptualization
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2015) - et al.
Anger, over-control and serious violent offending
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2005) - et al.
Offending competency and coercive control in intimate partner violence
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2015) - et al.
Expertise and child sex offenders
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2015) - et al.
Effects of topiramate on methamphetamine-induced changes in attentional and perceptual–motor skills of cognition in recently abstinent methamphetamine dependent individuals
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
(2007) - et al.
Non-conscious goal conflicts
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2011) Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1996)