|
Abstract
|
This article reports findings from two studies, Drug Related Crime Analysis 1 (DRCA-H1) and Drug Related Crime Analysis 2 (DRCA-H2). Both addressed the need for routine and systematic collection of data about the drug-relatedness of homicide. DRCA-H1, conducted in New York State in 1984, focused on assessing the usefulness of existing police records for researching this subject. DRCA-H2 involved data collection during ongoing police investigations in New York City between March 1 and October 31, 1988. Both studies were structured and their findings analyzed in terms of a tripartite conceptualization of the drugs/homicide nexus. Comparing the findings of the studies reveals that existing police records are generally inadequate for providing insight into the complexities of the drugs/crime/violence nexus. However, findings from DRCA-H2 show that it is possible for researchers to work effectively with police to collect critically needed information, without causing significant disruption.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The goal of this article by Goldstein et al. was to explore the extent to which drugs and homicide in New York are connected and to describe methods of data collection on drug-involved homicide.
METHODOLOGY:
Two kinds of quasi-experimental methodology were used and compared in this study. Both utilized a tripartite conceptual framework for the drug-violence relationship. This framework divides effects into psychopharmacological (violence as a consequence of the ingestion or withdrawal from a drug), economic compulsive (violence as compulsion to engage in crime to support the habit), and systemic (violence as the outcome of the traditional aggressive patterns of interaction within a system of drug use or distribution). There are also multidimensional crimes that include two or more of these effects. The first study (referred to as DRCA-H1) utilized existing data from law enforcement files on all homicides in New York State in 1984 (N=1768). A wide variety of information on the characteristics of the event, the victim, and the perpetrator were gathered. Specifically, available information on whether the location was a known site for drug use and/or trafficking, what drugs were used and/or sold there, and whether the victim and/or perpetrator was a known alcohol or drug user, high on specific drugs or experiencing withdrawal at the time of arrest, or was either selling or using at the time of the killing. Every police department in the state with at least one homicide reported in 1984 was included in the sample. Data collection techniques varied from data collection forms in the mail to researchers, assisted by police staff, going through case files and completed data collection forms. New York City (N=1459), because of the numbers of homicides, did not do a retrospective analysis and, instead, provided a data tape constructed from debriefings which was less detailed and less focused on drug issues than the other data; as such, most analyses left New York City out. All the data suffered from a lack of recording of important information about drug-relatedness because only information which, at the time, was thought useful was recorded. The second data collection strategy (referred to as DRCA-H2) was developed from a consideration of the problems in DRCA-H1. Data were actively collected from on-going police investigations of all homicides committed in 4 homicide zones of New York City between March 1 and October 31, 1988. Detectives were asked to provide researchers with case specific information, especially relating to drugs, and the data collection form became part of the routine paperwork. The information required concerned 1) victim-perpetrator characteristics and their relationship, 2) prior drug use by victim, perpetrator, or both, 3) whether either the victim or perpetrator was known to be a dealer, 4) circumstances and location of homicide, 5) weapon used, 6) drugs/paraphernalia found at the scene at the time of the arrest, 7) whether the victim and/or perpetrator had the appearance of being high or experiencing withdrawal, and 8) whether and how trafficking was involved in the homicide. Sources were documented, and responses were confirmed and clarified by researchers. The 4 homicide areas included 17 police precincts (23% of 75 in city) and were selected in conjunction with the New York City Police Department. The primary selection criteria were the inclusion of approximately 25% of the homicides likely to be committed in the city in 1988, use of existing police structure and controls, and a reflection of the diversity of the city in terms of homicide and drug crime rates, social and ethnic characterizations of neighborhoods, and geographic locales. 414 homicide events occurred in these areas with 434 victims and 490 perpetrators. For analytical purposes, one event with multiple victims was considered one event, and homicide was defined by the presence of a corpse. Drug-relatedness was established only when it was believed by the police and researchers to contribute in one of the three ways (described above), and there was sufficient information available.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
Some of the findings in the article have been summarized into the following table:
Variable DRCA H-1 (N=129) DRCA H-2 (N=218)
(New York without NYC, 1984) (NYC, 1988)
Number of homicides 41.7% 52.7%
classified as drug-
related
Psychopharmalogical 59% 14%
Economic/compulsive 3 4
Systemic 21 74
Multidimensional 14 8
Other drug related 4 0
Alcohol-related 79% 68%
Alcohol and marijuana 11
Alcohol and other drugs 5
Alcohol and cocaine 6
Alcohol and crack 3
In 1984, 26% of the systemic homicides were identified as cocaine related and 15% cocaine and some other substance together (though a large number of cases were unknown). In 1988, 61% of the systemic homicides were primarily crack related; 27% were powdered cocaine, and 4% were multidrug-related which all included cocaine or crack. To decide on drug relatedness, three factors were used: evidence of drug consumption by victim and/or perpetrator at the time of killing, contraband or drugs found at scene, and victim and/or perpetrator involvement in drug use and/or trafficking. The following table will summarize findings according to report category (percentages do not add up to 100% because of categorical overlap).
DRCA-H1 (1984) DRCA-H2 (1988)
Report Category Yes No Unknown (Of drug-related cases)
Evidence of 89% 21% 74% 15%
Consumption
Contraband/Drugs 38 6 18 17
Found at Scene
Known Drug 88 20 68 84
Involvement
None of the Above 0 67 11 14
The authors concluded that there were several features of notice in their findings: 1) There was a predominance of police knowledge about victim and/or perpetrator used in these categorizations; 2) most predatory violent acts were not done for money for drugs; 3) the vision of the "drug crazed"murderer was inaccurate; it was alcohol more often than drugs; 4) the drug most often associated was cocaine, not heroin, and 5) existing police records were generally inadequate for documenting these relationships.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors generally suggested that researchers can work with police for data collection that is more accurate and which will assist in better understanding the drug-homicide connection. When we understand this, the authors said that appropriate strategies can more easily be developed.
EVALUATION:
This study offers empirical evidence to contrast public notions about how drugs and crime are related. Finding that alcohol is much more likely to have a pharmacological effect and that violent crime is less likely to occur for drug money flies in the face of some strong public opinion. The methodological issues presented here are ones to be tackled. The paper is clear in demonstrating the necessity for primary data collection given the difficulty in standardizing and getting valid and reliable information from existing records. However, the approach that was taken in the second strategy still demonstrated some internal validity questions that may or may not be addressable: 1) selection of precincts was not random, and 2) collection of data relied heavily upon police judgment. This strategy was an improvement over the first, but it could be strengthened, possibly, with such additional practices as ride-alongs and observation of police activity. The degree to which this can be done is, of course, dependent upon the individual police department. A study that was more national (and generalizable) in scope is definitely indicated here. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
N1 - Call Number: F-443, AB-443
KW - 1980s
KW - New York
KW - Drug Trafficking
KW - Drug Use Effects
KW - Drug Related Violence
KW - Drug Related Victimization
KW - Homicide Offender
KW - Homicide Victim
KW - Homicide Causes
KW - Adult Offender
KW - Adult Victim
KW - Adult Homicide
KW - Adult Violence
KW - Juvenile Homicide
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Victim
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Violence Causes
KW - Substance Use Effects
Language: en |