SUSTAINED ABSTINENCE AND THE DRUG CRIME CONNECTION

Abstract

This article examines the impact of violence on individuals and communities pursuant to drug use and sales activities. It presents case study material from individuals that engaged in the opioid recovery process, and importantly, were able to desist from criminal activities, many of them potentially violent in nature. The article begins with a discussion of Victimology, within the contexts of drug use leading to violence or contributing in some way to the plight of the victim. It reflects on various self reported issues and concerns as expressed by four study participants. If one is to examine violence in its various forms, one needs to consider the victim. After all, violence and violent acts, in essence, require that there be a protagonist of some sort, but also a victim. All too often, the victim’s role in these activities is overlooked or given perfunctory consideration. In many cases, the players in these episodes sometimes don’t even realize they are also victims within a structural framework, that is, “they fall victim to the only opportunities at their disposal…” One of the study’s goals was to see how abstaining from drug use affected desistance and engagement in violent activities and the data suggest that indeed, the heroin crime connection also occurs in reverse. In this light, this article portrays a snapshot of some of the tools that enable ex-offenders re-entering various communities to experience successful prolonged abstinence, and avoid further involvement with the criminal justice system, as well as the danger and violence present within the drug dealing hierarchies.

PRESENTATION

Diminished opportunities in the legal economy have led to studies investigating whether this lack of economic opportunities in many impoverished urban communities creates conditions that are conducive to the occurrence of crime. Throughout the years, various sociologists have theorized regarding this phenomenon, later termed Opportunity Theory. Using Robert Merton’s framework for understanding deviant behavior, several scholars have suggested that the cycles of substance abuse, crime and violence are directly related to the lack of opportunities present in legitimate economies, (1, 2). In many of these communities, crime is organized either through gangs which also sometimes results in a system of hierarchies, or through structured underground organizations. These may be based in the drug economy and often are, although there are various other “avenues,” for example policy (“numbers”), extortion (“strong arming”), petit and grand larceny (“boosting” and “hijacking”). The majority of these businesses rely on one common denominator to ensure their success, violence. These diminished opportunities in the legal sector may in fact sustain or at least help sustain a thriving underground economy. Consequently, there tends to be a high degree of violence associated with the underground economy, much of which is often loosely organized or gang related.

Unfortunately, sentencing disparities for drug crimes within the criminal justice system (3) help foster the mindset that a duality of justice exists, meting out much harsher punishments on the poor and disenfranchised, than on the well heeled and connected. The result is often a dichotomy of realities, which the former are forced to accept as their status quo. Much has been written about these situations and how they affect the numbers of people of color in correctional institutions such that in 2002 for example, half of jail inmates in the US were held for a violent or drug offense and more than six in ten persons in local jails were racial or ethnic minorities, numbers that have basically remained unchanged for close to ten years (4).

Recidivism is defined as the act of reengaging in criminal activity or reoffending. For many recidivists, when interviewed or screened at intake to correctional facilities, they reflect that it was only a matter of time before they returned to prison, again a mentality that tends to fuel a self fulfilling prophecy. Some report that engaging (or for some, more accurately, reengaging in these criminal behaviors) such as drug dealing, steering (serving as a lookout and/or guide for customers of drug dealing accomplices), “bagmen” (holding money and/or drugs during drug transactions) or messengers (providing a delivery service to customers), among others, presented the only “real” opportunities at their disposal (5, 6). Peer groups, particularly when they are formalized into units referred to (and by no small coincidence, sometimes as a matter of convenience) either as gangs, cliques, posses or any other loosely formed organizational hierarchies, can provide support for violent activity. Such groups can be effective in countering the alienation and powerlessness that accompanies social disorder in low-income communities. This type peer group or gang often provides protection and a sense of security that may be lacking in an otherwise violent environment. Unfortunately it also serves as a powerful socializing agent (7, 8) particularly in communities where families and other social institutions are no longer viable, or rendered untenable, due to a variety of factors, including parental incarceration, absence or addiction (9). The overall persistence of gangs and the “gang psyche” over generations is generally more accessible and longer lasting in communities and neighborhoods experiencing higher levels of social disorganization, where healthier pro-social bonds are weakened or even non-existent. The four participants chosen from this small Qualitative study demonstrate the tools they utilized to maintain their sobriety efforts and they demonstrate that positive bonding can lead to pro-social activities and hamper the dissolution of attenuated pro-social bonds. By enhancing the awareness of those potentially in a position to effect change, and giving voice to the very individuals undergoing these changes within these, for the most part impoverished communities, effective strategies can be disseminated not just locally but on a wider level. What works in one community may address similar issues in others. Positive role models and those in positions that can be emulated serve as positive reinforcement, supporting such an agenda for change.

INTRODUCTION

It has been close to twenty years since I first became involved with studies investigating drug use and its’ related (read, often inevitable) criminal justice sequelae. I have noticed that users for the most part cycled in and out of prisons, detoxes, rehabs, therapeutic communities, and then back “out there” into active use. I also note that over the years, very few manage to avoid these patterns, and ultimately engage in compromising behaviors, situations, interactions and “new crimes,” that many attributed to their drug use (5,6,10,). My present research focuses on individuals that managed to avoid this vicious cycle, individuals that negotiated various obstacles and maintained recovery efforts over various years, in some cases ten years or more. Clearly, for this group of ex-offenders, their biggest challenge was the prospect of re-entering “conventional” society; that is, reintegrating into the lives of their families and communities. In fact, in some cases these individuals are actually “entering” for the first time in their lives, as many never had the opportunity to establish significant personal or professional foundations, as also discussed by others (11). Returning ex-offenders, the majority of which were incarcerated as a result of some connection to their drug use or sale, must now reestablish themselves, and in many cases within the very environment where they initially engaged in behaviors that led to their criminal justice involvement. These difficulties appear to be the driving force behind their prior relapse episodes and recidivism. This article will discuss the various tools these individuals used, the ways these were implemented and concludes with the significant aspects of their sustained efforts. The article will focus principally on drug use and/or dealing as experienced by four study participants over the course of the study conducted in the East Harlem and South Bronx areas of New York City. The article discusses four key domains: 1) the Drug/Violence Connection, 2) the “Con Mentality,” 3) the “Con Identity,” and 4) the “Identity transformation” they underwent to effect and sustain their change processes. One methodological note is in order; these individuals were chosen as their transcript material best exemplified this recovery process, and should be interpreted as such.

Drug Dealing and Violence: “Dime con quien andas y te diré quien eres”

One common reflection over the years is that we become who we associate with; this has been classified as many different things, from Opportunity Theory, to Differential Association, but the premise is often the same. The drug dealing enterprise is fraught with various dangers unto itself. For example, issues regarding potency and/or adulteration of substances pose just two of the many public health issues present when dealing with the illegal drug economy. Among those from the inner city urban communities, violence is primarily centered in areas rife with drug crime and related activities. Consequently, cities with high incarceration and drug use rates, also maintain rates of violence that are substantially higher than in suburban and rural areas. This in fact has been the case for close to four decades, and was first reflected on by Hirschi (11). While many studies have established a relationship between substance abuse and crime (12–14, 4), the exact nature of these relationships sometimes comes into question, providing ample fodder for debate. However, at least to some degree these violent episodes can be attributed to the social disorganization affecting many of these communities. This is particularly evident in communities that inherited much of the displacement pursuant to gentrification in their primary settings. For example in New York City, areas that twenty years ago were notable for at least two-to three abandoned buildings per square block are now replaced by million dollar condominiums as witnessed in the East Harlem area of Manhattan; and consequently, crime appears displaced as well.

Study Demographic Composition

This article examines the impact of violence and presents case study material from individuals that engaged in the recovery process, and importantly, were able to desist from criminal activities, many of them violent in nature. Victimology is considered in these contexts in that in many cases, the players in these episodes were not aware that they are also victims within a structural framework, that is, “they fall victim to the only opportunities at their disposal…” In this light, this article portrays a snapshot of some of the tools that enabled these ex-offenders to re-enter their various communities and experience successful prolonged abstinence, and avoid further involvement with the criminal justice system, as well as the danger and violence present within the drug dealing hierarchies. In-depth semi-structured conversational interviews were conducted and elicited information from various domains including drug use histories, criminal behaviors and convictions, types of crimes engaged in, employment, education and health status. Selected transcripts of four case study participants are examined; two male and two female, all Latinos, and all with particular salience to the issue of violence. This study was originally designed to document how individuals successfully avoided reimmersion into the criminal justice system. Pieces of that data are presented here to lend voice to the multiple ways they engaged in various forms of violence (and experienced it as well) during the earlier phases of their drug use involvement and criminal activities. These same individuals provided first hand accounts of the many ways they overcame the vicious cycle they attributed to the drug-violence-incarceration nexus. Throughout the manuscript, experiential and case study materials are interwoven to provide as representative a portrait as possible of what these experiences have brought forth in the lives of the protagonists. The case studies are part of a larger study that examined long-term recovery from heroin use among a sample of ex-offenders (5,15). A total of twenty-five individuals (Fifteen males and ten females) from the New York City area were interviewed for that qualitative study. These were former heroin users who used the drug on an almost daily basis for at least a year, encountered involvement with the criminal justice system (arrest or conviction) related to their heroin use and when interviewed had maintained abstinence from heroin use for a period of five years or longer.

The total gender by ethnicity breakdown of the sample often referred to in this article is provided below:

The majority of the respondents were native New Yorkers. Hispanic respondents of Puerto Rican ethnicity made up the largest number of the sample (n=11, 44%). Most of the respondents were born in New York City, and two were born in Puerto Rico. The study recruitment areas included East Harlem, the South Bronx and Brooklyn, New York. The vast majority of the study population was either Hispanic of any race (51%) or Black/African American (43%). One third was foreign born. Forty percent reported speaking Spanish at home and half of those reported that they did not speak English well. Only fifteen percent reported having a bachelor’s degree or higher and the median household income was only $27,550. Single householder families were 39% of households. Nearly 13% of the population was unemployed. Twenty-nine percent of all families were living below the poverty line; for families with a single female householder, that figure increases to 47%. Similarly, the composition of the Bronx criminal justice population is largely Hispanic or Black/African American. Out of a sample of 581 Bronx TASC (Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime)² diverted substance abusing men and women in 2001, 59% were Hispanic, 38% Black, and 3% White. Seventy-two percent of these defendants were multiple felony offenders. In Bronx County there were 85,469 arrests in the year 2000. More than 6,000 of those arrested were indicted for felony offenses and approximately 3,600 involved felony drug offenses. Of the criminal justice and mentally ill population, it is estimated that more than 90% are also substance abusers. In addition, approximately 90% of all program participants fall within the New York State poverty guidelines. Similarly, an analysis of a report furnished by the Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) District Attorney’s office indicates that drug-related homicides comprised less than 10% of Brooklyn’s total homicides in 1999. The report suggests that the anti-drug initiatives of Brooklyn’s police and prosecutors during the early- to mid-1990 have had a positive impact on murderous violence. This percentage is down significantly from the mid-1980’s through the mid-1990’s, when the citywide percentage was between one-quarter and one-third of all homicides according to the D.A.’s office. But even though drug-related homicides comprised only a small percentage of the total, there were 23 drug-related murders in 1999, compared to only 10 in 1998. This percentage increase parallels the percentage increase from the New York State Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) from 1996 to 1997. Interestingly, the federal (FBI) Uniform Crime reporting program reported that in 1997, 5% of the 15,289 homicides were known to be narcotics related, that is, murders that occurred specifically during a narcotics felony, such as drug trafficking or manufacturing (16). This figure represented an increase from the previous years although not as significant as those from the New York State UCR, or Brooklyn district attorney reports (17). Murders resulting from narcotic drug offenses totaled 819 in 1996, which the Bureau defined as: “Crimes including those that are directly or indirectly related to the system of drug trafficking and distribution, crimes of violence resulting from dealings between dealers and competition for drug markets and customers].”

More than ninety percent of the respondents from the present study were either born, grew up or relocated to the Bronx or Brooklyn boroughs of New York City.³

Differential rates of Victimization

It is necessary to distinguish type of dealers and/or victims that become stratified as a result of diverse opportunities, particularly as present in the illicit drug economy. These distinctions suggest that the possibilities of victimization are different depending on the risks undertaken, as well as other factors. These include: the type of dealing (whether wholesale, retail or street level); the substance being sold; the neighborhood where the activity is taking place; the venue of the enterprise (whether in clubs, apartments or on the streets); and the status of the dealer, (whether “acting solo” or as part of an organization). Differential risks are best described as the degree to which certain individuals are more or less prone to victimization, or projections of these risks in the future. For the most part, differential risks are based on demographic factors such as age, gender, race, and may also be influenced by geographical location or neighborhood.

In terms of personal drug use and consumption, there appear to be two broad categories of coping skills: temptation-coping skills and stress-coping skills. Temptation-coping skills, like self-control and social skills, are relevant for dealing with situations in which substance use, or the temptation to use, is present. Examples here are avoidance of the problem, to use the twelve-step vernacular, “people, places and things,” for example. Stress-coping skills are necessary to cope with major life events and stress provoking situations; deep breathing, exercising and meditation are examples (18).

The Drug / Violence Connection

The term “drug-related crime and violence” has been subject to criticism, as it sometimes fails to clearly delineate the circumstances, motivations and specific nature of the crimes it addresses. Failing to do so often creates confusion, and inhibits extrapolation. In order to correct for these possible definitional nuances, research study codebooks record operational definitions and demographic characteristics of victims, offenders and situational variables to provide better guidance for future reference or in some cases, study replication. The following sections describe more in depth how some of these “research promises” are put into practice.

Victimology

The interdisciplinary nature of Victimology facilitates explanations of why people are victimized. The contribution of disciplines such as sociology, criminology and psychology, among others, sometimes advances the convergence of the designated discipline’s theory; if not always practice, with that of Victimology. The goals of Victimology include optimum prediction of future crime, (as in criminology); but victimologists also focus on the identification and explanations surrounding target groups and their respective behavioral susceptibilities (and subsequent victimization, as might be explored for example, by social workers or forensic psychologists). Victimologists seek to identify and reduce the number of variables lending themselves to victimization and increase the number inhibiting it. An enhanced description of such a classification system is provided below.

The Tripartite Model

In a study investigating drug related homicides, Goldstein and colleagues explored the connection between various drug related crimes and violence (10). They established what they later termed a “Tripartite Model” of these phenomena. Briefly, the tripartite conceptual framework breaks down the selected offense into one of three domains, Systemic, Psychopharmacological or Economic-Compulsive in origin. In a follow-up study examining these phenomena, Spunt et al (6), referred to the Systemic types of killings as attributable to involvement in drug dealing activities. The other two causes were Psychopharmacological (these deaths were attributable to consumption of the substance) and Economic Compulsive, (crimes occurring to fund drug purchases). Thus, drug and/or alcohol related homicides were divided into three categories:

1. Psychopharmacological- (the crime is directly related to the effects of the drug);

2. Economic-Compulsive- (the crime is directly related to the user’s pursuit of the drug, such as engaging in robbery or other crime in pursuit of a “drug fix”);

3. Systemic- (the crime results from the day-to-day activities of the drug trade, such as violence engaged in through drug dealing or perpetrated by rival dealers).

Although the systemic model of violence maintains that violent crime is intrinsic to involvement with any illicit substance, systemic violence refers to the traditionally aggressive patterns of interaction within specific systems of illegal drug trafficking and distribution. The majority of the case study material reviewed here relates to criminal activities of this variety. Spunt and colleagues (6) defined systemic homicides in their study to include: Murders committed within dealing organizations as a means of enforcing normative codes, robberies ending in the death of a drug dealer or a consequent fatal retaliation by the associates of a murdered drug dealer, killing of informers in drug cases, killings resulting from disputes between drug dealers over territory, disputes over drugs or drug paraphernalia, punishment of dealers for selling adulterated or phony drugs, punishment for failing to pay one’s drug related debts, and so on.

The individuals and criminal activities they engaged in for the most part occurred during the period from 1990–1999 in New York. This era represented one of the deadliest and violent in New York City history, particularly as relates to drug related crime as described above.

METHODS

Criminality of the Study Group

All of the participants reviewed for this article and from which the present study sample is drawn reported at least one prior felony arrest. Eighteen reported at least one prior felony conviction. Five respondents had two such convictions and one respondent reported three prior felony convictions. In addition to drug offenses, for which all respondents had at least one criminal justice contact (arrest or conviction)⁴ the next most common charge across all respondents was, for the men (n= 9), auto theft (grand theft auto or attempted grand theft auto) and for the women, prostitution (n=5). Eleven respondents engaged in auto theft or reported being in a stolen car at various times during their active use periods. All of the women reported engaging in prostitution during their active use periods but only five reported being arrested for this activity. Five of the men also reported engaging and being convicted of prostitution of one form or another and one reported engaging in this activity with both men as well as women. Many participants spoke of the various ways they were victimized while engaging in the “drug game.” There are several ways to classify these, depending on occurrence and include assault on novice drug dealers by dissatisfied customers; (economic-compulsive or psychopharmacological); robbery and/or assault pursuant to robbery (systemic); intoxication (psychopharmacological); and dealer rivalries (systemic). Other types of assaults, sometimes more severe were frequented on more experienced (or “hardened”) drug dealers, attempting to reintegrate into the drug culture. Often, such individuals are returning from a prison setting and as such, pose additional threats, owing to a sense of previous entitlement or ownership (I would term these “aggravated systemic”); assaults occasioned by enraged neighborhood residents intolerant of drug dealing activities (although vigilante oriented, these in fact would also be systemic); or by enterprising “soloists,” (entrepreneurs bent on increasing their own market share). Still other types of victimizations of drug dealers included extortion and kidnapping. The majority of the respondents reported at least some exposure to violence as experienced within the context of their previous drug use. In some cases these violent episodes were incidental, that is, more or less random and unexpected. In the vast majority of cases however, the episodes reported were attributable to engaging in drug use or dealing activities as dealers or consumers.

“Voice” of the Respondents.

While discussing their lives, these four individuals recanted how they’ve anticipated some of the consequences of their immediate actions. Consequential thinking fosters an almost innate sense of what is right or wrong, generally but also in specific terms as well. For example, one male Latino, who maintained continued contact throughout the study period⁵, discussed issues regarding familial influence and the immediate and long-term effects of associating with family members or friends:

“Family is very important to Latinos, I mean I’m sure you know too, the whole thing about getting together for the holidays or visiting one another is a real down home part of our lifestyle. And drinking too, that’s a real part of the holidays for us. I mean along with ‘Lechon asado’ and ‘arroz con gandules’ (fried pork and rice and beans) comes the ‘coquito’ (an alcoholic drink made of rum, milk and coconut) that we drink to celebrate. I mean for me and my family, its like ‘coquito’ is like a tradition, it’s almost an insult to say no if it’s offered to you. That was Christmas time for us in my family. I remember my uncles always offered me drinks, even when I was a kid, and as long as my mom didn’t have a problem with it, it was always cool to drink, nobody had a problem with that. And it was basically the same in my friends’ families; yeah that was basically every holiday season for us. But luckily my family has been real cool and supportive about that. That’s a relief cause it’s hard sometimes to have to explain to everybody that I’m in recovery… like how that means I can’t drink either, I just… I don’t want… to have to break it down for them every single time.”

As an adult he indicated, his alcohol use often co-occurred with heroin binges, and in effect, became a big trigger to subsequent heroin use. In many ways though, he realized he was setting himself up, as when he drank he knew heroin use, violence, and further criminal involvement was short to follow:

“Yeah I guess I would have to be stupid or something if I said I didn’t know that by drinking I would go back to the needle sooner or later. I’ve heard that some guys can stop using (heroin) and still go back to other things, like smoking weed or drinking. But for me, its like the whole thing comes in a package, drinking, and dope its like they are married, all I needed was some Blackberry brandy and my shot of ‘D,’ (heroin) and that’s all she wrote…”

Despite this type of consequential thinking, enacting it was no simple task. Although it was helpful to know these things were related, other triggers often reappeared. Even simple arguments with loved ones sometimes escalated to the point that he would seek a way out, act on his triggers and culminate in his “picking up” heroin, again. But he realized that this was a vicious cycle. Arguments led to heroin, which proceeded to more arguments, more heroin use, and so on. The support he found from his family was quite helpful:

“I didn’t really like that my sis and my mom pointed out some of the f***** up things I done in the past. But I realize that they had a role in my life too, they are not the enemy. I used to think that they were just people to get in the way of my dope, but no, it’s like I used all the fights with them just as an excuse to get high. Now we really sit down and talk, no it’s more than that, we don’t just talk, we communicate…”

The recovering individual has made a conscious decision to change his heroin using behavior, but the reality is that s/he is in many cases returning to the same environments that may have contributed to the individuals’ prior use. The difficult process of maintaining sobriety is subsequently that much more difficult.

As quoted by Biernacki (19):

“When addicts desire to give up their drug use and change their lives, they frequently are confused about what they should do instead. This confusion is especially dramatic for those who have been deeply immersed in the world of addiction for long periods of time. They may see themselves as having nowhere to turn, having burned their bridges with family and ordinary friends,” (1990).

The “Con Mentality” (La Mentalidad del Encarcelado)

Recovering ex-offenders have on occasion referred to incarceration or treatment bouts as “rescue periods,” [see also Bourgois, (20)] as also reported by members of the study group. One female respondent felt that at one point if she had not “gotten busted,” she would have died in some kind of turf war on the streets:

“Once you are in the ‘game’ (referring to drug dealing) like the saying goes ‘you gotta be in to win it,’ and that ain’t no bullshit. We used to refer to ourselves as ‘posses’ back in the day. Like if members from another posse start ‘sniffing around’ your turf, you gotta put that shit down, right away. Otherwise you lose your respect, your customers and sooner or later your turf…So things get rough out there and back when I was in the ’game’ (in her case the mid to late 1990’s) you had to be ready to do whatever was necessary, even if that meant killing somebody. But remember, I wasn’t the only one felt like that. Other ‘posses’ felt the same way, so I coulda’ been ‘taken out’ just as quick. When I got busted, things was getting real rough out there and bodies was turning up all over the place, I remember reading someplace that those were some of the deadliest years in the city’s history, that ain’t no joke…maybe it wasn’t such a bad thing that I got busted and got took outta’ ‘the game’.”

Another male respondent often spoke of the “drug game” going on within the prison system, as well. During the time that he was incarcerated, there was a period of severe unrest and turmoil on Riker’s Island, New York City’s largest complex of correctional facilities (21). He referred to the “house gang,” a select group of inmates, on occasion extended privileges by guards, but also expected to keep the house “in order;” and of his being a member and later one of its leaders; see Sykes, 1958 for a more in-depth analysis of these types of relationships, (22). He described the importance of having weapons, especially when first entering the system and how these were “stashed” in secret places and, that in fact, even when not actually used, served as a reminder that nobody “messed with the house gang.” These were some of multiple ways they minimized danger to themselves, simply by way of intimidation; similar survival methods within institutional settings are described by Irwin, (23). But sometimes, he described, the use of weapons was inevitable. The key element however, was that while in this setting, he had to demand and achieve respect in any way possible, with violence often predicating the only means of survival.

Transition from a “Con Mentality” to a “Con Identity”

As demonstrated above, given almost constant exposure to others with similar” con mentalities,” individuals become institutionalized, not only by virtue of being incarcerated, but “institutionalized” in their ways of thinking. By inwardly accepting themselves as “convicts” they then “act, think and feel,” (Respondent: “like a con should”). Gang researchers, Brotherton and Barrios (24), and others (23), have also discussed this type of solidarity. These incarcerated individuals felt that they had a certain behavior code they must abide by, so as not to be perceived as “outsiders;” see Pollock (25) for a fascinating insider’s look at the prison system and its many “codes” (25). One interesting dimension of the effects of such labels serving as a self-fulfilling prophecy that emerges is how a “con mentality” may transition into a “con identity.” Briefly, a con mentality is a survival tool that many of these individuals develop while actively using heroin and engaging in related criminal activities. Once incarcerated, this “con mentality” facilitated survival within the confines of the correctional institutions. But in addition to the act of engaging in criminal activities as a survival tool, the earlier stigma and labels attached to the behavior may cause what Lemert terms secondary deviance (26). Here, labeled individuals reorient their lives and thinking around the label, which in effect becomes their new identity. Similar to what Irwin calls “the convict code,” (2005, p. 32; see also Pollock (25)), the convicts’ actions, communications and informal networks are guided by a commitment to negative values. In many cases, these commitments are survival mechanisms. In the “outside” world these networks enabled acquisition of illegal substances and in many cases, the funds to acquire them. Once incarcerated, these commitments further facilitate becoming part of an accepted peer group, enabling survival within the institution, but that also carry their own codes of behavior. As stated by Irwin in his example of “the thieves’ code“(an adaptation of his convict code), one of its mainstays was “thou shalt not snitch,” (id, p. 33).

Self Concepts

Labeling Theory posits that individuals’ self-concepts are defined by how others see them, if these definitions are negative or usually so, the individual takes on the characteristics of the label. If then associating with other like-labeled persons, the individual ultimately accepts that group’s social behaviors, manifesting in his/her acceptance of the label. These recovering individuals demonstrate that an extension of this concept may also occur. As the individual perceives him/herself as criminal, the positive societal bonds are attenuated or weakened further, perhaps leading to even further criminal involvement.

Butch⁶ elaborated on how he experienced a similar phenomenon personally:

“It was always hard for me to be something else besides ‘one of the fellas,’ being part of the group was what it was all about, you had to be ‘in,’ otherwise you was ‘out.’ If you didn’t belong, then that was that, you were treated like an outsider. And in my neighborhood, if you was an outsider, you might as well have been from a rival gang or something…”

Given a lack of opportunity, these are sought (or made) elsewhere. For many of these individuals, engaging in criminal and escalating violent activities was the result of an ever-increasing need for the drug, coupled with limited opportunities that were further limited by their continued drug use (other studies have demonstrated this connection as well, see for example Pollock (25). Some of these individuals indicated that boredom played a part in their quest for the “better high,” or even, in some cases, just engaging in the daily “hustle.” Vaillant (27), and other researchers suggest that heroin use and the pursuant need to engage in illegal activities (and associated violence) may indeed give these individuals a sense of usefulness during active addiction periods [for other examples see 13, 28–32; see also Bean (2), for more on opportunity or more accurately, diminished opportunity pursuant to the drug-crime nexus, (2)].

These studies suggest that for these individuals without the drug, and the cycle of getting more with its pursuant hustles and dangerous scams (33, 34), some found themselves bored, lacking this formerly familiar pattern in their lives. This phenomenon, having a criminal record, and particularly for those from the lower socioeconomic strata, coupled with any combination of a lack of employable skills, poor job histories, housing and financial problems, and an overall lack of structure in their lives, destroys their sense of worth. Thus this cycle of relapse and recovery begins anew. Some individuals reflected on their need to conduct themselves differently in order to maintain their desistance efforts. One male Latino for example, discussed his need to not only stop the substance use itself but to substitute alternate behaviors to fill the void created by his no longer engaging in heroin use and drug seeking activities:

“That was probably one of the most difficult things for me to do…I felt like I was no longer in’ the game.’ In fact I found myself unable to even go around the block (“old stomping grounds”) anymore. Every time I’d run into one of the boys, I’d start thinking about my old hustles, and man, that was probably one of the best things I remember about getting high (referring to heroin use specifically), it was the hustle, the scam, the game, whatever you wanna call it, I still miss that shit, so much…”

Another male Latino presented a similar story:

“It got to a point with me, that all I cared about was being in the ‘mix’ (the drug ‘game’). Maybe my whole drug using (referring to heroin use) was more like a celebration after I scored (engaged in a successful hustle). If the score was really good, that meant I could really celebrate. I think I even got high sometimes even when I was trying to cut down my use, but I had to celebrate. And if the fellas’ were around, it also gave me a chance to show off a little, you know, let them know I was still the man.”

One female Latina, described how the drug’s “utility” was substituted such that it was no longer an active part of her former life. This is turn, facilitated her desistance and recovery efforts:

”Dope gave me a way to deal. Once I was ‘off to the races,’ I didn’t feel I needed anything but my high… And when I came down, all the shit would hit the fan again…But the truth is that all that really didn’t matter to me, ‘cause I knew as long as I had my ‘wake-up’ nothing else mattered…everything was gonna’ be OK, all I needed was my ‘wakeup’….“

Identity Transformation

Shadd Maruna described a population of “desisters” that made something good come from their previous trials and tribulations while incarcerated, and who acquired a renewed sense of purpose in life, despite previously engaging in many often quite violent activities related to their criminal and drug using activities (35, p. 9). Sampson and Laub (36) maintained that the lives of ex-offenders demonstrate both continuity and change. The key lies in their focusing energies in different pro-social directions, yet in many ways these individuals exhibited skills they acquired during their active use periods. Terry (34) terms this behavioral change phenomenon “identity transformation.” Terry posits that the recovering individual by transforming his/her identity achieves a new self-concept where the key is learning to respect oneself as a person of value. Biernacki, as well, stated that in order to recover, addicts needed to transform their addictive behaviors to more conventional ones, but indicated the difficulty of overcoming the associated stigmas of addiction especially if compounded by the stigmas of sex, race and class (19).

Once abstinent, the individuals from the present study needed to adopt new behaviors and patterns such that they essentially “unlearned” initial behaviors. This was particularly relevant when considering “permanent stigmas,” pursuant to criminal convictions, which effectively served as barriers to future opportunities and inhibited significant lifestyle changes. For a great many of these individuals, overcoming these stigmas, whether real or perceived, clearly exacerbated the already difficult process of maintaining their recovery efforts.

DISCUSSION

Readers might argue that “drug dealers as victims” precipitated or at least facilitated the violence associated with their enterprise. Such behaviors might be exemplified by carrying large amounts of money (an occupational hazard of drug dealers). The best strategy and perhaps the most obvious are to encourage drug dealers to get out of the life, but this is easier said than done. How easy is it for such individuals to limit exposure to the underground economy, particularly given the limited opportunities they face in the legal economy? Are there other viable alternatives for these individuals? Can they secure other types of employment and importantly, if they have prior convictions, are other opportunities essentially ruled out? Are there policies and/or interventions that can be instituted that might address some of the disparities facing ex-offenders? Only by identifying worthy mechanisms that address these issues can significant progress be made.

A common argument for gun control today is that we must do something to end the violence associated with drugs. Drug trafficking frequently involves violence. Perhaps some would say that they are not at all concerned if drug dealers kill each other in drug wars, or that the reports of these types of killings are greatly exaggerated. But such minimalist perspectives overlook the fact that the victims of drug-related violence often include innocent bystanders, such as children caught in the crossfire of warring factions, or law enforcement officials. One might also expect that drug dealers, pursuant to the nature of their enterprise, be the biggest consumers of the illegal handgun market, in some cases being better armed than law enforcement officials. If we would just place legal restrictions on the sale of guns, the argument goes; we could get guns out of the hands of drug dealers and end the violence. However, much in line with Cohen et al’s expansion of Routine Activities Theory, the very nature of the secluded enterprise of drug dealing (leading to a lack of guardians), the drug dealer (suitable target) and rival dealers or users (motivated offenders), suggests that guns and drug dealing go hand in hand (17). But this argument simply addresses a symptom rather than the problem. Surely the primary problem with drug dealers is not that they have guns, (to them an all too frequent occupational necessity), but that they have drugs. The commoditization, opportunities and lure of quick money resulting from the sale of these illegal drugs may often prove too tempting a mechanism for inner city youths who may be otherwise unskilled, unemployed and under-educated. These situations often coupled with the stigma associated with having been incarcerated, (as many previously have been); often increase the perception in these individuals that there is “no other way.” This suggests that a more effective way to deal with the problem might be to address the issue of possession, de-criminalization and interdiction, focusing primarily on inhibiting the pipeline, thus ebbing the flow. This posits a preemptory strike, prior to the absolute need of its implementation, thus avoiding situations like those presented in post-prohibition Chicago, (a “speakeasy” on every corner). If the “punch” produced by the drugs’ commercial value is removed, then the enterprise, having lost its lucrative nature, will no longer prove viable.

CONCLUSIONS

This article has investigated many of the concepts associated with the victimization of various groups, but with a more concentrated focus on the nexus between drug use, crime and violence, particularly within some of the largest urban communities within the New York City area; and how these issues are negotiated and overcome. As has been demonstrated, many of the concepts that Victimology addresses are interrelated, so one must be careful to apply them in their proper context. Such a scenario is clearly depicted where two criminally inclined persons clash and chance alone determines which is the victim such as suggested by Wolfgang, almost half a century ago (37), or as can result from a systemic encounter, as cited earlier. Many years ago, in a case examining privacy in correctional institutions regarding the U.S Postal Service, the Supreme Court made the following statement; it is interesting that close to thirty-five years later, many similar barriers for returning ex-offenders remain:

“When the prison gates slam behind an inmate, he does not lose his human quality; his mind does not become closed to ideas; his intellect does not cease to feed on a free and open interchange of opinions; his yearning for self-respect does not end; nor is his quest for selfrealization concluded. If anything, the needs for identity and self-respect are more compelling in the dehumanizing prison environment.”

Thurgood Marshall.

(Procunier v. Martinez. 416 U.S. 396 [1974])

Persons released from prison face a myriad of difficulties. Lack of education, marketable skills and in most cases, no stable support systems have in recent years resulted in high recidivism rates. One of the principal difficulties experienced by ex-offenders is dealing with their criminal past [NIJ, (38–40); see also Travis (41)]. Long-term recovery rates from substance abuse among the general populace are very low, and recovering ex-offenders face nearly insurmountable obstacles as they attempt to re-enter. Among Latinos, recovery rates as well as community reintegration attempts are further compromised by structural and other impediments. Some of the obstacles they face include barriers to employment because of having a prior criminal record (13), fear of losing their children because drug related behaviors (12) and exclusion from low-income housing for those with felony or drug convictions (42, 25). These effects dovetail long into the individual’s recovery period, and for those with prior felony convictions, pose ongoing barriers to employment, the right to possess certain licenses, even the right to vote (43, 13; see also TCA, 44). These barriers hinder the desistance process, by virtue of severely limiting available options, producing political alienation and severely hindering economic well-being. These recovering individuals exhibited two types of coping strategies, active and avoidant, and sometimes both, on a recurring basis. Noteworthy is the “lack of power” they experienced throughout their active use periods and later, upon reentry and community reintegration (45, 46). Whether due to incarceration, criminality and active addiction, physical disease, or lack of employment, in all cases the common element attributable to this “disempowerment” was identified as active heroin use. Routine activities theory (47) posits that the convergence of three required elements (suitable targets, motivated offenders and lack of guardians) leads to a greater level of victimization. The policy implications are that victimization may be reduced if one takes care to reduce criminal opportunity and the chances of the criminal being caught are high. Lifestyle differences may also explain rate variability in certain types of crimes (such as murder and robbery rates). Lifestyles are related to routine activities in that they largely determine the quantity and quality of the contacts between criminals and their potential targets. By definition, all of the individuals recruited for the study discussed in this article were abstainers, that is, they were no longer using heroin. One of the study’s goals was to see how abstaining from drug use affected desistance and engagement in violent activities and the data show that indeed, the heroin crime connection also occurs in reverse. Once these folks have achieved a stake in conformity, accepted themselves as these “new persons” and adapted their behaviors to act as these “new” people should act in their minds eye, they are better able to maintain their recovery efforts and importantly, their desistance efforts are enhanced. Future studies should investigate these phenomena more at length.

Table 1.

Five Years After Sample Breakdown Gender by Ethnicity (n = 25)

	Males	Females	Totals
Black	6	4	10
White	3	1	4
Hispanic	6	4	10
Other	0	1	1
Totals	15	10	25