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

literature_review_lone_wolf_terror_1 xa9-final_paper_example_2 x

Writer’s choice

I need this paper to be on lone wolf terrorism and I have a 10 page draft that needs to be re-written due to it being 50% plagiarized. Structure of the paper (will be a collaboration of assignments 2-8) with final edits, revisions, ect. Please break up your paper by titling each section (ex: abstract, introduction, ect) and subtopics. Subtopics should be italicized. 1. Title page: Include topic, name, and date 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Literature review- (broken up by subtopics) 5. Hypothesis 6. Research plan 7. Conclusion 8. Reference page- FULL references, in APA format, alphabetically listed, using hanging indention. (To do hanging indention, highlight your references, hit paragraph (option in word), under special select hanging). APA format: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ Assignments/ Research writing: Microsoft word, double spaced, Times New Roman, 12 point font. The department uses APA style because it is the most widely followed technique in the social sciences and it is extensive enough to answer almost any question you may have about how to format a paper.

This needs to be re-written. It is 50% plagiarized. It needs to be put into your own words. Thanks

Literature Review

The United States government defines terrorism as the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. Within this definition, there are three key elements violence, fear, and intimidation and each element produce terror in its victims. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) claims that terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof. This is done in furtherance of political or social objectives. However you define it, it is a heartless, cold blooded, cowardly way to protest indifferences in religion, politics, and cultural diversity in the world today.

Terrorism has evolved over the last decade in the United States. The U.S. has been accustomed to worry about extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. However, the U.S. now has a new threat that has emerged into the limelight, the lone wolf terrorist. A lone wolf terrorist or lone-wolf fighter is someone who commits violent acts of terrorism in support of some group or movement, but does so alone, outside of any command structure. The term “lone wolf” was popularized by white supremacists Alex Curtis and Tom Metzger in the late 1990s.

Lone wolf was subsequently adopted by US law enforcement agencies and by media to refer to individuals following this strategy. Currently, the term “lone-wolf terrorism” now refers to violent acts that take place outside a command structure, regardless of ideology. This means that the individual acts alone when planning, organizing, and carrying out their acts of terror. These individuals live and work right under our noses on a daily basis and we know nothing about their intentions until it is too late.

In contrast with the current political concern about the threat of lone wolf terrorism, terrorism scholars predominantly focus on group dynamics in explaining individual pathways into terrorism. Terrorism is commonly viewed as essentially a collective activity. Academic explanations of terrorism stress the influence of leaders, recruitment, training, moral disengagement, in-group solidarity, conformity and obedience, among other factors. The lone-wolf terrorist does share an ideological or philosophical identification with an extremist group, however does not communicate with the group he or she identifies with. While the lone wolf’s actions are motivated to advance the group’s goal, the tactics and methods are conceived and directed solely by the lone wolf, without any outside commands or directions from the group’s leadership.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Director Janet Napolitano was at a conference in Paris, France. She urged European partners to finalize a deal on sharing passenger data that has met resistance over privacy concerns, the risk of lone wolf attackers, with no ties to known extremist networks or grand conspiracies, is on the rise as the global terrorist threat has shifted. She also believes that we need to keep dangerous travelers from reaching the United States.

History of Lone Wolves

The first time the term lone wolf terrorist was used was in the 1990’s by supremacists Tom Metzger and Alex Curtis. Tom Metzger is a white supremacist from Indiana who founded the White Arian Resistance (WAR), a known hate group. One of the most influential aspects of Metzger’s right-wing activism has been his advocacy of the lone wolf or leaderless resistance. He believes that people should be a part of a movement as individuals or small cells fighting for one cause below ground, as opposed to large membership based above ground organizations. This makes it harder for law enforcement to track operations. Law enforcement soon adopted the term and used it in an investigation of white supremacist Alex Curtis.

At only 17 Curtis founded the Lemon Grove, CA Ku Klux Klan and anointed himself the Exalted Cyclops. The group twice burglarized his high school. Authorities say he vandalized the building with swastikas and racist epithets and stole lists of student addresses to write racist letters to parents “alerting” them that their children were friends with nonwhite students. In the late 1990’s Curtis used the internet to encouraged fellow racists to act alone in committing violent crimes so that they would not incriminate others. He called for the elimination of nonwhites by whatever means necessary and promoted assassination, illegal drug sales, and biological warfare as useful strategies. The FBI and San Diego Police operation to investigate Curtis’ activities was code named Operation Lone Wolf, largely due to Curtis’ encouragement of other white supremacists to follow what Curtis refers to as lone wolf’ activism. On November 9, 2000, Curtis himself was arrested and charged with three federal counts of conspiracy to violate civil rights. For each count, Curtis faced 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Law enforcement has since adopted the term lone wolf as a reference to individual terrorist.

Current issues and Prevention

Lone Wolf seems to be the current terminology affecting U.S. terrorism. Because of heightened security at all government buildings and throughout our infrastructure, lone wolf terror is becoming the current solution for low key, successful attacks on U.S. soil. The year 2010 has brought unprecedented Lone Wolf attacks on the U.S. There were three attacks on government buildings in 2010, including one attack on the pentagon. The research is clear. Lone Wolf attacks are spontaneous and difficult to pre-determine.

Motivation for Lone Wolf attacks vary. Lone Wolves motivation ranges from mental instability to political and religious reasons. Lone Wolves such as Theodore Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph are perhaps the most elusive yet effective Lone Wolves. Their terror and destruction will be remembered for decades to come. Luck seems to be the prevailing cause for preventing Lone Wolf attacks. Lone Wolves are solitary individuals who strike alone. This makes their detection prior to them striking very difficult. This is in contrast to terrorist cells, which consist of more than one person. Terror plots of radical cells are often disrupted by intelligence leaks. When the Lone Wolf leaks the information to someone else or documents and plans are found, the mission can be compromised. Current government surveillance over phone and email messages are some of the vital tools used to gather intelligence on these cowardly perpetrators.

In some cases, the authorities are able to apprehend the lone wolf before they are able to carry out their plans. The U.S. Patriot act is one tool that law enforcement has at their disposal to aid in identification and intelligence of any planned terror attacks. The Patriot Act was created in 2001 by President George W. Bush and amended in 2008 by President Barack Obama. It gives the government substantially more powers to track down terrorists. Security has been tightened at airports, seaports, borders, and the Department of Homeland Security was created to oversee the efforts. The most effective but controversial element of the Patriot act is that the government can more easily place wiretaps on phones and look into digital correspondence without as many legal restrictions as before. This act has probably saved lives by expediting the intelligence of where these lone wolves are located and into when and where they are planning to attack.

Radical/Fundamentalist Islam

The history begins with the birth of Islam in the year 610, when the prophet Muhammed received his divine mission and accepted Allah’s instructions for a new religion that commanded belief in one God. For the next 22 years, Muhammed served as a transmitter of Allah’s message, and his Muslim empire grew to encompass most of the Arabian Peninsula. After the prophet’s death, the Muslim empire continued to expand until the 17th century, when Muslims were unquestionably the world’s greatest military force, having conquered extensive territory and converted millions throughout the Middle East and Southern Europe. Islam had also achieved unmatched advances in architecture, art, law, mathematics, and science.

Radical Islamists are dedicated to the conquest of the world by any means they see fit. The primary objective of radical Islam is to dominate all people within its reach and to suppress all other religions and ideologies. Although not all Muslims are radicals or politically motivated, the few that are put the whole world at risk. Radical Islam draws on widely accepted Islamic religious philosophy and customs. However the movement also draws heavily on dangerous ideas that negate basic human rights and freedoms of expression. Radical Islam’s arsenal is diverse and dangerous. Terrorism is only one of the tactics used by radicals, with new tactics arising every day. Some are more subtle such as the use of textbooks, while others are outright violent, such as terrorizing those who embrace freedom of speech. Lone Wolf terrorism is on the rise among radicals because of it being hard to track by law enforcement personnel.

Islamic radicals hijacked airplanes to attack and undermine the West. They killed thousands of innocents and never thought twice about it. Their hatred is not just directed against us. They also mean to hijack Islam itself and to destroy 13 centuries of Islamic civilization. We are not in a war between two civilizations. We are fighting an enemy of two civilizations. Bin Laden and other Islamic radicals claim they represent ancient Islam. It is true that they do represent one tradition in Islam, but it is a tradition that Islam early on rejected as opposed to the universal message of its Prophet. Militant Islam directs its venom towards America and the West. The Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, said after September 11 that the plan to destroy America is going ahead and God willing it is being implemented, but it is a huge task beyond the will and comprehension of human beings. He believed that with the help of God, this will happen in a short period of time.

Lone Wolf’s and America

Lone Wolf terror has been present in this country since the early 1990’s. Domestic terrorists usually target government buildings or innocent civilians in a desperate attempt to get their ideologies across. One of largest terror attacks on American soil in the 1990’s was the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, Ok. The hardest part about dealing with the lone wolf terrorist is that they are hard to flush out into the eyes of the security world. Only if the individual is caught doing something wrong through the internet or other forms of anti-American Semitism, the watchful eyes of the DHS will be on them. Lone wolf terror has been occurring in our country the last couple of years; people just may not know it. Lone Wolves do not need to be of Middle Eastern nationality. Some of the Lone Wolves that carried out attacks in the U.S. were white.

It is almost unthinkable that some of our country’s military members would be labeled Lone Wolf terrorist, however, they are. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others, was shot but captured alive in November of 2009. After taken into custody, Hasan had said Muslims should “rise up” and attack Americans in retaliation for the US war in Iraq, a former army colleague said. Hasan was a field grade Army officer. This means that he had been in the military for a number of years to achieve this status. Hasan was a psychiatrist who had been treating soldiers returning from Iraq for post-traumatic stress, alcohol, and drug abuse problems. Hasan also had made outlandish comments about the American occupation of Iraq and his impending deployment there. Hasan also claims that there was a lot of harassment and insults generated by his faith in Islam and his Arab ethnicity. Hasan said he was “happy” when a US soldier was killed by another lone wolf extremist in an attack on a military recruitment center in Arkansas.

In Little Rock, AR on June 1, 2009, Pvt. William Andrew Long, 23, of Conway had just completed basic training. He was volunteering at the west Little Rock recruiting office before starting an assignment in South Korea. Both Long and another new Army Pvt were standing outside the office smoking when gunshots rang out in the shopping center. Muhammed allegedly performed a drive-by shooting of the Army recruitment office with the sole intention of killing soldiers. Pvt Long was killed and his colleague, Pvt Ezeagwula, 18, was wounded. Ezeagwula spoke briefly at a news conference at a Jacksonville, AR recruiting center weeks after the shooting, saying he had wounds in his back, head, and buttocks from the shooting. Muhammad told the AP he admitted to his actions to police and said he was retaliating against the U.S. military. “Muhammad told the police upon his arrest that this was an act of retaliation, and not a reaction on the soldiers personally. He also claims the attack was not planned. He claimed it has been on his mind for awhile. It wasn’t nothing planned really. He also claimed it was just a heat of the moment type of thing.

November 2011 in New York, an “Al Qaeda sympathizer” accused of plotting to bomb police and post offices in New York City as well as U.S. troops returning home was kept in police custody after an arraignment Sunday on numerous terrorism-related charges. Jose Pimentel of Manhattan, “a 27-year-old Al Qaeda sympathizer” who the mayor said was motivated by terrorist propaganda and resentment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said police had to move quickly to arrest Pimentel on Saturday because he was ready to carry out his plan. They had to act quickly yesterday because he was, in fact, putting his bomb together. He was drilling holes and it would have been not appropriate for us to let him walk out the door with that bomb. The police commissioner said Pimentel was energized and motivated to carry out his plan by the Sept. 30 killing of Al-Qaeda’s U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The Mayor of New York claims that he is a total lone wolf and that he has no accomplices in the acts of terror he was intending to carry out.

Lone Wolf Terror Overseas

There have also been cases of Lone Wolf terror across the ocean in Europe. Because of the close proximity with Middle Eastern countries known to harbor terrorists, European countries are prime targets for lone wolves.

The Italian Unabomber is the name given to the man responsible for over 20 bombings in northern Italy from 1994 to 2005. Italian media named the attacker this because of the similarities between his or her bombings and those of American serial bomber Theodore Kaczynski, has been striking fear across the country with over thirty explosions in thirteen years. Italian law enforcement officials and the FBI believed that the Unabomber is Elvo Zornitta, a 49-year-old engineer who has been charged with the planting of 20 bombs. On August 28, 2006 Italian police raided the house of Zornitta, who has been under surveillance for a year. Police had suspected Zornitta for two years but had no proof until investigators raided his house and found a pair of scissors that forensic experts have linked to a bomb that failed to go off in 2004, with the blades that match the cut of a piece of tape used to fix one of the bombs. Booby-traps have been left in household items such as egg boxes, toothpaste and toys.

In London on July 7, 2005, 4 bombs went off in the subway system. Four Islamist Lone Wolf (known as “home grown” in London) terrorists detonated four bombs, three in quick succession aboard London Underground trains across the city and a fourth on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Three bombs exploded within 50 seconds of each other. Three of the four bombers were British nationals of Pakistani descent from West Yorkshire. Fifty-two people, as well as the four bombers, were killed in the attacks, and over 700 more were injured. British security experts said the blasts had the hallmarks of the Al Qaeda network, and that the suicide bombers were motivated by Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War. It didn’t take much thinking to see that this was a concocted line for propaganda purposes against the coalition forces in Iraq.

Weapons Used

There are several weapons that are used by Lone Wolves when carrying out their plan. Weapons used range from small arms, such as rifles and pistols, to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Some terrorist are known for using improvised explosive devices (IED’s). IED’s are a makeshift or homemade explosive device commonly used against troops in Iraq, however have been used on American soil in the past by Lone Wolf terror suspects. They may use explosives alone or in combination with chemical, biological, or radiological materials to enhance the damage and casualties. IED’s may be detonated in one of several ways, depending on their design and intended target. Those that use concealed mortar and artillery projectiles can be thrown into or placed in a designated area, often concealed. Vehicle Borne IEDs (VBIEDs) use cars or trucks to contain the explosive device. Suicide bomb IEDs makes use of the human body to convey the IED. However the weapon is deployed, it causes substantial damage to anyone or anything in its vicinity.

Suicide bombers have been attacking the United States on and off of our soil since the 1990’s. A suicide attack is violent action against other people or property by an attacker aware that he or she will be killed. The suicide attackers turn themselves into an explosive by attaching an explosive device to their bomb, or drive a vehicle such as a truck into a building or other structure. Suicide attacks were made an object of widespread attention during World War II, when Japanese Kamikaze pilots flew their aircraft into allied ships and planes. Suicide attacks are considered the tactic of extremely motivated or committed groups. Their threat is capable of deeply disrupting everyday life, since people, their packages and their vehicles may all become objects of suspicion.

The above literary review focuses on the growing problem of Lone Wolf terrorists and examples of how we can prevent future attacks. In the last 20 years we have seen a surge in terrorism that is perpetrated by lone individuals who are not involved with any terror group, but carry extreme ideologies just the same. When we look at our past attacks, we learn that we must continue to hone our skills on combating terrorism while upgrading policies and tactics to adapt to a continually illusive adversary and to be on the offensive now and in the future.

3

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

bdowning@vinu.edu

.

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

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

2. Abstract

3. Introduction

4. Literature review- (broken up by subtopics)

5. Hypothesis

6. Research plan

7. Conclusion

8. Reference page- FULL references, in APA format, alphabetically listed, using hanging indention. (To do hanging indention, highlight your references, hit paragraph (option in word), under special select hanging). APA format:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Example:

Drug Addiction and Crime: Does one Cause the other?

________________

A Paper

Presented to

Department of Criminology

Indiana State University

________________

By

Brittny Downing

December 2009

ABSTRACT

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

LITERATURE REVIEW

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

Biological/Neurological

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

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

Subculture of Violence/Victimization/Trauma

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

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

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

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

Self control theory

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

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

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

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

Social Exclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Legal definitions

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

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

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

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

HYPOTHESIS

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

METHOD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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