University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effectiveness of criminal justice sanction strategies in the deterrence of drug offenders

(USC Thesis Other)

The effectiveness of criminal justice sanction strategies in the deterrence of drug offenders

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EFFECTIV N .SS OF CRIMI AL JUSTICE SA CTIO
STR TEGIES I THE DETERRENCE OF
DRUG OFFE DERS
by
Bruce 1 lan Butcher
Dissertation Presented to the
F CULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOUL
U IVERSITY OF SOUTHER CALIFOR I
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Sociology)
May 1975
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
Bruce A. Butcher
under the direction of h-1~---- Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its 1ne1nbers, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfill111ent of 1· quirenzcnts of
the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean
Date ____ _
.t
,J
TABLE OF CO TENTS
LIST OF TABLES
1
Chapter
I
II
III
IV
I TRODUCTIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses
Demographic Factors
Drug Offense Career Patterns
The Relationship of Drug
Use to Crime
METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Offense Career nalysis
nalysis of the Crime-Drug
Use Relationship
RESULTS .... . . . . . . . . . . .
Offense Career Analysis
DISCUSS IO AD CO CLUSIO S ... . . . .
Suggestions for Further Research
Page
111
1
20
36
48
REFERE CES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
1
Table
I
II
III
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Sanction Severity Category
Score Ranges ....... . . . . . . .
Offense Categor·es . . . . . . . . . . .
Regression Results - First Offense . . .
Regression Results - Second Offenses
l l
Page
23
24
36
39
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This research has been prompted by the national
need for a more effective drug abuse control policy.
Current prohibition of the distribution, sale, and
possession of drugs defined as dangerous has been
subjected to widespread criticism by responsible legal
and medical authorit·es (Kolb, 1962; Lindesmith, 1965;
Schur, 1962; ABA-AMA Joint Committee, 1961).
First, critics note that the prohibition policy,
with its primary reliance on punitive sanction, has failed
to stem a continual increase since World War II in the
prevalence and ;ncidence of drug abuse. Second, critics
have asserted that the criminalization of drug abuse
creates an artificial scarcity of the prohibited drugs,
driving up their cost and forcing those under the com
pulsion of addiction to resort to theft. This has the
effect of adding large numbers to the ranks of property
offenders. A further objection to the policy is that it
has effectively excluded the medical profession as a
means of control, inhibiting the development of knowledge
for the treatment and cure of addiction.
1
Implied in these criticisms is that drug abuse
~ould have been materially reduced during the past
several decades under an alternative policy of non
punitive response. At the least, it is suggested that
under some alternat·ve policy the drug abuse problem,
even if not materially reduced, would not have the re
lationship to property crime that it now has.
These claims remain hypothetical, however, as
possible negative consequences of any alternative control
polices remain unknown in the absence of historical ex
perience or experimental demonstration. Where reference
is made to the former, as in the case of British policy
(Schur, 1962), the objection is raised that the American
cultural context makes its successful adoption problem
atic. Regarding experimental demonstrations of the ef
fectiveness of non-punitive, rehabilitative programs
( yswander, 1956; Heyman, 1972), it is asserted that
study samples are biased in the direction of high proba
bilitv of favorable outcome.
,
2
In addition to the difficulties posed by a deficient
weight of evidence supportive of an alternative to the
prohibition policy, a further problem arises in assessing
the utility of the prohjbition approach. The extent to
which disapproved behavior is brought under the sanction
of the criminal justice system is not determined solely
3
by considerations of deterrent effectiveness. Invocation
of legal sanction also provides a satisfactory symbolic
expression of collective sentiment with respect to un
wanted behavior. Thu~, despite repeated demonstrations
of the ineffectiveness of punitive sanction in the con
trol of the so-called vice activities (Packer, 1968),
there remains massive reluctance to legalize such activ
ity. There is a need for adequate symbolic expression
of abhorrence for drug abuse that must be recognized in
any consideration of reducing or abandoning the use of
punitive sanction in control efforts.
To the extent that majority support is absent, how
ever, the need for such symbolic use of the criminal
sanction is reduced. In the case of the prohibition
policy in the United States respecting alcoholic
beverages, a sweeping prohibition policy was followed
by reversion to the more traditional forms of control
represented by the taxing and 1·censing power. That
situation seemed to demonstrate that in the absence of
a need for symbolic expression of disapproval, pragmatic
and utilitarian criteria tend to be adopted in devising
control policy.
There is, however, a limited similarity between
problems of alcohol and drug abuse control. AlcohoJ is
a s·ngle toxic substance whose characteristics and ef
fects are reasonably well known, and whose use has been
4
thoroughly conventionalized by the population. In the
case of drug abuse there exists a wide range of toxic
substances with varying characteristics, some of whose
long-run effects are little known, and whose use is only
minimally conventionalized. These facts make it unlikely
that any single control policy would be adequately re
sponsive to the differences between drugs in the conse
quences of their abuse (Blum, 1967).
This diversity of drug substances and their physio
logical, psychological, and social effects is a primary
source of much controversy regarding drug abuse control
policy. Enforcement personnel have tended to view all
prohibited drugs as posing the dangers inherent in those
that are drastically addictive. From this viewpoint,
mar1Juana is seen as an inevitable precursor to the use
of an addicting opiate, and hence requiring legal repres
sion. The opposing position sees the undesirable social
and psychological effects of the use of addicting drugs
as stemming primarily from the secondary effects of
criminal stigmatization and denies the alleged continuity
between the early use of non-addicting and the later use
of addicting drugs (Ball, Chambers and Ball, 1968). Im
plicit in this stance is the abandonment of the criminal
sanction in response to drug abuse. With respect to the
addicting opiates, it proposes to locate the cont~ol task
s
in the medical profession, as drug abuse is seen as a
physio-psychological affliction (ABA-AMA Joint Committee,
1961). Byrd (1970:212) notes that medical, psychiatric,
and clinical studies have found considerable association
between personal psychiatric disorders and malajustments
and drug use.
During the past several years, policy has evolved
to include several aspects of the "treatment" approach
without relinquishing the control inherent in the criminal
sanction. This development has encompassed the advent
of civil commitment laws in several states, the intro
duction of methadone maintenance programs on an experi
mental basis, and an increase in the number of addict
"self-help" programs of the Synanon variety. The current
situation can be characterized as an uneasy compromise
between opposing policy positions, as recently reflected
in the report of the President's Commission on Drug Abuse.
Their recommendation was to abandon the criminal penalty
for the use of prohibited drugs, but to retain it for
its illegal distribution and sale. This recommendation
was rejected by the Nixon administration, indicating a
persisting commitment to the validity of the prohibition
policy. Despite such commitment, experimentation with
a "treatment" approach is often manifested in the form
of maintenance programs with at least nominal require
ments of initial detoxification and subsequent testing
for freedom from heroin intake. The current stance thus
countenances the experimental testing of limited aspects
of a treatment approach without foregoing powers to
impose punitive sanction.
Current drug abuse control policy 1s thus imple
mented through three types of programs. First and
foremost among these is the enforcement of the r levant
laws. Enforcement has been the mainstay both in terms
of resource investment and expectation of control pay
off. The second type of program ·nvolves educating the
public, especially young persons, regarding the negative
effects of drug abuse. The third type of -rogram in
cludes several more or less experimental treatment ap
proaches such as detoxification-maintenance-testing,
civil commitment for purposes of addict rehabilitation,
and "self-help" procedures under both public and private
auspices.
This study concerns the first of these modes of
policy implementation. The effect of punitive sanction
in promoting the aim of control remains highly problem
atic, as little reliable information exists regarding
the consequences of recent drug control legislation.
It is uncertain whether, and to what extent, the
use of crim·nal sanction "locks in" the drug abuser to
a career of offense (Blum, 1967:77). Blum further nots
6
7
that the criminal law has many functions, one of which
is to promote a sense of community safety. To the extent
that the application of punitive sanction in fact re
duces public safety, impetus may be generated toward
altering current drug control law. Such impetus is
growing, as the state of the public safety is intertwined
with such negative factors such as the enrichment of or
ganized crime, the development of unconstitutional police
practices in drug abuse enforcement efforts, and dispro
portionate pressure put on minorities through enforcement
practices (Packer, 1968:151).
Hypotheses
This research attempts to delineate the effects of
the severity of sanctioning on several types of offenders,
for various initial offenses, and at the subsequent stages
of their drug offense careers. In the process, typical
drug offense career patterns will be noted and examined.
There is a dearth of evidence pertaining to the efficacy
of sanctioning strategies in the deterrence of drug of
fenders, but some evidence exists to suggest several hypo
theses .
The Deterrence of Specific Drug Users
Type of drug use is first difrerentiated as af
fecting the deterrent ab.lity of sanctioning. As heroin
8
s a physically addicting substance, its users are not
likely to b deterred, regardless of penalties for further
use. Despite drastic increases in the severity of
formal sanctions for h roin use, recidivism rates are
uniformly high for heroin addicts processed through
widely divergent tre~tment programs. A follow-up study
of 800 addicts found that 81.6 percent of them had re
lapsed w·thin the first year, 93.9 percent w·thin 3
years, and 96.7 percent within 5 years (Lindesmith, 1947:
49). Federal Hospitals at Lex·ngton and Fort Worth
report sim·lar rates for addicts treated in their pro
grams. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
dministration of Just·ce (1967:225-26) also concluded
that the relapse rate js high. Chambliss (1967:708) sug
gests that heroin addiction, like murder, is an "expres
sive" act--the act is committed as pleasurable in itself,
not as a route to another goal. This aspect of heroin ad
diction renders it relatively unaffected by the threat
or the imposition of punishment.
thesized that:
It is therefore hypo-
1. Recidivism severity for heroin use
offenders does not vary with the sanc
tioning severity for their offenses.
Marijuana users, on the other hand, are not under
the compulsion of physical addiction, but the motivation
or such use remains elusive. Much marijuana use is
tentative or perimental in nature . Other instances
of ·ts use can be seen as taking the orm of protest ,
or , to use Merton ' s terms , marijuana use is "non-con
forming" s opposed to " ab .,rrant" behavior (Merton and
9
·sbet, 1961 : 725-727). Many marijuan smokers challenge
th legitimacy of the norm prohibiting the use of the
drug . To thee tent that it ·s non-conforming, increased
sanctioning s verity w·11 be less effective as a deter
rant. This factor is perhaps instrumental in a steady
r1s in the inc·dence of marijuana use, despite unt·1
recently a general escalat·on in the severity of pre
scribed penalties for th·s offense. The Texas ma1 ·juana
laws are among the harshest in the world, but use of
m rijuana in Texas appear to be little di ferent from
the rest of the country (Texas Senate Int rim Drug
Study Committee, 1972). The weight of ev·dence then
suggests that :
2. Rec·divism severity for mar1Juana use
offenders does not vary with the
sentencing severity for the · r offenses.
Dangerous drug us
(i . e ., use of barbiturates,
amphetam·nes , LSD , DMT , and other hallucinogens) is again
often experimental in nature . Further , many users of
hallucinogins seek a "mystical experience" through th s
drugs (Byrd , 1970 : 151) , and the existence of non-crim·nal
alternat · ves to ach · eve th·s nd may d ter in the face of
10
increasing sanctioning severity. However, as defined
in the California Health and Safety Codes, "d ngerous
drugs'' ·ncludes amphetamines and barbiturates, as well
as the halluc·nogens, making it impossible to analyze
them as separate entities. The inclusion of amphetamines
and barbiturates in the dangerous drug clas ification
lessens the possibility of a £"rm conclusion in this in
stance, as physical ddiction can occur with these drugs,
making deterrence unlikely. An assessment of these fac
tors leads to a further hypothesis:
3. Recidivism severity for dangerous drug
use offenders varies inversely with the
sanctioning severity for their offenses.
Peyote is once again used experimentally and is
often sought by those pursuing a "mystical experience."
For these reasons, it is asserted that:
4 . Recidivism severity for peyote use of
fenders varies inversely with the sanc
tioning severity for their offenses.
Blum (1971) found that arrest looms largest as the
reason for quitting drug dealing. Thus, it is hypothe
sized that:
5. Recidivism severity for drug sellers
varies inversely with the sanctioning
severity for their offenses.
11
Demographic Factors
Sex and ethnicity also have bearing on the deterrent
capabilities of sanctioning. Female offenders in general
have long been seen as less likely to recidivate.
This tendency may result from the finding of social
psychologists that females can be influenced to conform
by the remainder of their group to a greater degree than
can males (Gerard, Wilhelmy, and Conolley, 1968:79-82).
Or, women may have a greater "stake in conformity" than
men, to use Jackson Toby's (1957) term. With a greater
stake in conformity, family and job commitments dictate
a need for acceptance by the dominant groups 1n society.
Women may more keenly feel the "disgrace" of sanctioning
and be more inclined to beg for another chance, which
they will be less likely to abuse. By the same token,
wh·te non-addicts could be expected to have a greater
stake in conformity than their non-white counterparts.
These possibilities yield the following hypotheses:
6. The recidivism level for females using
drugs other than heroin will be less than
that for males with the same initial of
fenses and sanctioning severity.
7. The recidivism level for whites using
drugs other than heroin will be less
than that for non-whites with the same
initial offenses and sanctioning
severity.
It has also been noted that the earlier the age of
first drug use, the greater the potential for recidivism
(White House Conference, 1962:153). This suggests:
8. Recidivism severity for older offenders
using drugs other than heroin will be less
than that £or younger offenders with the
same initial offenses and sanctioning
severity.
Drug Offense Career Patterns
Predictions concernjng drug offense careers must
be tempered by the lack of clear evidence pointing to
specific career patterns. It is asserted by many pro-
12
ponents of a prohibition policy regarding mariJuana that
mariJuana use is the initial step on a road leading to
progressively "harder" drugs, terminating in opiate ad
diction. Johnson (1971), however, noted that the
marijuana-hard drug relationship is contingent upon
having friends who use hard drugs. It was found that
among the heavy cannabis users studied (used once per
week or more), only 5 percent of those with no heroin
using friends but 49 percent of those with intimate heroin
using friends had themselves used heroin.
Byrd (1970:137) describes the typical amphetamine
addict as starting with marijuana and then moving to
amphetamines. Rockwell and Ostwald (1968), in a study
conducted at the Langley-Porter Neuropsychiatric Insti
tute of San Francisco, observed that marijuana had been
used by more than 50 percent of the patients in whose
I
urine amphetamines had been found , and more than 30 per
cent of this group reported using hallucinogens. How
ever , the temporal ordering of the drug use was not in
vestigated .
13
Cumberlidge (1968), 1n a study of 30 heroin addicts
at the arcot·c Addiction Foundat·on of British Columbia
1n Vancouver , noted that the subjects tended to resort
to barbiturate use when heroin was unavailable. Barb·t
urates were used primarily for heavy sedation during
heroin withdrawal, or to reduce feelings of inadequacy ,
loneliness, tension, anxiety, and guilt. In general, it
lwas found that heroin addiction began before barbiturate
!addiction or those presently using both drugs. Bewley
(1970) also found
tendency toward the intravenous use
of barbiturates when heroin was unavailable. Glatt
(1968), in a study conducted at St. Bernard' llospital
in 1iddlesex, England , found that methylamphetamine \as
often used as a substitute by heroin addicts when heroin
became subject to ·ncreased restrictions .
In contrast to these findings, Williams (1969), in
another study conducted at the Narco.tic Addiction Founda
t ion of British Columbia , noted that the commonest drugs
used before heroin were alcohol and the barbiturates .
Cockett (1971) , in a 1969-1970 study of 495 drug users
in ngland , found that those who began tak · ng ampheta
mines were more likely to progress to opi tes and
14
intravenous use of drugs than were those who began use
with cannabis.
Clearly the mixed bag of results described fails to
delineate a modal temporal ordering of drug use. There
is little evidence at hand to dictate a fixed path of
offense career for the drug abuser. There are, however,
studies pointing to an eventual escalat·on to heroin
use from the initial use of other proscribed drugs.
Ball, Chambers and Ball (1968), in their study of addict
patients at Lexington and Fort Worth, concluded that
marijuana is a precusor to opiate addiction. Schur
(1962) and Becker (1963) assert that this may be true
in certain cases, when marijuana purchasers encounter
opiate peddlers and develop favorable attitudes toward
opiate use. Inciardi and Chambers (1971), in a study
of thirty-eight male addicts assigned to the ew York
Narcotic Addiction Control Commission (NACC) for treat
ment , observed that marijuana was the first drug for the
majority of subjects, and heroin eventually became the
primary drug of addiction for the entire sample. Glaser,
Inciardi, and Babst (1969), in another study involving
NACC addicts, similarly concluded that mar1Juana use 1s
predictive of later heroin use by male New York City slum
youths , most of whom were minority group members . Pro
gression from marijuana to heroin may thus be a function
I
of the extent of heroin use in the area under study, and
the general.zing of results to other populations must be
made with caution. Langrod (1969), in a study of 422
15 I
'
male heroin users in six different treatment facilities 1n
ew York State, found that 77 percent of the respondents
first used mar·juana before heroin.
Argument contrary to these findings 1s contained in
a report pre ented to the California legislature, under
taken to study the state's drug laws and to suggest re
visions (Kaplan , 1970). The authors concluded that mar1-
Juana use delays or prevents the move to heroin. In a
study of 200 marijuana users, Goode (1969) found that the
proportion who had taken heroin was only 13 percent. In
a study of 866 juveniles arrested for marijuana use in
Los Angeles, a four to six year follow-up yielded only
12.1 percent of the sample with later violations for
opiat~ use (Roberts, 1967; Polansky, et al, 1967).
Robins and Murphy (1967) both interviewed and followed up
in official records 235 black males. Forty-seven percent
of these men admitted using marijuana at some time, but
of these, only 21 percent admitted to subsequent use of
heroin.
A clear pattern emerges from these findings. In
those instances where a sample of marijuana users is
the starting point for a study, later follow-ups indicate
16
a relatively low incidence of subsequent hero·n use. On
the other hand, those studies working backward from a
sample of heroin addicts indicate m~r·juana as a precusor
to opiate add.ct·on. The only exception to this pattern
is the finding of the Glaser, et al (1969) study, where
a follow-up of mariJuana users indicated that a high per
centage had escalated to heroin. As po·nted out there,
these studies of slum arrestees should not be generalized
to non-arre~tees who comprise the bulk of mar·juana users,
according to recent G llup polls. Further, the February,
1972 Gallup poll found that while 51 percent of the col
lege students polled had tried marijuana, only 2 percent
had ever tried heroin (Gallup Poll Index, Report o. 80,
February, 1972).
1
With this difference in magnitude in
the incidence of marijuana use and the incidence of
heroin use, progression from marijuana to heroin seems
minimal.
The hypothesis then becomes:
9. The incidence of marijuana use followed by
heroin use does not differ from the incidence
of heroin use followed by marijuana use in
the temporal ordering of offenses.
The role of seller of illict drugs appears to have
changed considerably in recent years . Formerly portrayed
1
The present study includes all arrestees in Cali
fornia over a given per·od, thus allowing a w·der gen ral
·zation of results.
17
as a stranger with strong underworld ties , the seller has
come to be more typically a friend of the purchaser. The
image of the pusher st~ll endures--luring people under
his influence and then entrapping them with drugs against
their strong st wishes. The role of pusher now rotates
among a group of users, however, as each takes a turn
at obtaining and distributing the drug (Proceedings:
White House Conference on arcotic and Drug Abuse, 1962:
294). It is then hypothesized that:
10. The incidence of drug use followed by
drug sales is greater than the incidence
of drug sales followed by drug use 1n
the temporal ordering of offenses.
Moreover, Johnson (1971) noted a tendency for sellers of
mariJuana to be more likely to try harder drugs eventu
ally than users who do not sell, as the selling of can
nabis is indicative of a relatively heavy involvement
in the illicit drug subculture. Thus, the selling of
cannabis, more than its use, is the basic factor deter
mining intimate friendships with heroin users, leading
to eventual heroin use . This suggests the hypothesis
that:
11. The incidence of mariJuana sales followed
by heroin use is greater than the incidence
of heroin use followed by marijvaDa sales
in the temporal ordering of offenses.
'
I
18
The Relationship of Drug Use to Crime
For most narcotic addicts , predatory crime such as
larceny , shoplifting , sneak thievery , burglary , embezzle
ment , robbery , etc., is a necessary way of life (Fine
stone , 1957 ; ABA-AMA Joint Committee , 1961). Shut ,
Wohlmuth and File (1972) , studying 87 male heroin addicts
entering a methadone maintenance program in Philadelphia,
found that 31 percent supported themselves through il
legal activities prior to entering the program. Plair
and Jackson (1970) , reporting on black male heroin ad-
diets in the District of Columbia , found that 80 percent
of the addicts derived their primary income from criminal
activities. Chambers and Inciardi (1971) found that
among the female addicts studied, some one-third had com
mitted burglaries and some one-third had committed armed
robberies and/or muggings.
that:
It is therefore hypothesized
12 . Crimes of predation occur more often in
drug offeise careers including heroin use
than in those drug offense careers ex
cluding heroin use.
Another persistent fear voiced by the public is
that violent criminals such as murderers and rapists
take drugs to give them courage or stamina to perpetrate
acts which they might not commit when not drugged .
While drug addicts may , on occasion , commit vi olent
-
c imes, most crimes comm·tted by opiate addicts are
of a parasitic, predatory non-violent char'cter (Fine
stone, 1957; ABA-AMA Joint Comm·ttee, 1961). Moreover,
the taking of opiate drugs in large doses tends to
discourage violent crime, reducing sexual desire and
changing addicts into non-aggressive idlers (Maurer and
Vogel, 1954; 216-217). The hypothes·s here becomes:
13. Crimes of a violent nature occur eq l lly
often in drug offense careers including
and exclud·ng hero·n use.
In the same vein, a government report found no evidence
that marijuana use is associated with violent cri1ae
19
(Task Force Report: arcotics ~nd Drug Abuse, 1967:13).
Rather, ·twas concluded that the response depends more
on the individual than the drug. It is then hypothesized:
14. Crimes of a v·olent nature occur equally
often in drug offense careers including
and excluding marijuana use.
CHAPTER II
4ETHODS
Probably the most complete and detailed arrest
statistics on drug law violators, specific to a given
region, are compiled by the California Bureau of Criminal
Statistics. The similarity of California's metropolitan
centers to those of other states suggests that the charac
teristics of its drug abuse population generally reflect
lthose of arrested drug abusers in all metropolitan centers
of the nation. The data employed in this study were taken
from arrest statistics compiled by the California Bureau
of Criminal Statistics during the years 1964-1965, num-
bering some 19,000 offenders. Included are the date of
arrest, the nature of the offense, the age, sex, and
ethnicity of the offender, the disposition and sentencing
for each arrest, and similar data for subsequent offenses
for each individual during a period of 2 years following
the initial arrest, with offenses listed in chronological
order. Only drug offenses are listed, with the exception
of those instances where the initial charge was a drug
offense, but the final charge was ~ome more serious non
drug offense. The inclusion of these offenses allows a
20
21
measure of the association of predation and violent crime
with drug use. To en ure comparability, only adult of
fenders with no prior criminal records were employed in
the analyses.
It should be emphasized at the outset that this
research employs arrest records as indicators of the
incidence of actual drug abuse. Thus, the findings must
be qualified by the extent to which arrest records re
flect the actual incidence of drug abuse.
Sanction se~erity is measured for each offender in
terms of the possible outcomes of court action, with the
!various contingencies weighted to reflect their differ
ential severity. At the pie-trial or municipal court
level, the arrestee can be released or found guilty as
charged. In the event of conviction for a misdemeanor,
sentencing takes place at the municipal court. On the
other hand, felony offenders are sentenced at the superior
court level, as are those individuals for which felony
charges were sustained at the municipal court level but
were not upheld at the superior court level, resulting
in a misdemeanor conviction.
Sanction severity points accrue as follows, in a
scheme suggested by Kobrin, et al (1972):
Release at municipal court level= 0
Conviction for misdemeanor= 3
Conviction for felony= 4
For sent nc1ng, points are added 1n th·s fashion:
F·ne only= 0
Probation only= 1
Ja·1 and Probation= 2
J il only= 3
CRC
1
or Youth Authority
2
= 4
State Prison= S
22
It was necessary to calculate the sanction severity
core for each ind·vidual offender i thi fashion to
determine the level of sanction severity for that offen
der, s offenders are grouped by their level of sanct·on
ev rity as shown in Table I. Here, division points for
the s groups were determ·ned by the distribution of
off nders over the total range, as the groups were con
structed such that each group contains as nearly equal
number of offender~ as possible.
1
Californ·a Rehab"litation Center - A State
facility for the treatment of drug addicts.
2
0ffenders over 18 can be sent need to the Youth
Authority in Californ·a at the d"scret·on o the court.
TABLET
Sanction Severity Category Score Ranges
Sanction Severity
Category
SSl
SS2
SS3
SS4
sss
SS6
Sanction Score
Range
0
0-3
4
5
6-8
9
Thus, an individual conv·cted of a misdemeanor
and g ven a fine only would accrue three total po·nts
and fall into anction sev rity category 2, while con
viction for a felony drug offen e with a sentence of
jail and probation y·elds six total points and sanction
severity category 5.
23
n overall index for the measurement of sanction
is then calcul ted by summing the po·nts accumulated for
each offender. The deterrent effectiveness of the sanc
tioning severity ·s measured in terms of recidivism
level , which is calculated through an index in which
po·nts accumulate for ach subsequent offense in the
following manner :
Arrest for a misd meanor = 1
Conviction for a misdemeanor= 2
Arrest for a felony= 2
Conviction fo,
Release= 0
~felony= 3
24 l
The various contingencies are arbitrarily weighted such
that those arrested and convicted for a felony are as
signed twice the recidivism level score of those arrested
and convicted for a misdemeanor. A ratio of five to three
applies to those arrested for felonies and misdemeanors,
respectively, and then released. Such wejghtings are
intended to reflect the differential seriousness of
I felony and misdemeanor offenses. Total recidivism level
then equals the sum of these points accumulated for all
offenses committed in a two-year period following the
initial offense.
Dummy Regression Analysis
Drug offenses were broken down into seven offense
categories as indicated in Table II:
TABLE II
Offense Categories
Offens·e Category
heroin possession
mariJuana possession
Offenses Incorporated
heroin possession
mariJuana possession
Offense Category
p yote poss ss·on
possess·on of
d ngerous drugs
3
sal of heroin
or peyote
sale of mar JU na
Table II - continued
Offenses Incorporated
peyote possessicn
possess·on of dangerous drugs;
dr·ving under the influence
of dangerous drugs; posses
sion of paraphernalia;
visiting premises where
narcotics are used; pre
scription v·olations
possess·on of heroin for sale;
sale of heroin or peyote;
furnishing a minor with
hero·n, ma·ntaining a place
for heroin; sale in 1·eu of
heroin; illegal ·mportation
of hero·n ·nto the U ..
sale o mar1Juana; possession
of marijuana for sale; use
of a m·nor to dispense mari
juana; maintaining a place
for marijuana; sale in lieu
of marijuana; 1·ability of
owner of vehicle used to
carry mar1Juana
25
sale of dangerous drugs
sale of dangerous drugs; sale
in lieu of dangerous drugs;
possession of dangerous drugs
for sale; use of a minor to
dispense dangerous drugs;
smuggling dang rous drugs
into the U.S.; bringing dang
erous drugs into jail ; fur
nishing dangerous drugs
3
"Dangerous drugs" as defined in the California
Bealth and Safety Code 11901 ·s a residual category con
ta·ning those drugs deemed harmful other than heroin,
mar·juana er peyot , notably amphetam·nes , barbiturates,
and hallucinog ns sch as LSD.
A step-wise dummy regression analysis was then
carried out on all first offenders with recidivism
26
!level as the dependent variable and type of offense ,
age~ sex , race , and sanction severity as the independent
variables. Age was trichotomized to include offenders
aged 18-24 , 25-34 , and 35 and over . Race was dichoto
mized to include white and non-white offenders.
The comparison offender ( S
0
) for the dummy regres-
1s1on was chosen to be 18-24, white, male , a heroin user,
and falling into sanction severity c3.tegory one. The
I
regression equation thus became:
Recidivism= s
0
+ s
1
(25-34) + D z (35+) + s
3
(non
white + s
4
(female) + s
5
(SS2) + s
6
(SS3) + s
7
(SS4)
+
Sg
(SS 5)
+
Sg
(SS6)
+
S10
(marijuana possession)
+
S11
(possession of dangerous drugs)
+
S12
(peyote possession)
+
S13
(sale of heroin or peyote)
+
S14
(sale of marijuana)
+
S1s
(sale of dangerous drugs).
In this equation , s
0
represents the mean recidivism
score for the comparison offender , and s
1
-s
15
represent
the mean recidivism scores for the indicated types of
first offenders . The beta weights were then interpreted
as representing comparisons of the means for the various
types of offenders with the comparison offenders . In
this manner , the effect of the demographic variables ,
-
27
sanction severity, nd offense type on rec·d·v·sm sever-
ty was assessed.
s·milar dummy regression analysis was then carr·ed
out on s cond-time offenders, w·th the second offense
•
types and sanctions verit· s as addit·onal independent
variabl s. This analysis was undertaken to ascertain
the add·t·onal effects of previous s nction and type of
offense on r c·divism. The followin regression equation
wa used in this instanc :
Recidivism= Bo+ B
1
(25-34) + B
2
(35+) + B
3
(non
(third offense on)
wh·te) + B
4
(female)+ Bs (SSl-2)
4
+ B
6
(SSl-3) + B
7
(SSl-4) + B
8
(SSl-5) + Bg (SSl-6) + B
10
(mar·juana pos
session on 1st offense) + s
11
(possession of dangerous
drugs on 1st offense) + B
12
(peyote possess·on on 1st
offense) + s
13
(sal of h roin or peyote on 1st offense)
+ B
14
(sale of marijuana on 1st offense) + B
15
(sale of
dangerous drugs on 1st offense) + B
16
(SS2-2) + B
17
(SS2-
3) + B
18
(SS2-4) + B
19
(SS2-5) + B
20
(SS2-6) + B
21
(mari
juana possession on 2nd offense) + B
22
(poss ss on of
dangerous drugs on 2nd offense) + s
23
(peyote possession
on 2nd offense) + B
24
(sal of h ro·n or peyote on 2nd
4
Indicates sanction sever·ty for the f·rst offense,
2nd severity level.
offense)+ s
25
(sale of mariJuana on 2nd offense) + s
26
(sale of dangerous drugs on 2nd offense) .
•
28
Here, s
0
represents the mean recidivism score for
the comparison offender, in this instance a white male,
18-24, arrested for heroin use for both the first and
second offenses, and falling into sanction severity cate
gories SSl-1 and SS2-l. The beta weights were then in
terpreted as in the analys·s for first offenders.
Offense Career nalysis
The hypotheses respecting the temporal ordering of
' offenses in drug careers were tested in the following
manner. To test the hypothesis pertaining to the
ordering of mariJuana use and heroin use, all relevant
permutations of marijuana use (M), heroin use (H), and
the five other types of drug use or sale (0) were
examined. Only chains of two or three offenses in length
could be used, as too few offenders had more than three
offenses to provide a meaningful analysis at that level.
Possib]e permutations involving M, H, and Oare the fol
lowing:
HM Ordering
HM
HHM
HMM
MH Ordering
MH
MHM
MMH
--
H1 Ordering
H 1H
OHM
HOM
HMO
MH Ordering
MHH
MOH
OMH
MHO
In these orderings , 0 offenses were treated as
though they were non-existent in the determination of
- H order . In the ins tan c e of the p e rmu tat ions 1H~ I and
ili1H , the ordering was considered to be determined by the
'
; firs t off ens e rather th an the second ; that is , 1HM fa 11 s
into the 1H ordered group and HMH falls into the IlM
I
ordered group.
Next, the size of each total sample which can pos
l s ib ly contain HI and HM orderings was calculated. The
I total sample from which MH orderings can be drawn was
found in the following manner:
NMH = all 2 letter permutations starting with½+
all 3 letter permutations starting with M +
all 3 letter permutations starting with OM
For HM orderings:
NHM = all 2 letter permu tat.ions starting with H +
all 3 lettei. permutations starting with H +
all 3 letter permutations starting with OH
29
30
Proportions were then calculated by summ ng the incidences
of HM and MH orderings and dividing by the respective
sample sizes. The number of indivjduals falling into
the seven HM ordered categories were summed and divided
by NHM' and those falling into the seven MH categories
were divided by NMH. The two proportions can then be
compared by a two-sample test for difference of propor-
1 tions. The two compared proportions become:
sum of MH
orderings
NMH
and
sum of HM
orderings
HM
The difference of proportions test was accomplished as
follows:
A A A
where Ps. = proportion for sample 1
i
and Ps. = proportion for sample 2
i
A
since
=
A
1 . 00 - p
u
th
at hand.
A
z =
31
is obta·nable from the information
(P
-
p
)
-
0
sl s2
A
a
p -
Ps
sl
2
Z scores were then e -amined to see if the null hypothes·s
of no difference betwe n the proport·ons can be rejected.
In a im·lar fashion, the hypoth sis ·nvolving drug
use and drug sales orderings allowed the following pos-
1 sible permutations, wh re U=use and S=sa es.
US Ord ring
us
usu
uus
USS
SU Ordering
SU
SUS
ssu
suu
As the seven offense categories employed in the analysis
form a use/sal dichotomy, the permutations containing
0 can be deleted in this instance .
The total sample from which US ordering c n be
drawn became :
NUS= all 2 letter pr utat·ons starting with U +
all 3 lett r permutat·ons start:ng with U
For SU ord rings:
SU
= all 2 1 tter permutat·ons starting w·th S +
all 3 letter permutat·ons starting with S
32
The two proportions compared in the d.f erence o propor
tions test w re:
sum of US
orderings
u
nd
sum of SU
orderings
SU
For the hypothesis pertain·ng to mar JU na sales
and heroin use orderings, the following permutations are
I possible, where U=hero·n use, S=marijuana sale , and
O=all other drug use or sales offense :
SU Ordering
us Order·ng
SU
us
SUS
usu
ssu
uus
suu
USS
sou
ous
osu
uos
suo
USO
The total sample fro which SU order·ngs can be
drawn was :
SU
and
us
= all 2 letter pe1mutations starting with S +
all 3 letter permutations start·ng with S +
all 3 lett r permutations starting with OS
= all 2 letter per utations starting with U +
all 3 letter permutat·on tarting with U +
all 3 letter permutations starting w·th OU
The ti c c rr. r d pro ort ions were:
sum of SU
ordering~
SU
and
sum of US
orderings
us
sis of the Crime-Drug Use Relationshjp
33
This analysis examines the incidence of crimes of a
violent nature and crimes of predation in the criminal
careers of drug offenders. Crimes of predation were de
fined as encompassing robbery, burglary, and theft (both
auto theft and other types of theft). Violent crimes in
cluded homicide, rape, assault , and assault with a deadly
weapon. In examining the occurrence of crimes of preda-
tion among heroin users and non-heroin using drug of
fenders, the following proport·ons were established:
I
-------
1) all individuals with both predation offenses
and heroin use offenses in their criminal careers
all individuals with heroin use offenses
iD their criminal careers
34
2) all individuals with both predation offenses and non
heroin use drug offenses in their criminal careers
all individuals with non-heroin use drug offenses
in their criminal careers
A difference of proportions test was then carried
out, and the Z score was then examined to determine if
the null hypothesis of no difference between the propor-
tions can be rejected.
For violent crimes, proportions were set up thusly:
1) all individuals with both violent crimes and heroin
use offenses in their criminal careers
all individuals with heroin use offenses in their
criminal careers
2) all individuals with both violent crimes and non
heroin use drug offenses in their criminal careers
all individuals with non-heroin use drug
offenses in their criminal careers
3) all individuals with both violent crimes and
marijuana use offenses in their criminal careers
all individuals with marijuana use offenses in
their criminal careers
4) all individurtls with both violent crimes and non-
marijuana use drug offenses in their criminal careers
all individuals with non-mariJuana use drug
offenses in their criminal careers
-
35
Proportions (1) and (2) were then compared by means
of the d.ff rence of proportions test to test hypothesis
13, and proportions (3) and (4) were compared 1n a s1m1-
lar fashion to test hypothesis 14.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Table III presents the results of the step-wise
dummy regression analysis with recidivism as the de
pendent variable, and sanction level, type of offense,
age, sex, and race as the independent variables.
Sanction Severity-5 is not listed, as it adds too little
I additional explained variance (in terms of adding to R
2
)
1 to warrant inclusion in the regression equation.
TABLE III
Regression Results - First Offenses
Independent Variable
Age 35+
Sale of mariJuana
1ari j uana use
Sale of dangerous drugs
Dangerous drug use
Sale of heroin or peyote
Sanction severity - 6
36
Cumulative
R2
.003
.004
.006
.007
.007
.008
.008
.008
Beta
Weight
-0.055
-0 . 081
-0.104
-0.037
-0.043
-0 .0 70
-0 .01 9
-0.013
37
TABLE III - continued
Cumulative Beta
Independent Var
.
able
R2
W~ight
Sanction severity
-
2 .008 0 .01 5
Sanction everity
-
4 .009 0.012
Age 25-34 .009 0.006
Peyote use .009 -0.004
Sanction sev rity
-
3 .009 0.004
on-white .009 -0.003
An examination of the beta weights in Table III indicates
that the mean recidivism scores for the variables differ
only slightly from the mean recidivism of the comparison
offender, aged 18-24, white, male, a heroin user, and
falling into sanction sever·ty - 1. Each b ta weight is
equal to the difference between the mean of the given
group and the mean r cid.vism for the comparison offen
der. Particularly noteworthy is the effect of anction
severity , which has almost no effect on recidivism, with
beta weights varying from 0 .01 5 for sanction severity - 2
to -0 .01 3 for sanction-severity - 6 . The beta weights
for marijuana sales and marijuana use are the largest
in evidence ·n the table, indicating relatively less re
cidivism for these offenses in general , but are neverthe
less very small in magnitud, particularly in view of th
large possible range for recidivism. Recidiv·sm for of
fenders aged 35+ and females are very slightly lower in
general, but the total effect of age, sex, and race is
almost nil. Overall, the table shows that all of the
variables together explain less than 1 percent of the
variance in recidivism. The findings are in 1·ne with
the hypotheses for marijuana and heroin use offenders,
but fail to support the remaining hypotheses pertaining
to drug use and sales.
38
Table IV presents the results of the step-wise
dummy regression analysis with recidivism subsequent to
the second offense as the dependent variable, and sanc
tion severity on the first offense, sanction severity on
the second offense, type of offense on the first of ense,
type of offense on the second offense, age, sex, and race
as the independent variables. Sanction severity - 1 -
six (i.e., the sanct·on severity for the first offense,
sixth level of severity) and peyote use - first offense
are not listed, as they add too little additional ex
plained variance (in terms of adding to R
2
) to warrant
inclusion in the regression equation.
TABLE IV
Regression Results - Second Offenses
Independent Variable
Sanction severity - 1 - two
1
Age 25-34
Sanction severity - 2 - six
on-white
1arijuana sales - 2nd offense
Dangerous drug use - 1st offense
1
Sanction severity - 2 - two
Sanction everity - 1 - three
Sale of heroin or peyote - 2nd off.
Dangerous drug use - 2nd offense
Sale of Dangerous drugs - 2nd off.
1arijuana use - 2nd offense
Sanction severity - 1 - five
Sanction severity - 1 - four
Sanction severity - 2 - five
1arijuana use - 1st offense
Sale of dangerous drugs - 1st off.
1arijuana sales - 1st offense
Age 35+
Female
Sale of heroin or peyote - 1st off.
Cumulative
R2
• 0 2
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.05
• 0 S
. 0 S
• 0 5
.05
• 0 5
. 0 5
• 0 5
. 0 5
Beta
Weight
0.106
0.100
-0.042
-0.052
-0.073
-0.001
-0.033
-0.038
-0.076
-0.083
-0.046
-0.034
-0.026
-0.024
-0.024
-0.068
-0.033
-0.034
0.020
-0.017
-0.013
39 I
TABLE IV
-
continued
Cumulative Beta
Independent Variabl
R2
Weight
Peyote use - 2nd offense .05 0.009
Sanction severity
-
2
-
four . 05 0.006
Sanction severity
-
2 three . 0 5 -0.004
1
Indicates for the first offense, 2nd level of
severity.
Again, an examination of the beta weight show
little relationship between the recidivism and the inde-
pendent variables. Ing neral, th beta weights in this
40
analysis are larger than those in the analysis of the re
cidivism of first offenders, and overall, the independent
variables explain about 5 percent of the variance in
recidivism. Sanct·on everity has little impact on re
cidivism, with beta weights ranging from a high of 0.106
for sanction severity - 1 - two to -0.042 for sanction
severity - 2 - six. Th·s again indicates very weak re
lationships between sanct·on severity for first and
second offenses and recidivism , in view of the large
possible range for recidivism scores. Age 25-34 and non
white beta wights are slightly low r than for the 18-24
white comparison offender, but th other de~ographic vari
ables produce 1·ttle change . Thre types of second of
fenders , marijuanas llers, heroin nd peyote sell rs,
41
and dangerous drug users, r gardless of the·r first of-
fenses, t nded to have slightly lower rec·d·vism severity
than the compar·son offender who was arrested for heroin
u e in both f·rst and second offenses. The largest of
the beta wights ·n Table I ·s still very small, however,
and little support for the hypotheses is in evidence,
w·th the exception of the hypotheses pertaining to mar·
juana and herein use offend rs, which are again supported.
Offense Career nalysi
For th hypothesi respecting mar1Juana and hero·n
u e, th ums of HM nd 1H orderings w re:
HM = 26 1H = 27
IIHM = 0 1H1 1 = 3
II 1H = 0 f\.Ilv1H = 2
IIMM = 2 1OH = 3
OH = 2 0 1H = 26
IIOM = 5 MHO = 5
HMO --
4 MHH = 3
sum of HM orderings = 39 sum of MH orderings = 69
The number of 2 letter permutations starting with M=809.
The number of 3 1 t+er permutations starting with =134 .
The number of 3 letter permutations startin with OM=66 .
Thus , NMH = 809 + 134 + 66 = 1 , 009
42
The number of 2 letter permutations starting with H=l73 .
The number of 3 letter permutations starting with H=45 .
The number of 3 letter permutat ons starting with OH=34.
Then,
HM
= 173 + 45 + 34 = 252
For MH orderings we obtain:
sum of MH ordering
MH
nd for H1 ordering :
sum of IIM orderings
1
IIM
=
=
69
1,009
39
252
=
0.068
= 0.155
Comparing these proportions, Z = -4.35. The one-tailed
p of Z ~ -4.35 = < .00003 so we may reject the H
0
at the
.05 level of no significant difference between the two
proportions. We conclude that the proportion of those
beginning their drug offense career with a heroin use
o fense going on to marijuana use later is significantly
greater than the proportion of those beginning with mari
Juana and later turning to heroin use .
This finding thus fails to support the hypothesis
of no difference between the two orderings . Such a result
may indic te that the police monitor the act·vities of
known heroin us rs , significantly increasing the proba
bil"ty of their be·ng arrested for any subsequent
43
mar1Juana use. For these offenders, marijuana use before
an arrest for heroin use would be more likely to go unde
tected. Alternatively, the greater proportion for heroin
marijuana orderings could result from the tendency of
heroin addicts to resort to other drugs when heroin is
unobtainable. When heroin becomes scarce through police
crack-downs on pushers, or cost becomes a factor, mar1-
l juana provides a far less costly and more readily avail
able alternative, although by no means completely satis
fies the addict's craving for heroin.
For the hypothesis involving drug use and sales, the
sums of US and SU orderings were:
us= 320
usu= 31
uus = 34
USS= 16
SU= 206
SUS= 11
ssu = 6
suu = 33
sum of US orderings= 401 sum of SU orderings= 256
The number of 2 letter permutations starting with U = 2,027
The number of 3 letter permutations starting with U = 432.
and NUS= 2 , 027 + 432 = 2 , 459
The number of 2 letter permutations starting with S~295.
The number of 3 letter permutations starting with S=53.
[d _ N _s _u _ = _ z _g _s _ + _ s _3 _ = _ 3 _4 _8 _________________ _
Thus:
and
sum of US ord rings
Nus
=
401
2,459
=
44
0.163
sum of SU orderings
N U
256
348
0.736
= =
Comparing the two proportions, Z = 30 .00. The one-tailed
p of Z < 30.00 = < .00003, so the II
0
at the .05 level
can be rejected. It is concluded that the proportion
beginning with drug sales with later arrests for drug use
is significantly greater than the proportion beginning
with drug use with subsequent arrests for drug sales.
This finding contradicts the hypothesis that use
precedes sales. gain, this pattern may result from
police monitoring of known drug pushers, increasing the
probability of their arrest or subsequent offenses. The
seriousness of drug sales relative to drug use also makes
arrest for sales more likely. This could serve to jumble
the temporal orderings of arrests in an offense career by
causing sales to occur irst. Further, if use does pre
cede sales, it is 1·kely to cont·nue during and after
sales activ"ties, which could result in use arrests sub
s quent to sal s.
45
For the hypothesis perta n ng to mar1Juana sales and
heroin use, the sums of SU and US orderings w re:
SU = 6 us = 7
SUS = 0 usu = 0
ssu = 0 uus = 0
suu = 1 USS = 0
sou = 0 ous = 1
osu = 3 uos = 2
suo = 1 USO = 1
of SU orderings 11 of us order
.
11 sum = sum ngs =
The number of 2 letter permutations starting with S=l47.
The number of 3 letter permutations start·Dg with S=21.
The number of 3 letter permutations starting with OS=l8.
and SU= 147 + 21 + 18 = 186
The number of 2 letter permutations starting with U=l73.
The number of 3 letter permutations starting with U=45.
The number of 3 letter permutations starting with OU=43.
and NUS= 173 + 45 + 43 = 261
Thus:
sum of SU orderings
Nsu
=
11
186
=
0.059
and
sum of US orderings
Nus
=
11
261
=
46 l
0.042
For these proportions Z = 0.81. The one-tailed p of Z
> .81 = .209; thus, at the .OS leve
1
, we cannot reject
1-
the H
0
of no significant aifference between the two pro-
portions. It is concluded that there is no significant
difference between the proportion initially arrested for
marijuana sales with subsequent heroin use and the pro
lportion initially arrested for heroin use and later
I
arrested for marijuana sales.
This finding fails to support the hypothe~is that
the proportion for the ordering marijuana saleJ-heroin
use is greater than the proportion for the ordering
heroin use-marijuana sales. This finding, however, must
be interpreted in view of the small observed sums for the
US and SU orderings (11 versus 11). Barring consider
ations of sample size , there may be some indication of
heroin users selling marijuana to support their habit ,
further mitigating any difference in the size of the two
proportions .
It was not possible to investigate the hypotheses
relating to drug use and violent crime and predation , as
the coding ~or the offenses or violent crime~ and
47
predation were garbled on the orig·nal data tape obtained
from the Cal·forn·a Bureau of Criminal Stat·stics.
CH PTER IV
DISCUSSION AD CONCLUSIONS
The findings for both first and second offenders
support the hypotheses that recidivism for heroin and
mariJuana users is unaffected by sanction severity, but
fail to support the remaining hypotheses, as no relation
ship between recidivism and sanctioning severity was
!noted. It is concluded that recidivism is essentially
!unaffected by sanctioning severity, regardless of type
of offense, age, sex, or race.
However, the present analysis is subject to inade
quacies inherent in the Bureau of Criminal Statistics
data employed. Erroneous findings will result to the
extent that these data are incomplete, unreliable,
.
or in-
naccurate. In this vein, the analysis was limited in
the investigation of dangerous drug users and sellers by
the residual nature of the dangerous drug category as
defined in California Health and Safety Codes. Included
are essentially all potentially abusable drugs other
than heroin, peyote, and mariJuana. Particularly prob
lematic is the inclusion of two types of drug usage
which are quite separate and distinct: the use of LSD
and other halluclnogens and the use of amphetamine and
48
49
barbiturates. By the same token, heroin sales offenders
ar charged under the same offense code as are peyote
sellers, making it imposs·b1e to dif[erentiate between
the two. Howev r, the rel tively small number of of
fenders selling peyote makes this category one of nearly
pur heroin sellers.
It is further evident that there are many problems
and biases in arrest tatistics themselves, regardless
of how accurately they de cribe actual arrest patterns.
Black (1970) asserts that er me rates for many victim-
,less crimes ~orrel te directly with numbers of enforce
lment personnel assigned specific tasks. This may occur
I
in the arrest of drug offenders. Lindesmith (1965)
notes that the sharp national rise in narcotics viola
tions during the fifties was influenced by greater num
bers of police assigned to the task. Bullington, et al
(1966) argue that organizational policies and informa
tion access systems of drug enforcement agencjes deter
mine patterns of drug statistics. As a result, such
police-generated drug statistics tend to reflect imper
fectly actual community drug abuse behavior. Becker
(1970:43) also maintains that official statistics are
more useful in the ·nvestigation of levels of police
act·vity and policies than as an aid in determining the
etiology of deviance.
I
s arre t statistics for drug offenses cannot be
equated to the actual inc·dence of drug abuse , general
izations from the findings of the present study are
limited to arrested drug offenders in California during
the years 1964-1967, nd can be extended beyond these
limits only with the greatest caution.
While arrest statistics re indicative of trends
in law enforcement efforts to control drug abuse, at the
same time they reflect pressures brought on the police
50
by the public and tl1rough offic·a1 channels ·n response
to increases in drug usage. The period under examination
in the present study, the mid-1960's, was characterized
by a general escalation in drug offenses, as drug use
spread to the middle clas~. This development, in turn,
led to an increased exercising of police mar , 1 entre
preneurship in response to public concern over a problem
previously confined to the lower class areas.
Heroin addicts are unlikely to escape eventual
detection by the police, as they tend to get more care
less as the addiction process ~rogre ses , frequently
culminating in arrests for crimes of predation perpe
trated to support their hab·t . Thus , the correspondence
is reasonably close between arrest statistics for heroin
use and its actual incidence in the population . This
51
assertion cannot be made for other types of drug use
and sale , as the extent to which arrest statistics for
these offenses reflect their actual incidence is unknown,
and the correspondence remains open to interpretation.
However flawed the data employed in the present
study may be, they nevertheless represent the most ex
tensive body of data available for such an analysis. On
the basis of these data, there is ~o evidence that the
punitive approach has any control effect whatever.
On the other hand, other factors have been noted
that do tend to diminish recidivism for drug offenders.
Brown, et al (1974) noted that for recent college alumni
factors such as family and job constraints and change of
associates after graduation foster cessation of marijuana
use. Further, cessation of drug use can be expected to
occur to the extent that the user drifts out of the drug
subculture.
For the heroin addict, recidivism in drug usage
is also a product of long experience with heroin, the
conception of oneself as an addict, association with
other addicts, and the recognition of the effects of
drugs. Cessation of heroin use appears to occur as ad
dicts "burn themselves out" and seek treatment in thera
peutic community facilities or through addict self-help
organizations such as Addicts Anonymous and Synanon. The
mechanism through which such cessation occurs remains
little known, but the process is thought to derive from
factors such as difficulties in supporting one's habit
and in eluding detection by law enforcement personnel.
The motivation for drug use is still widely de
bated. Attempts have been made to delineate the per-
, sonality and social characteristics of the typical drug
I user, usually without great success.
I
In terms of
motivation, drugs fit many needs, especially for the
young. Drugs offer "kicks," a feeling of euphoria, a
I
. chance to escape the harsher aspects of reality. For
many, drug use is tentative or experimental in nature.
Others ~mploy drugs as a protest against middle-class
values, or seek a "mystical experience" through hallu
cinogens. The many-faceted motivation for drug use,
coupled with increasing availability, serves to
severely hamper law enforcement efforts to control
drug abuse. The findings of this study lend support
to the contentions of many critics of current drug
control policies. These critics have asserted that
drug use is so wide-spread and diffused through class
strata, and law enforcement efforts have been so er
ratic, that little impact on the problem has been
realized through law enforcement control efforts. The
findings, moreover, support thos stressing alternative
52
means of drug abuse control, such as treatment as a
medical problem.
Suggestions for Further Research
There ar~ several factors affecting sanctioning
severity which could not be assessed in the present
study. Although the calculation of sanction severity
was carried out in terms of sanctioning at the pre
trial, Superior Court, and sentencing levels, the to
tal sanctioning severity score did not reflect at
1which of these levels the sanctioning took place. At
1
the police level, a decision to arrest or not is maJe.
Of those arrested, the prosecutor determines which
merit prosecution, and at the final stage, the judge
determines guilt or innocence and passes sentence.
Differences between the levels can alter the outcome
of the entire process. For instance, over-zealous
arresting by police can lead to compensating reaction
in the form of greater acquittal rates at higher levels.
An analysis incorporating differences in sanctioning
at the various levels many illuminate recidivism
differences.
Other important £actors affecting sanctioning
severity were noted in a study of differ ntial treat
ment of felony offenders by the criminal justice sys
tem of Los Angeles County, conducted by Greenwood, et
53
al (1973). Pre-trial custody status was found to be
significant. Defendants released on their own
recognizance were found to have a much better chance
of having their cases dismissed than defendants out on
bail or remaining in jail. This finding is attributed
by the authors to a possible feeling among judges that
defendants against whom there ·s particularly weak
evidence should not be penalized even to the extent of
paying the premium of bail. Alternatively, this may
be a result of a demonstration by defendants who have
won release that they are able to stay clean, thereby
earning some leniency from the court in the disposi
tion of their cases. It was further noted that a
skillful defense attorney may secure more lenient
treatment for his client by appropriately maneuvering
his case.
There are moreover several pragmatic aspects of
the criminal justice system which directly affect
severity of sanctioning. For instance, a lack of
available jail space can lead to more lenient sentenc
ing in the form of probation, to relieve strains
ca
1
1sed by an overloading of the criminal justice sys
tem. Similarly, a high number of pending court cases
can lead to rejections of cases in which evidence is
marginal, where the same cases would be tried when
54
55
available court time was not at a premium. A study
involving interviewing o court or prosecutorial person
nel, in which these factors are measured, may provide
a deeper insight into the relationships between
sanctioning severity and rec~divism [or drug offense
arrestees.
Earlier discussed factors outside the criminal
justice syst m i~fluencing recidivism of drug offenders,
such as involvement in the drug subculture, self
conception as a drug user, and the recognition of the
effects of drugs could not be examined through arrest
1 statistics. The saliency of these factors, and those
such as a desire for "kicks," a feeling of euphoria, or
a "mystical experience" could be more readily assessed
through interviewing drug users and field observation.
Studies along these lines are needed to provide some
measure of the influences outside the criminal justice
system affecting the recidivism of drug offenders.
-
REFERENCES
American Bar Association - American 1edical Associa
tion, Interim and Final Reports of the Joint Com
mittee on Narcotic Drugs. Bloomington, Indiana:
Indiana University Press, 1961.
Ball, John C., Chambers, Carl D., and Ball, Marion J.,
"The Association of Marijuana Smoking with Opiate
Addiction in the United States." Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 59
(June, 1968), 171-182.
1
Becker, Howard S., Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology
of Deviance. ---,--~e-w-.Y~o-r~k-:---=T~h-e-.F~r-e-e-=P~r-e_s_s_,_1~9,,.--,-6~3-.--~
Becker, Howard S. , ''Practitioners of Vice and Crime."
Pathways to Data. Edited by Robert W. Habenstein.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970.
Bewley, T.H., "The Drug Situation in England and Wales."
International Journal of Offender Therapy (London)
14 (1970), 72-9.
Black, Donald J., "Production of Crime Rates." American
Sociological Review 34 (1970), 733-48.
Blum, Richard H., "Drugs, Dangerous Behavior, and Social
Policy." Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug
Abuse. President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and Administration of Justice. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967, 64-79.
Blum, Richard, "Drug Pushers: A Collective Portrait."
Transaction 8 (1971), 18-21.
Brown, James W., Glaser, Daniel, Waxer, Blaine, and
Geis, Gilbert, "Turning Off: Cessation of
Marijuana Use After College." Social Problems
21 (April, 1974), 527-538.
Bullington, Bruce, et al, "Concerning Heroin Use and
Official Records." American Journal of Public
Health 59 (1969), 1887-92.
56
Byrd, Oliver E., Medical Reddings on Drug Abuse. Read
ing, Massac usetts: A ison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1970.
Chambers, C.D., and Inciardi, J.A., Some Aspects of
the Criminal Careers of Female Narcotic Addicts.
Paper presente at t e 34t Annual Meeting o the
Southern Sociological Society, Miami Beach, May
6-8, 1971.
Cockett, R., Drug Abuse and Personality in Young Of
fenders. London: Butterworths & Company, 1971.
Cumberlidge, Malcolm C., "The Abuse of Barbiturates by
Heroin Addicts." Canadian Medical Association
Journal 98 (June 1, 1968), 1045-9.
Finestone, Harold, "Narcotics and Criminality." Law
and Comtemporary Problems 22 (1957), 69-85.
Gallup Poll Index, Report no. 80, February, 1972.
Gerard, H.B., Wilhelmy, R.A., and Conolley, E.S., "Con
formity and Group Size." Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 8 (1968), 79-82.
57
Glaser, Daniel, Inciardi, James A., and Babst, Dean V.,
Later Heroin Use by Marijuana-Using, Heroin-Using,
and on-Drug-Using Ado]escent Offenders in ew York
City. New Yor : ew Yor State arcot1c
Control Commission, 1969.
Glatt, M.M., "Abuse of Methylamphetamine." Lancet 2
(July 27, 1968), 215-16.
Goode, Erich, "Multiple Drug Use Among Marijuana Smok
ers." Social Problems 17 (Summer, 1969), 48-63.
Greenwood, Peter W., Wildhorn, Sorrel, Poggio, Eugene
C., Strumwasser, Michael J., and DeLeon, Peter,
Prosecution of Adult Felony Defendants in Los
Angeles County: A Policy Pers ective. Santa
Monica, Cali orn1a: Ran Corporation Report R-
1127-DOJ, 1973.
Heyman, Florence, "Methadone Maintenance and Law and
Order." Society 9 (1972), 15-25.
Inciardi, James A., and Chambers, Carl D., Self-Reported
Criminal Behav·or of arcotic Addicts. ew York:
ew York State arcotic A iction Control Commis
sion, 1971.
Johnson, Bruce D., "Social Determinan s of the Use of
Dangerous Drugs by College Students." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Univer
sity Microfilms, 1971.
Kaplan, John, Marijuana: The ew Prohibition. New
York: The World Publish·ng Company, 1970.
'
1 Kobrin, Solomon, Lubeck, Steven G., Hansen, E. Wayne,
and Yeaman, Robert L., The Deterrent Effectiveness
of Criminal Justice Sanction Strategies. Univer
sity of Southern California: Public Systems Re
search Institute, September, 1972.
Kolb, Lawrence, Drug Addiction: A Medical Problem.
Springfiel , Illinois: Carles C. Tomas, 1962.
58
Langrod, John,
Columbia
search.
1969.
Multiple Drug Use Among Heroin Users.
University, Bureau o Applie Social Re
ew York: Narcotic Addiction Study B1073,
Lindesmith, Alfred R., Opiate Addiction. Evanston,
Illinois: Principia Press, 1 7.
Lindesmith, Alfred R., The Addict and the Law. Bloom
ington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1965.
Mauer, D., and Vogel, V., arcotics and arcotics
tion. Springfield, Illinois: C.C.
ddic-
1954.
Merton, Robert K., and
Social Problems.
World, 1961.
isbet, Robert A., Contemporar~
ew York: Harcourt, Brace an
Nyswander, Marie, The Drug Addict as Patient. New York:
Grune and Stratton, 1956.
Packer, Herbert L., The Limits of Criminal Sanction.
Stanford, Cali ornia: tan n1versity ress,
1968.
ment. District o Colum ia: Department o Correc
tions, 1970.
59
Polansky, Dimitri, Davis, George F., and Roberts, Ches
ter F., Jr., A Follow-Up Study of the Juven·le Drug
Offender. Sacramento, Cali orn1a: Institute or
t~e Stu y of Crime and Delinquency, October, 1967.
The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Ad
ministration of Criminal Justice. Task Force Re
port: Narcotics and Drug Abuse. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Pr nt1ng O ice, 196 7 .
I The Pres·dent's Commission on Law Enforcement and Ad
ministration of Criminal Justice. The Challenge
of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Pr1nt1ng Office, 1967.
Proceedings: White House Conference on arcotic and
Drug Abuse. Was 1ngton, D.C.: U.S. Government
Pr1nt1ng Off·ce, 1962.
Roberts, Chester F., Jr., "Study of the Juvenile Drug
Offender." California Youth Authority Quarterly
20 (Winter, 1967), 3-7.
Robins, Lee ., and Murphy, George E., "Drug Use in a
ormal Population of Young egro Men." American
Journal of Public Health 57 (September, 1967),
1580-96.
Rockwell, Don A., and Ostwald, Peter, "Amphetamine Use
and Abuse." ArL.hives of General Psychiatry 18
(May, 1968), 612-16.
Schur, Edwin M., arcotic Addiction in Britain and
America. Bloomington, In 1ana: n 1ana Univer-
sity Press, 1962.
Schut, J., Wohlmuth, T.W., and File, K., "Low Dosage
Methadone Mainte::1.ance: A Re-Examination.
11
Paper
presented before the Canadian Society of Chemo
therapy, Quebec, Canada, July 6-7, 1972.
Texas Sena+e Interim Drug Study Committee, Marijuana
in Texas: A Re ort to the Senate Interim Drug
Stu y Committee. Austin, 1972.
60
Toby, Jackson, "Social Disorganization and Stake in
Conformity: Complementary Factors in the Pre
datory Behavior of Iloodlums." Journal of Criminal
L w, Criminology and Police Science 48 (June, 1957),
12-17.
1 illiams, II.R., "Treatment of the arcotic ddict."
British Columbia 1edical Journal 11 (January ,
1969), 11-13.
BRU E ALAN BUTCHER
1945 Born in Akron, hio
1963 Graduated from uyahoga Falls High School,
uyahoga Falls, hio
1967 A. B., ornell Univer ity, Ithaca, New York
1967-69 Analytical Chemist, Dow Hum n Health Research
Laboratories, Zionsville, Indiana
1969-71 Development Chem~st, Goody ar Tire & Rubber
ompany, Akr n
1970 Graduate Student, University of Akron
1971 -72
Research Assistant, Public
tute, University of outh rn
alifornia
ystems Research lnsti alifornia, Los Angeles
1971-75 raduate Student, University of Southern California
1972-73 Teaching Assistant, Sor.iology, University of South ern California
1972-75 Research Technician, Social cience Research Insti tute, University of Southern California
1974 A.M., University of Southern alifornia
1974 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Biomedical Sciences Dissertation Grant
1974-75 Social S ience Analyst, Cen us Use tudy, U.S.
Bureau of the Census, Los Ang le

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perceptual accuracy in issues related to marriage, parenthood and religion among engaged couples planning a Catholic Church wedding

PDF

Glucose metabolism of the kelp bass, Paralabrax clathratus Girard

PDF

The pulpit and platform career and the rhetorical theory of Bishop Matthew Simpson

PDF

Empathy as a function of guided daydreams in counselor education

PDF

A study of the effects of foster home placement on a selected number of "rejected" children

PDF

The treatment of juvenile delinquency in Germany

PDF

Social functions of the churches in a changing community with special reference to social processes

PDF

Clothing as a factor in the social status rating of men

PDF

The social ecology of delinquency in Los Angeles county: a structural analysis

PDF

Sociological aspects of training programs in selected industrial organizations in the Los Angeles metropolitan area

PDF

An innovative play environment for handicapped children

PDF

An investigation of oxygen-pulse time course as a measure of cardiorespiratory adaptation to exercise

PDF

Transnational society vs. the state-centric system : a preliminary analysis of the multinational corporation as an agent of systemic change of instability.

PDF

Meeting management's needs for adequate communication

PDF

The Deterrent Effect Of Criminal Justice Agencies On Felony Offenses

PDF

Some variations in the molluscan genus Acmaea

PDF

Claus Spreckels of California

PDF

Roles student nurses desire or expect to perform and roles achieved by graduate nurses from the same selected school of nursing

PDF

Bone reaction to an orthodontic force placed against a vitreous carbon implant: A histological study

PDF

The contribution of Mohammedanism to Philippine culture

Asset Metadata

Creator Butcher, Bruce Alan (author)

Core Title The effectiveness of criminal justice sanction strategies in the deterrence of drug offenders

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

Degree Conferral Date 1975-05

Publication Date 06/03/1975

Defense Date 06/03/1975

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized in 2022 (provenance)

Advisor Kobrin, Solomon (committee chair), Glaser, Daniel (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112723829

Unique identifier UC112723829

Identifier Ph.D. So '75 B983 (call number),etd-ButcherBruce-1975.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ButcherBruce-1975

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Butcher, Bruce Alan

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230201-usctheses-microfilm-box6b (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu