Skip to main content Skip to left navigation Skip to search

National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy Background Paper: Monograph Series No. 69

6.6 ATS and crime

prev page| TOC |next page

Previous research into the drugs–crime nexus has demonstrated a complex relationship between drugs and crime, and especially violent crime (Wilcznski & Pigott, 2004). Criminal career research indicates that drug dependent offenders are not a homogenous group (Nurco et al., 1995; Makkai & Payne, 2003). There are essentially three models or ideal types that are used to explain the causal links between drugs and crime (see Pernanen et al., 2002):

1. Psychopharmacological – the person was intoxicated and the intoxication resulted in antisocial and criminal behaviour;
2. Economic compulsive – the person has a drug dependency problem that ‘compelled’ the person to commit crimes to support their drug habit; and
3. Systemic – crime results from engagement in ‘drug market’ activity, such as establishing and maintaining an illicit drug market or drug-defined crimes.

Model 1 is usually applied to violent and disorderly behaviour most notably in the case of alcohol and stimulants, including amphetamine and cocaine (Makkai & McGregor, 2002). Model 2 is usually applied to property crime, most notably in the case of heroin and other illicit drugs, but not usually alcohol or cannabis. Model 3 involves two components – offending behaviour associated with an illegal drug market and drug-defined crimes such as drug trafficking.

Determining the extent to which crime is drug related is complex and requires data at such a level of specificity that it may never be possible to collect on every individual. Until data collection and measurement are advanced in the criminal justice sector, it remains necessary to rely on samples and to a large extent on self-report data by offenders of their behaviour. Relying on administrative data, or aggregated counts, can be affected by various factors including counting rules (Carcach & Makkai, 2001), under-reporting (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1990), the funnel effect of the criminal justice system (Makkai, 2001), the effect of policing activity on detection (Lough, 1997), and clearance rates (Doak, 2001).

In reviewing the evidence in the United States, Chaiken and Chaiken (1990) concluded that there were people with severe dependence who did not commit crimes and there were criminals who did not consume illicit drugs and there was no evidence to support the view that despite patterns of interrelatedness, heavy drug users were necessarily inclined towards criminal activity. Inciardi and McElrath (1995) highlight the complexity even further:

• There are many different kinds of drugs and drug users;
• The nature and patterns of drug use are constantly shifting and changing;
• The purity, potency and availability of drugs is dynamic rather than static; and
• Drug related crime and the drug using criminal are undergoing continuous change.

With regards to drug use among criminal samples, there is considerable international and Australian evidence that most male drug using offenders are involved in criminal behaviour before the onset of their use of illicit drugs (see Chaiken & Chaiken 1990; Makkai & Payne, 2003; Johnson, 2001; Dobinson & Ward, 1985; Mayer et al., 1998). The evidence also applies for females, however, more females report drug use prior to criminal offending (Johnson, 2004).

Top of Page

Research investigating the association between criminal activity and ATS use can either survey community drug users about their criminal involvement, or survey those in the criminal justice system about their drug use. Research into the Sydney methamphetamine market provides information on the former. It was found that 45% of regular methamphetamine users had committed an offence in the past month, 26% had been arrested in the past year, and one third had a previous prison sentence (McKetin, McLaren & Kelly, 2005). The most common types of crimes committed by the sample were drug dealing and property crime (McKetin, McLaren & Kelly, 2005).

Research on the latter includes surveying police detainees, with levels of offending found to vary according to the type and level of drug dependency. The 2006 DUMA report (see Mouzos et al., 2007) found that detainees who are drug dependent report an average of 4.4 charges in the past 12 months and those who test positive to methamphetamine report an average of 4.2 charges. This compares to 3.8 charges for heroin users, 3.5 charges for cannabis uses and 1.4 charges for those detainees who have never used illegal drugs. When incarcerated male offenders were asked about what effect alcohol or drugs had on lifetime offending career, 37% of regular amphetamine users nominated the psychopharmacological effects compared to 12% of regular heroin users, who were more likely to nominate the economic compulsive effects (see Table 6.5).

Table 6.5: Attributions for offending career for regular amphetamine and regular heroin users, adult male offenders (%)


Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Male Survey, 2001

Top of Page

The 2006 DUMA also reported that among police detainees, the majority of users do not personally ascribe their illicit drug use as a causal factor in their offending behaviour, with approximately one third making this attribution. It found that 14% of police detainees had purposely used methamphetamine to commit a crime. The three most common reasons they gave for using the drug were:

• Be more confident or have more courage (76%);
• Be more effective or more capable (72%); and
• Get a rush of excitement or adrenalin (65%).

With regard to links to organised crime, few users (either police detainees or regular methamphetamine users) have knowledge about the upper levels of the distribution market, particularly the manufacturing and wholesale distribution. Individuals involved in the high level supply ensure there is distance between themselves and the street market (see McKetin et al., 2005). DUMA data provide a profile of the drug user and dealer operating in a highly personalised and contained manner. Mouzos and colleagues (2007) report that the most common method of contacting a dealer for methamphetamine was calling on a mobile phone (31%), followed by visiting the dealer’s house or flat (26%). The authors observed that the nature of the relationship of buyer and seller is one of investment, time and effort to gain trust and ensure reliability in terms of supply, quality and price. This relationship is further described by Ritter who noted that (2005):

… the structure of the drug trade (a diversified series of networks with variety in operations and structure); and the importance of friendships and alliances (in the freelance way in which the market(s) operate). The participants in the Miceski (2001) study describe strong loyalty to their suppliers (because of the difficulties of assessing quality). Purity and potency were crucial issues for these dealers – their reputation and income depended upon good product (p.5).

One of the developments in the amphetamine market noted particularly during the consultations was the absence of a hierarchy of dealers. The ease with which amphetamine can be manufactured in small laboratories, including car boots and motel rooms negate the need for a distribution chain of the kind deriving from the ‘Mr Bigs’ of the heroin and cocaine markets. While outlaw motorcycle gangs have previously been identified as playing an important role in the production and distribution of domestic methamphetamine (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2007b), their influence may well be reducing given the method of amphetamine production, although importation pathways involving criminal networks in other illegal activities such as heroin trafficking remain (McKetin et al (2005). However, this conclusion is not without contention, and some law enforcement services believe that new methods of production may actually increase the influence of outlaw motorcycle gangs. McKetin and colleagues (2005) also identify some of the cultural and ethnic underpinnings that characterise some of the criminal networks involved in the trade.

Top of Page

Concern about the impact of criminal activities on the community was raised during the consultation process. It was noted that ATS use can exacerbate behaviours that may lead to criminal acts, including property damage and violent behaviour. Such actions may then further interfere with probation and court orders. In contrast, some discussion was directed toward the routine, operational activities of police which were seen as having the potential to be counter productive. Some participants believed that police had access to medical records that were used to determine how to manage an ATS intoxicated offender. Others were concerned that ‘hotspots’ such as needle exchange clinics could be under surveillance as a means of detecting dealers. Furthermore, police surveillance of support services such as syringe and needle exchanges has a negative impact on users and can force them into unsafe needle injecting practices.

It was also suggested that key events, such as Mardi Gras, induce police to engage in unnecessarily harsh tactics using dogs and undertaking illegal searches. Police activities at these events can result in people taking drug overdoses to avoid detection. Research undertaken for the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) in NSW concluded that there was evidence that some drug law enforcement practices, such as aggressive street policing of drugs, may be ‘inimical to public health’ (Weatherburn et al., 1999). On the other hand, as noted earlier in a study by Ratcliffe and Makkai (2004), intelligence-led targeted policing can have significant effects in reducing crime and that when displacement occurs, the criminal activity is often of a lesser degree both in terms of volume and seriousness. However, as discussed in Chapter 6, the issue of sustainability of effects or ‘slow decay of the benefits’ is a significant issue for law enforcement (Ratcliffe & Makkai, 2004).

Top of Page

prev page| TOC |next page