Writer's choice I need this paper to be on lone wolf terrorism and I have a 10 page draft that needs to be re-written due to it being 50% plagiarized. Structure of the paper (will be a collaboration of assignments 2-8) with final edits, revisions, ect.

3

EMAIL - Assignment # 9: FINAL PAPER DUE- EMAIL- Proofread and revise your Final Paper. Once completed, email as an attachment to: [email protected] .

Structure of the paper (will be a collaboration of assignments 2-8) with final edits, revisions, ect. Please break up your paper by titling each section (ex: abstract, introduction, ect) and subtopics. Subtopics should be italicized.

1. Title page: Include topic, name, and date

2. Abstract

3. Introduction

4. Literature review- (broken up by subtopics)

5. Hypothesis

6. Research plan

7. Conclusion

8. Reference page- FULL references, in APA format, alphabetically listed, using hanging indention. (To do hanging indention, highlight your references, hit paragraph (option in word), under special select hanging). APA format: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Example:

Drug Addiction and Crime: Does one Cause the other?

________________

A Paper

Presented to

Department of Criminology

Indiana State University

________________

By

Brittny Downing

December 2009

ABSTRACT

The following study evaluates individual and social components on how they influence drug addiction and crime. Historical events and prison statistics have reflected social exclusion and inequalities that create victimization among some members of society. This victimization has been linked to self control and expression. Victimization and expression of aggression has created subcultures of violence in some areas which in turn create more victimization. Legal policies and definitions appear to be contributing factors toward exclusion and victimization creating distrust and frustration. The influences of victimization created by all or some of these factors contribute to an individual’s perception in social interactions. These influences appear to be contributors to deviant behaviors such as crime and drug use/addiction. My hypothesis suggests that victimization and drug abuse causes neurological changes in mental functioning which impairs rationality and increases aggressive perceptions.

INTRODUCTION

There is an apparent relationship between drug addiction and crime. This relationship is reflected by the overwhelming amount of prison inmates with reported drug use. In dealing with state prison inmates, 69% report regular lifetime illicit drug use, and more than 80% of state inmates have indicators of serious alcohol or drug associations (Belenko, 2006). There is existing data that suggests approximately 80% of all individuals arrested test positive for an illegal substance (Klag et al, 2005). In addressing whether drug addiction causes crime and vice-versa, I will review the theorized ideas on casualty of crime and addiction. In reviewing these theories I find that both individual characteristics and social elements correlate with the problems of drug addiction and crime.

Most inmates are driven to crimes by their drug abuse, according to a study concerning New Jersey’s correctional population (Wojtowicz et al, 2007). Addiction to hard core substances has been the cause of income-producing crime, placing many of these addicts in the criminal justice system (Brownsberger et al, 2004). The concept of drug abuse is defined as recurrent use associated with failure to fill role obligations, physical hazards, negative consequences, and drug-related legal problems or fighting (Brownsberger et al, 2004). This concept defines the correlation between drug addiction and crime, and assimilates that drug abuse eventually links into criminal behavior. In correlation to this link, frequency of criminal activity has been found to rise and fall depending on the level of drug use (Klag et al, 2005).

Regardless of how an offender becomes affiliated with drugs and crime, illegal drug use has become a complex social problem that will continue to influence the criminal justice system (Lurigio, 2000). The problem with drug use and crime is that they often “co-occur as a part of a deviant lifestyle” (Lurigio, 2000: 496). There are many pathways in which an offender will become involved in addiction and crime; these directions may be divergent, overlapping, or parallel (Lurigio, 2000). Studies have linked that criminally inclined individuals commit more serious crimes as they become drug dependent, and as their drug use decreases, so does the rate of crimes they commit (Lurigio, 2000). The nature of the drug and crime problem raises questions in genetic dispositions, as well as the establishments of social elements that may create strain and victimization, inhibit self control, and create a definition to crime that excludes certain socio-economic classes.

In the scope of this problem I will evaluate the effects of individual characteristics, social problems, and how they relate to crime and addiction. An evaluation of biological predispositions, subcultures of violence and victimization, self control theory, strain theory, and legal definitions to crime will then be assessed. Identification of the strengths and fallacies in the theories will also be discussed. After completing my research, I add to the knowledge of the causes of drug addiction and crime by combining the establishments of crime into a series of rippling effects and decisions based on predispositions, life experiences, and victimization in social interactions. The causes of victimization, such as social exclusion and legal definitions, are linked to having effects on self control and perception. The creation of subcultures resulting from victimization, and creating more victimization as well as aggression will be evaluated. My hypothesis suggests that victimization and drug abuse cause neurological changes in mental functioning by impairing rationality and increasing aggressive perceptions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature on drug addiction and crime differentiates among the variations of theories, which establishes issues related to individual characteristics and social problems. In extent theories of individual predispositions and social interactions play a substantial role in both drug addiction and crime. “In the 21st century, drug and alcohol use presents a serious social problem for most countries in the world” (Klag et al, 2005: 1777). Social factors play a major role in lifestyle, outlook, and liberty of individuals. Throughout history there have been many devastating social events such as social exclusion, oppression, inequalities, and discrimination. There have also been social issues concerning subcultures of violence and with legal policies and definitions. For example, Russian criminal studies found crime to be a social phenomenon that is influenced by factors such as inequality, strain (from blocked opportunities), inter-group conflicts, and living conditions (Gilinskiy, 2006). Criminalization among females is linked to poverty, sexual abuse, racial and class oppression, and structural dislocation from schools and family (Katz, 2000).

Biological/Neurological

“ Neuropsychological dysfunction consistently characterizes both drug abuse and violence, and may contribute to traits often cited as precursors to both for example, impulsivity, poor decision-making ability, disinhibition, and inability to assess consequences” (Fishbein, 2000: 139). Serotonin, a neurotransmitter in the brain, is another factor also relating to impulse control, aggression, and other mood impairments (Fishbein, 2000). In studies involving the orbitofrontal portion of the prefrontal cortex (OFC) there is evidence that links impulsivity, predisposition to drug abuse and dependence, and violent behavior to the roles in cognitive functioning (Fishbein, 2000). In relationship to biological impairments there is also evidence that both drug abuse and aggressive behavior are the result of the inability to assess consequences and act on that assessment, as reflected with the personality trait of impulsivity (Fishbein, 2000). “Giancola (1995) has hypothesized that impaired executive cognitive functioning (ECF) compromises the ability to interpret social cues during interpersonal interactions, which may lead to misperceptions of threat or hostility in conflict situations” (Fishbein, 2000: 142).

Biological deficiencies have been an element of the causal studies of crime and addiction. Biological characteristics are used to study deficiencies and differences in the individual that are linked with rational choice, aggression, and personality characteristics. These studies are further evaluated to understand the effects they have on an individual’s interpretation of decisions and actions. The biological findings conclude that the prefrontal cortex appears to alter social skills (Fishbein, 2000). These social skills are consistently distinguished with individuals having both occurrences of drug abuse and violence (Fishbein, 2000). Biological impairment involving chronic drug use has been found to alter prefrontal function causing increased issues with violence (Fishbein, 2000). Biological dysfunctions are suggested to be contributing factors to drug abuse and crime. In addition, biological dysfunctions can also occur as a result of drug abuse, which could create dysfunction or contribute to an existing dysfunction, leaving the user more susceptible to aggression and violence. Wikstrom hypothesizes that “violent moral rule breakers are more neuropsychologically similar to neurologically impaired controls than non-violent moral rule breakers in EEG abnormalities, perseveration, and deficits in working memory” (Wikstrom et Al, 2007:257).

Subculture of Violence/Victimization/Trauma

High rates of homicide in certain cultural areas of society are described as cultures of violence (Surratt et Al, 2004). This concept derives the idea that cultural values and social conditions, rather than individual conditions, are determinants of violent behavior (Surratt et Al, 2004). In addition, a theory known as ‘subculture of violence’ has been implemented to help explain the social structural causes of violence (Surratt et Al, 2004). This general concept is characterized by “dense concentrations of socio-economically disadvantaged persons with few legitimate avenues of social mobility, lucrative illegal markets for forbidden goods and services, a value system that rewards only survival and material success, and private enforcement of the informal rules of the game” (Surratt et al, 2004: 44).

In researching subcultures of violence, a study concerning sex workers in Miami found that violence was attributed to social problems including gender inequality, class, and racial discriminations (Surratt et al, 2004). These social problems lead to complex situations resulting in an environment of violence and victimization (Surratt et al, 2004). The sex work in this study constituted a subculture of violence in the city. The research found that many of the sex workers had underlying experiences of trauma during childhood and adolescence. In relation to their current environment, women stated that violent victimizations were inevitable (Surratt et al, 2004). The inevitability of violence results in lifestyles consisting of repetitive histories of victimization (Surratt et al, 2004).

Many female offenders share characteristics of poverty and traumatic childhood backgrounds (Fischer et al, 2007). Many of these victimizations lead to substance abuse for the majority. Recently, from 1995-2000 women convicted for federal methamphetamine charges rose 133% making drug-related crimes more frequent among female offenders (Fischer et al, 2007). Empirical work has reflected that male criminal behavior is predicted by early victimization and female victimization is a predictor for criminal involvement over the life course (Katz, 2000). A traumatic bond is said to be linked creating boundaries within victimized females making it harder to detach from the lifestyle and the individual (Katz, 2000).

In evaluating male juveniles in relation to victimization, a study found that physical, mental, and sexual abuse are all factors that were associated with youth involvement in crime and marijuana use (Robertson et al, 2008). The studies also found that African American adolescents living in disadvantaged communities were at risk for exposure to victimization and violence (Robertson et al, 2008). These finding coincide with the idea of a subculture of violence resulting in crime and victimization due to social living conditions. Victimization plays a contributing role to crime and drug abuse. A subculture of violence promotes crime and dictates offenders to maintain their street identity by valuing criminal activity (Copes et al, 2008). The offenders thinking, self-concept, and daily interactions in urban street life is what creates the boundaries with law abiding citizens (Copes et al, 2008). This concept follows Durkheim’s theory of anomie and the effects of social strain. The formulation of deviance and crime, are responses to the conditions of strain and the opportunity for illegal activity (Surratt et al, 2004).

Self control theory

Self control is a characteristic that has been scrutinized when studying the actions and causes of addiction and crime.  Gottfredson and Hirschi established the General theory of Crime, based on the concept that “human conduct can be understood as the self-interested pursuit of pleasure or the avoidance of pain” (Wikstrom et Al, 2007: 239). Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory consists of six defined elements of self control and states people lacking self control usually have the following characteristics: impulsivity, short-sightedness, insensitivity, physical responsiveness, risk taking, and low frustration tolerance, which makes them more inclined to take part in criminal acts (Baron et Al, 2007).  Since control theory there have been revised concepts that have built upon the idea of self control and crime.

Wikstrom and Strieber have analyzed the link between self control and crime causation claiming that crime is not a question of self control, but rather a question of morality (2007). This concept views self control not as an individual trait, but as a situational concept in the process of choice (Wikstrom et Al, 2007). In this alternative to self control, crime is viewed as moral actions in which one perceives the alternatives and makes the choices based upon moral belief, moral habit, and executive capabilities (Wikstrom et Al, 2007). This study evaluates how individuals internalize social components as moral beliefs, which can create moral habits. These moral habits make it harder to change due to the individual learning ways to adapt to changes, and then internalizing that adaptation. Moral beliefs resulting in situational concepts can have devastating effects when dealing with victimized individuals. The way one interprets a situation is derived by moral beliefs. The actions one chooses are a result of those beliefs. This study also takes into account executive deficits which are biological and neurological impairments in the brain. In noting these impairments as well as the establishment of interpretations one can apply this theory to situational disputes. Another study known as the dispute theory evaluates self control by dividing the elements into active stages and applying them to situational incidences and determinants on the basis of reaction.

The dispute theory is a study theorized by Luckenbill and Doyle (1989) built from the ideas and elements of the self control theory (Baron et Al, 2007).  Their theory states that disputes are episodes that occur in stages (Baron et Al, 2007). These stages depend on the participant’s learned experiences and expectations toward certain situations and states that the reaction and stages are dependent on the subjective interpretation from both parties (Baron et Al, 2007).  This theory is similar to the self control theory because it relies on a number of individual characteristics that control the direction of a situation into either a conflict or rational decision.

Shreck finds that self control components may also be linked to victimization, since people who are impulsive aren’t as likely to recognize consequences of their actions (Baron et Al, 2007).  Coinciding with the susceptibility to victimization, low self control can also affect an individual by the way it creates opportunity (Baron et Al, 2007). According to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory, it appears that the six elements are commonly linked with violence, violent acts and victimization, but are not dependent on having all six elements present (Baron et Al, 2007).  One of the elements of low self control, impulsivity, was found to predict alcohol and drug use (Baron et Al, 2007). These findings surrounding self control theorizes that low self control is linked with both crime and drug use and can also be established by the social environments of an individual.

Social Exclusion

Problem drug use is constructed socially, by having less to do with individual choice and more to do with limited opportunities, structural disadvantages, resources, and alternatives (Buchanan, 2004). Social elements exclude certain individuals and create groups of individuals being socially victimized. The majority of problem drug users have endured severe disadvantage and social exclusion prior to their drug problem, and how struggle with limited opportunities (Buchanan, 2004). The choices of drug use have been influenced by negative pressures and aggravating factors that limit opportunities in society by minimizing alternatives for the individual (Buchanan, 2004). Drug taking can be understood best by socio-economic problems (Buchanan, 2004). A social understanding is needed in order to grasp the links of problem drug use, viewing the compound problems of: low self esteem, unemployment, sexual and physical abuse, educational underachievement, and disrupted childhoods (Buchanan, 2004).

The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) found that problem drug users come from many of the most deprived and socially excluded communities (Buchanan, 2004). In one study concerning Brooklyn, 50 % of parolees wound up on only 11% of the city blocks (Sung et al, 2007).

Social disadvantage and social exclusion are major factors to consider and are evidenced to be elements that lead to problematic drug use (Buchanan, 2004). There is a pattern amongst problem drug users showing an overwhelming amount have suffered from difficult childhoods, have been in care, struggled in education and finding employment, and have committed crimes (Buchanan, 2004). Illicit drug use may be an attempt to escape from reality or society due to the inability to access materials legitimately that appear to be accessible to other members of society (Buchanan, 2004). Problem drug use has been a linking result of social exclusion, but in fact has created further exclusion as drug users become anti-social and engage in ‘othering’ “presenting themselves as they are somehow different to the majority of society” (Buchanan, 2004: 394). Drug abuse and crime are aspects of reactive responses to social injustice (Buchanan, 2004).

Russia is just one example of the effects of social exclusion and economic inequality. Russia remains to have a very high violence rate, which may be a resulting factor of maintaining control over the country through repression (Gilinskiy, 2006). Considerable inequalities have been placed keeping most Russians in poverty and creating a cultural mentality of intolerance (Gilinskiy, 2006). This intolerance appears to be reflected by the continuing inflation of drug abuse and crime. The rate of drug addicts in Russia per 100,000 inhabitants increased from “1.3 in 1980 to 31.0 in 1997” (Gilinskiy, 2006: 274).

Campbell stresses how drug crime has become an issue of social policies that label some behaviors as a “dangerous class” but excuse behaviors of the dominant class (Malloch, 2004: 297). Social exclusion and unemployment provides a substandard for deviance and a desire for illegal products (Gilinskiy, 2006). Street crime has been a battle with police and court due to the argument that they are creating a scapegoat against criminality and promoting a selection process in the criminal justice system (Gilinskiy, 2006). This selection process focuses on certain types of crimes committed, primarily by lower socio-economic classes, and overlooks white collar crime such as organized crime and corruption. The selection processes increasingly excludes individuals and the greater number of individuals being excluded, the higher the rate of crime (Gilinskiy, 2006). Social and economical issues have been identified as infringing on the lives of criminal justice clients (Malloch, 2004).

Legal definitions

The drug problem is by definition noted in many theories to be the real problem (Boland, 2008). Policies made concerning illicit drug use are filled with misinformation resulting in public fear and questioning public policy (Boland, 2008). The exclusion of some drugs such as alcohol and tobacco questions the validity of the scientific classification system (Boland, 2008). In questioning the validity of policies and classification, the link to drugs, crime, and social exclusion are an area of interest when researching rational for public policies (Boland, 2008). Arguably the real problem is the definition of the drug problem because it is based on moral prejudice, is biased, and creates more problems than it solves (Boland, 2008).

The United States crack cocaine laws are just one example of the discrepancies in drug policies. In the late 1970’s cocaine was being used by many upper-class members for example, rock stars and stock brokers, causing multiple visits to the emergency rooms and resulting in congress passing laws extending health coverage to include treatment for drugs (Reinarman et al, 2004). In the mid-1980’s crack was being used in inner cities amongst many African Americans and Latinos, as a result congress passed new laws for harsher prison sentences and expanded the amount of prison cells in the prison industry (Reinarman et al, 2004). From 1986-2000 U.S. prison population tripled giving U.S. the highest rate of incarceration among modern democracy (Reinarman et al, 2004). The crack scare that congress faced in the late 1980’s may have had political purpose but also created racist consequences (Reinarman et al, 2004). This racist repression frayed the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in the eyes of many members (Reinarman et al, 2004).

The war against drugs is inherently a war against drug users creating more exclusion and targeting these individuals as a force of hostility (Buchanan, 2004). Drucker finds that the repercussions drug users face can be a greater danger than the drugs (Buchanan, 2004). The drug war controls and excludes drug users and places them under social stress and barriers of discrimination and social exclusion (Buchanan, 2004). Many problem drug users tend to internalize these problems which create isolation and/ or lack of motivation to attempt to establish an identity as a productive member of society (Buchanan, 2004). The legal definitions create a dividing wall against drug users and the rest of society. This wall creates frustration, impatience and exclusion among the dividing members.

The above literature focuses on the individual and social characteristics associated with drug use and crime. There are many elements that can be causes or byproducts of addiction and crime. There is a need to evaluate criminal theories to understand why individuals act in deviance to society. In studying biological and social victimizations we can reasonably establish that individual and social factors contribute to aggression and strain amongst individuals. When combining social and individual factors, regardless to the order of establishment, we often find that under strain they lead to deviance in society and associations with drugs and crime.

HYPOTHESIS

Victimization and drug abuse causes neurological changes in mental functioning which impairs rationality and increases aggressive perceptions.

METHOD

I plan to conduct a qualitative study measuring the relationship between victimization and drug abuse. I will conduct individual interviews with each subject asking subjects to explain their experiences with victimization and drug abuse. This study will examine the histories of four individuals (two female and two male) applying a theoretical question concerning victimization and drug abuse in their own lives. Subjects will be recruited by flyers and posters and will be identified in an initial questionnaire asking if they have undergone any victimization and/or substance abuse. Once subjects are identified, this study will review each individual by their interpretation of victimization and drug abuse experiences. This relationship will be qualitatively explored by each subject and interpreted relative to the way in which each subject has come to understand the ways in which their experience(s) of victimization influenced their drug abuse behavior, rationale for decision making, and aggressive perceptions.

In conducting the research, each individual will be given an informed consent agreement to be signed informing them of the nature of the study and the individuals involved. Participants will be aged 18-24. Participants in this study will consist of two male, two female, two Caucasian and two African Americans. Posters and flyers will be sent to or set up in grocery stores, jails, prisons, and gas stations. Each area will provide an array of subjects and include both incarcerated and non-incarcerated individuals. Subjects that claim to have undergone victimization and have abuse drugs will be chosen for the study. Once established with appropriate participants, the study will be conducted in a normal classroom. The study will consist of a general question asking them to describe their experiences and the relation it has had their rationality and perceptions. Follow up questions will be used to clarify answers. Information received will be kept confidential, storing only last names of clients, and maintained in a secure locked area.

Risks to human subjects have been assessed and will be noted on the informed consent forms. Some of the risks in dealing with human subjects are: the recollection of potentially harmful memories triggering psychological issues such as anxiety, depression, and/or intrusive thoughts. Incarcerated subjects will also be subjected to the same risks as well as the possibility of peer issues/rejection due to speaking with a researcher, as well as, informed breach of confidentially issues, concerning statements of hurting self or others. All risks appear minimal and will be explained to each subject prior to interviewing.

Benefits of this research lie with the ability to evaluate each subject’s factors to determine influences of victimization and drug abuse on rationality and perceptions. While undergoing the interview process, subjects will have the opportunity to express thoughts and feelings possibly harbored by the victimization and drug abuse and may begin to assess the impact that victimization has had on their lives. Clients will have the ability to discuss their issues with a counselor and receive psychological help for issues that they are currently dealing with. By making such assessments for each subject, the risks of this research remain minimal and short term. Any unplanned adverse affects of this research will be assisted by psychological counseling on an as needed basis. Following the interview, each individual will be debriefed by the counselor to determine this need by assessing for any trauma, depression, anxiety, or intrusive thoughts. Probabilities of any complications or adverse affects are very small to non-existent.

General benefits that the participant will receive in volunteering in this study include: a sense of contribution to helping the study of victimization and drug abuse, ability to express and vent out feelings, frustration, and harbored thoughts and emotions, and assistance in dealing with issues if needed. Additional benefits also include a payment of ten dollars per hour for their time in participating in the study. Participants will be paid following the completion of the study. Since non-completion of the study creates problems for both researchers and participants, they will not be rewarded monetarily.

I will act as the research investigator in this study. I will initially begin by informing subjects of the nature of the study, guidelines, precautions, and the informed consent. In my analysis, I plan to identify associations between victimization and drug abuse and the influence they have on rationality and perceptions. Limitations of using this technique consist of issues with generalizing the findings due to the small sample of individuals and lack of diversity. Interpretations and reliance on honesty will also be apparent making the findings limited.

In conducting the following study I plan to conduct interviews with each subject asking them to simply explain their experiences related to victimization and drug abuse. Questions will remain open ended to avoid coaxing. The research question will be:  Please describe as thoroughly as possible your experience with victimization and any experiences with drug abuse. The main purpose of the interviews will be to have the subjects simply describe their experiences. Follow-up questions will be used to clarify vague answers. Briefings will occur following each interview to assess for any psychological effects on the subjects.

Following the interviews, I will determine victimization and drug abuse and the individual’s perspective on their rationale and perception. Following the interviews, information obtained will be analyzed to assess links in victimization and drug abuse. Types of victimization and drug abuse will be noted for each subject. Ages of victimization and drug abuse, amount of occurrences, and individual opinions about the effect of victimization and drug abuse will be assessed. This study will face reliability issues due to using human subjects and reliance on accurate memory and interpretation. However, the information obtained from the interviews will allow me to utilize this information to get a basic understanding of the subjects and the link that victimization and drug abuse has on rationale and perceptions.

DISCUSSION

Rehabilitative efforts are helping to prevent crime, further addiction, and victimization. Studies have even found that effective parental monitoring has been shown to substantially reduce deviant behaviors in youth (Robertson et al, 2008). However, one boundary is that low socioeconomic situations can make parental monitoring and parenting more challenging (Robertson et al, 2008). Another rehabilitative suggestion involves substance abuse treatment. According to many criminal justice professionals, treatment can help reduce crime by reducing use and addiction (Brownsberger et al, 2004). Studies reflect that many criminal offenders are in high need for substance abuse treatment (Brownsberger et al, 2004). Recovery can offer assistance in overcoming addiction and thinking errors related to crime. However, in recovery, individual problems such as family issues, employment, child-care, and mental health may need to be addressed to assure a successful transition (Malloch, 2004). The theories above also provide awareness of individual and social problems that need to be discussed for rehabilitative recovery.

These theories relating to crime causation share similar links and should be combined systematically using considerations of ripple and causal effects, as well as searching for common denominators. The effects of biological impairments should be first considered when analyzing criminal behavior. In dealing with substance addiction, biological impairments should be assumed (temporary impairments leading to dependency) to a degree and addressed through rehabilitative treatment. Substance abuse can cause an individual to think irrationally which affects self control. Substance abuse can create victimization, which is another obstacle that must be considered when addressing individuals and should be addressed through both counseling and treatment services. Victimization that is being suppressed by substance abuse and deviance should also be taken in consideration for treatment. Social exclusion, which results in victimization of some individuals, creates many problems in society and should be conveyed and addressed for awareness among the general public. Legal definitions and tactics used to socially exclude individuals should be persistently reviewed and publicized in a quest for justice.

CONCLUSION

Drugs and/or victimization alter neurology of the body causing deficits in behavioral and conceptual processes. The way one copes with victimization alters the mental functioning skills by impairing rationality and increasing aggression. Excessive drug and alcohol use creates neurological impairments by lowering inhibitions and rational thinking, and creating deficiencies that changes behavior and mood. Both victimization and excessive drug use creates neuro-cognitive impairment. Continued impairment over time establishes collective habit, but optimistically, with extensive quality counseling, can be changed by awareness and treatment.

Victimization can be understood by social elements. Victimization can consist of physical, sexual, psychological, social, or emotional abuse causing an individual excessive frustration, pain, aggression, fear, stress, and/or exclusion. Victimization forces the body to adapt using some type of coping mechanism in order to continue everyday functioning in society with social interactions. Excessive drug abuse has been found to alter neurotransmissions and inhibit regions of the brain. In altering these regions, behavioral and neuro-congnitive changes begin, causing distorted or limited perception. In some cases, victimized individuals turn to drugs and alcohol as a coping mechanism compounding the problem and creating more deficiencies and reliance. In other cases, individuals using drugs and alcohol excessively become victims due to their limited perceptions and abilities, again leading to compounding the problem and creating more deficiencies due to the body’s need to find a coping mechanism. Individual characteristics play a role in how one copes with victimization and excessive drug abuse. However, these characteristics are constantly being challenged by positive and negative influences.

The initiation of drug use and the transition to addiction for many drug users are supplemented by criminality (Farabee et al, 2001). Drug use is also found to intensify criminal activity and criminal activity is found to increase drug use (Farabee et al, 2001). These findings indicate that drugs and crime relate to and augment one another (Farabee et al, 2001). Substance dependence versus occasional use or even abuse holds different indications for criminal behaviors (Farabee et al, 2001). In the relationship to drugs and crime offenders who began crimes proceeding drug use were less likely to engage in predatory crimes than other who began criminality prior to drug use (Farabee et al, 2001).

My critique contravenes prior research by favoring biological/neurological theory and implying it to aspects of self control, whereas victimization links to social exclusion and legal definitions. My findings support the current knowledge by assessing all characteristics into biological functioning. The neurological studies find impairments relating to aggression and personality characteristics. I find that these impairments can be innate or altered by victimization. Strain endured by social exclusion, oppression, discrimination, gender inequality, and socio-economical issues have devastating effects. Elements to consider when dealing with these issues are choice, alternatives, opportunity, aggression, interpretations, self control, anti-pro social behaviors, and moral beliefs. These factors are also linked to neurological functioning. The implications of my work find that drug addiction and crime is a byproduct of negative interpretations of the events one is confronted with. Victimization, expectations or impatience with decision making, and establishments of habit rests on a person’s vulnerability. This vulnerability resulting from victimization can create deviant attitudes and mental strain. Crime and drug use are types of coping mechanisms for this strain. This study was done to understand strain and social effects on an individual’s biology while applying it to scientific rationale for crime and drug addiction.

The limitations of my criticism are that they rely on subjective interpretation of other theories and attempt to assume all links are casual factors of one another. My theory has not been tested, and will be difficult to establish for research due to the need for medical examinations, as well as reliance on personal surveys concerning victimization. I recommend a longitudinal study involving annual scans of individuals beginning from birth through adulthood, and particularly following any trauma or victimization. This study should look for the impact of victimization and trauma on the brain, as well as personal opinion as to level and type of victimization endured. The study should determine whether neurological functions and regions of the brain change in these given circumstances. Drug abuse should also be part of the longitudinal study to access self control elements.

REFERENCES

Aliverdinia, Akbar, and Pridemore, William Alex 2007. “A First Glimpse at Narcotics Offenders in an Islamic Republic, A Tests of an Integrated model of Drug Involvement Among a Sample of men Incarcerated for Durg Offenses in Iran.” International Criminal Justice Review 17(1): 27-44.

Baron, Stephen W., Forde, David R., and Kay, Fiona M. 2007. “Self-control, risky lifestyles, and situation: The role of opportunity and context in the general theory.” Journal of Criminal Justice 35: 119-136.

Belenko, Steve 2006. “Assessing Released Inmates for Substance-Abuse-Related Service Needs.” Crime & Delinquency 52(1): 94-113.

Boland, Philip 2008. “British drugs policy: Problematizing the distinction between legal and illegal drugs and the definition of the ‘drugs problem’.” The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice 55(2): 171-187.

Brownsberger, William N., Love, Craig T., Doherty, Paula L., and Shaffer, Howard J. 2004. “Potential Demand for Substance Abuse Treatment in the Criminal Justice System.” Harvard Medical School 15(1): 37-60.

Buchanan, Julian 2004. “Missing links? Problem drug use and social exclusion.” The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice 51(4): 387-397.

Copes, Heith, Hochstetler, Andy, and Williams, J. Patrick 2008. “We Weren’t Like No Regular Dope Fiends: Negotiating Hustler and Crackhead Identities.” Social Problems 55(2): 254-270.

Farabee, David, Joshi, Vandana, and Anglin, M. Douglas 2001. “Addiction Careers and Criminal Specialization.” Crime & Delinquency 47(2): 196-220.

Fischer, Michael, Geiger, Brenda, and Hughes, Mary Ellen 2007. “Female Recidivists Speak About Their Experience in Drug Court While Engaging in Appreciative Inquiry.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 51(6): 703-722.

Fishbein, Diana 2000. “Neuropsychological Function, Drug Abuse, and Violence, A Conceptual Framework.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 27(2): 139-159.

Gilinskiy, Yakov 2006. “Crime in Contemporary Russia.” European Journal of Criminology 3(3): 259-292.

Katz, Rebecca S. 2000. “Explaining Girls’ and Women’s Crime and Desistance in the Context of Their Victimization Experiences, A Developmental Test of Revised Strain Theory and the Life Course Perspective.” Violence Against Women 6(6): 633-660.

Klag, Stefanie, O’Callaghan, Frances, and Creed, Peter 2005. “The Use of Legal Coercion in the Treatment of Substance Abusers: An Overview and Critical Analysis of Thirty Years of Research.” Substance Use & Misuse 40: 1777-1795.

Lurigio, Arhur J. 2000. “Drug Treatment Availability and Effectiveness, Studies of the General and Criminal Justice Populations.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 27(4): 495-528.

Malloch, Margaret 2004. “Missing out: Bender, drugs and justice.” The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice 51(4): 295-308.

Reinarman, Craig, and Levine, Harry G. 2004. “Crack in the Rearview Mirror: Deconstructing Drug War Mythology.” Social Justice 31(1/2): 182-199.

Robertson, Angela A., Baird-Thomas, Connie, and Stein, Judith A. 2008. “Child Victimization and Parental Monitoring as Mediators of Youth Problem Behaviors.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(6): 755-771.

Sung, Hung-En, and Richter, Linda 2007. “Rational Choice and Environmental Deterrence in the Retention of Mandated Drug Abuse Treatment Clients.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 51(6): 687-702.

Surratt, Hilary L., Inciardi, James A., Kurtz, Steven P., and Kiley, Marion C. 2004. “Sex Work and Drug Use in a Subculture of Violence.” Crime & Delinquency 50(1): 43-59.

Wikstrom, Per-Olof H., and Treiber, Kyle 2007. “The Role of Self-Control in Crime Causation, Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.” European Journal of Criminology 4(2): 237-264.

Wojtowicz, James P., Liu, Tongyin, and Hedgpeth, G. Wayne 2007. “Factors of Addiction, New Jersey Correctional Population.” Crime & Delinquency 53(3): 471-501.