Section B, Question 3: 'War on Drugs'

AIMS

OBJECTIVES

CONTEXT

CONTENT

REASONING

DEFINING CRIME

Defining an event as a ‘crime’ either sets in motion, or is the product of, a process of criminalization.

The state – via the criminal justice system – appropriates the conflict and imposes punishment, of which the prison sentence is the ultimate option and symbol (Blad et al., 1987).

‘Crime’ gives legitimacy to the expansion of crime control.

Characterised by an unacknowledged but open war between young males, mainly from poor, minority racial and deprived backgrounds (Box, 1983; Christie, 1993; Reiman, 1998) in the war against crime.

A process Christie (1986) describes as ‘pain delivery:

Defining

Classifying

Broadcasting

Disposing

Punishing

These very processes create wider social harms than the offence for which they are punished:

loss of job

loss of home

loss of family

ostracisation

'WAR ON DRUGS'

The crime control approach has manifestly failed:

USA

In October of 1982, President Ronald Reagan declared war on drugs- a 'planned, concerted campaign' against all drugs-'hard, soft or otherwise’.

Describing his campaign in military terms- he vowed, "We're going to win the war on drugs". As a result:

Anti-drug spending increased

The number of federal drug task forces increased

The initiative included a set of drug policies that were intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal.

Yet, the policies were viewed as controversial and some suggest has instead, led to a 'War on race'.

UK

Such an anti-drug rhetoric was mirrored in the UK under Thatcher’s government.

With the appointment of a Drugs
Tsar (the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator) and vast resources, the
government is rallied the nation to wage war on illicit drugs.

Some have rightly observed that the war on drugs could more
accurately be described as a war on drug users (Ashton, 1992).

Adopted an equally high profile campaign, based around the slogan `Heroin Screws You Up’. This portrayed young heroin addicts as unkempt social outcasts who threatened the cohesion of local communities and placed lives at risk.

'WAR ON RACE'

became the targets of the drug war with military-style attack and police control.

Although the drug war has certainly sought to eradicate controlled substances and destroy the networks established for their distribution, this is only part of the story:

Efforts to control drugs are also a way for dominant groups to express racial power.

Reiman and Leighton (2017) challenge us to step through the ‘looking glass’:

“entertain the idea that the goal of our criminal justice system is not to eliminate crime or to achieve justice but to project to the American public a credible image of the threat of crime as a threat from the poor” (2017:1).

In 'The Drugtakers' (Young, 1973) Young suggests:

“law is made for the powerful to be applied against the powerless—it is scarcely surprising that the rich do not figure prominently in the crime statistics” (Young, 1973: 45)

In his article, 'It’s the Poor What Gets the Blame’ (Young, 1973) stated, ‘‘by amplifying,’’ or drawing broader attention to deviant behaviours, groups with power re-affirm accepted moral boundaries" (Young, 1977:12).

The ‘War on Drugs’ policy thus cemented the connection between ‘crime’ and ‘drugs’ and ever since, has had wide and far reaching implications, particularly for people of racial heritage:

Due to their existing over-representation of Afro-Americans and the poor in the criminal legal systems. As a result:

Number of drug-related arrests and convictions has grown exponentially- Although minorities only make up 30% of the United States’ population, they account for 60% of those imprisoned.

1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men.

According to the Sentencing Project (2013),, 1 in 3 black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.

Since its official beginning in 1982, the number of Americans incarcerated for drug offenses has skyrocketed from 41,000 in 1980 to nearly a half-million in 2007 (Mauer, 2009).

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act, 1986:

Introduced mandatory minimum sentences to keep drug offenders in prison for longer periods of time:

In 1986, released drug offenders had spent an average of 22 months in federal prison. By 2004, federal drug offenders were expected to serve almost three times that length: 62 months in prison (Mauer, 2009).

Chronic disparity between federal sentencing laws for crack and powder cocaine offences:

For more than two decades, the ratio of the amount of powder cocaine needed to trigger the same sentence as an amount of crack cocaine was 100:1—even though crack and powder are pharmacologically identical.

Black Americans constitute 80% of those sentenced under federal crack cocaine laws each year, the disparity in sentencing laws leads to harsher sentences for black defendants.

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

While the Act reduced the crack/cocaine sentencing quantity disparity to 18:1, thousands continue to languish in prison serving sentences applied under the old laws because the act has not been applied retroactively.

RECAP

AIMS

OBJECTIVES

CONTEXT

CONTENT

REASONING