‘I am drug dependent’: a study of self-identification and prior criminal justice contact using archival data from the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) program

ABSTRACT

Identity theories have long influenced criminological thinking, and much of that work warns of deviant certification and negative appraisals as promoting criminal continuity. In the drug-use literature, similar themes have emerged linking drug-use continuity to the strength of one’s identity as ‘dependent’ or ‘addicted’ to drugs. Using archival data drawn from the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) program, we explore the correlation between criminal justice contact and the self-identification of a drug dependency among a sample of recent drug-using police detainees. We find, holding constant a detainee’s frequency, longevity and type of drug use, that contact with the criminal justice system is statistically associated with higher odds of self-identifying as dependent. Further, we found those detainees who have more frequent criminal justice contact more likely to report themselves as dependent. This finding contributes to ongoing research into the complexity of identity and the management and engagement of drug-using offenders in treatment programs offered throughout the criminal justice system.

KEYWORDS:

• criminal justice contact
• drug dependency
• drug dependent
• drug use
• self-report

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Loosely defined, an individual’s identity is the collection of (internal and external) thoughts, emotions and behaviours which come to define the core of ‘who I am’ (Dingle, Cruwys, et al., 2015; Oyserman et al., 2012).

2 Throughout this paper, we use the terms ‘addiction’ and ‘dependency’ interchangeably. This is partly because the drug literature has not yet come to fully settle on an agreed set of terminology to describe problematic drug use. We acknowledge that terms such as ‘addict’, ‘junkie’ or ‘drug abuser’ are stigmatising, problematic and create harm in the drug-using community and so have only used these terms if historical research warrants it and have also placed these terms in ‘inverted commas’.

3 We would also note that social learning theory can be applied here as well, particularly in relation to the criminogenic nature of prisons. For instance, research has repeatedly documented that prisons are criminogenic environments (see, for example, Cid, 2009; Cullen, Jonson, & Nagin, 2011). Cullen et al. (2011) found that when very low-risk offenders were imprisoned—irrespective of the period of that imprisonment—these offenders were more likely to experience increased recidivism upon release. Further, they argued that this was due to low-risk offenders ‘learning’ from and associating with comparatively more severe offenders, incorporating new criminal attitudes that they may never have developed. For this study, this means that individuals whose drug-dependent identity is still somewhat juvenile in its formation, imprisonment and increased contact with the criminal justice system may further exacerbate the internalisation of this identity, leading to further negative affective experiences.

4 Specifically, the paradox of persistence argues that differences identified between individuals at one point in time (when looking back) might not be prospectively predictive because the composition of the population has changed. In the same way that many serious drug users are likely to have started drug use early, this is not necessarily evidence that starting drug use early is a predictor of serious drug use.

5 As a reviewer of our article noted, some DUMA participants may believe, rightly or wrongly, that answering in the affirmative (over-reporting) when asked about their dependency could improve their chances of being offered treatment and/or a diversionary sentencing arrangement (see also Langfield & Payne, 2020). However, we note that the DUMA survey is conducted by personnel who are independent from the police, and the informed consent procedures clearly outline that any information the participant provides is confidential and has no influence on future treatment options or criminal justice processes. On balance, therefore, we think that this is unlikely to have impacted our results.

6 We remind the readers that there is likely a spectrum of identities beyond this dyad of ‘drug dependent’ and ‘non-dependent’. Future work will be needed to explore these identities and their implications for criminal justice treatment programs.

7 While drug courts have shown considerable success in Australia (Kornhauser, 2018; Payne & Morgan, 2016) and internationally (Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012), there are several methodological, program implementation and evaluation differences that make comparison difficult. In his review of the Australian evidence, Kornhauser (2018, p. 93) concluded that ‘drug courts reduce recidivism more than conventional sanctions’. However, he cautioned that there is still a paucity of research to achieve ‘unequivocal endorsement’ (Indermaur & Roberts, 2003; p. 150 cited in Kornhauser, 2018, p. 94) that the policy was an effective method of reducing recidivism. Further, in a meta-analysis of 92 adult drug court evaluations, Mitchell et al. (2012) found that recidivism rates were lower for those who participated in a drug court, though they did find that there was disagreement as to the extent of this finding across the more rigorous evaluations. Overall this suggests that drug courts are an effective policy in reducing recidivism, but that program delivery and design are important factors to consider (see, for example, Payne & Morgan, 2016).