National Drug Strategy
National Drug Strategy

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

6.7 Responses to drugs and crime

prev page| TOC |next page

Table of contents

The criminal justice system is constantly evolving in response to changing social, economic and political pressures. One such pressure that gathered momentum during the 1980s and 1990s was community concern about increasing crime rates (particularly property and violent crime) and the perceived link with illicit drug use and drug dependence (notably heroin) (Payne et al., 2007). In response, Australia has experienced a significant growth in criminal justice initiatives aimed specifically at addressing the drugs/crime nexus. These initiatives encompass a broad range of interventions that are commonly referred to as diversion initiatives because they aim to divert offenders from the criminal justice system.

In broad terms, diversion involves the re-direction of offenders away from conventional criminal justice processes, with the aim of minimising their level of contact with the formal system (Payne et al., 2007). In its purest form, ‘diversion’ applies to those processes that occur at the pre-apprehension stage prior to any formal charges being laid and are focused on diverting individuals from the criminal justice system rather than referring to an alternative form of processing (Payne et al., 2007). One example is informal police cautioning whereby individuals, instead of being apprehended and charged, are given a verbal warning with no further obligations placed on the offender and no official record kept of the contact. Over the decades, the term has acquired broader application and is now commonly used to refer to any processing option that offers what is perceived to be a different and less punitive response than what would otherwise have applied (Payne et al., 2007). In addition, there is now a much greater emphasis on diverting individuals to an alternative program rather than simply diverting them from the system (Payne et al., 2007).

Over the past decade, diversion programs have been implemented in every State and Territory, and there are currently five main types of drug-crime diversionary programs in use across Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2004). Within these broad categories, there are a large number of possible interventions and each initiative can be implemented in different ways and in different combinations. The following provides a summary of the key stages and main intervention types:

Diversion initiatives can be police-based, as with police drug diversion, or court-based, as with drug courts and intermediate court programs. Initiatives under the drug-crime diversionary programs can be divided into four groups, depending on their location along the criminal justice continuum, as follows: Top of Page

Some examples of diversion programs currently being conducted include: Most of the police and intermediate court-based programs had their origin in and/or are consistent with the National Framework for the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative (IDDI) that was developed by the MCDS in 1999 at the request of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The aim of this Framework, consisting of 19 Principles, was to ‘underpin the joint Commonwealth/State/Territory development of an approach to divert illicit drug users from the criminal justice system to education or assessment, with a view to treatment’ while at the same time, providing states with the flexibility to respond to local requirements (Department of Health and Ageing, 1999). This Framework, with its associated Commonwealth funding has enabled jurisdictions to either establish or expand upon pre-existing police and courtbased diversion programs. Consequently, by the end of 2006, Tasmania was the only state that did not offer both types of diversion for drug and drug related offending. In contrast to this nationally coordinated approach to the initiation and/or enhancement of programs at the front end of the criminal justice system, Drug Courts generally developed independently within each jurisdiction and still rely predominantly on state-based funding.

During the consultations, there was considerable support for the principles of diversion at all levels, but there was also a view that they were applied differently both across and within jurisdictions, and rigorous evaluations needed to be undertaken. Where rural and remote communities were represented, participants commented that the opportunities for diversion weren’t available. Some commented that due to the behavioural issues associated with ATS, police were less likely to give the offender the option of accessing a diversion program. It was largely agreed that rehabilitation was crucial to the good management of ATS harms and prevention, but there needs to be a holistic approach across police, health professionals and hospital workers, with consumers referred to accredited agencies. A number of consultations highlighted that custodial settings can be a first step towards intervention, prevention and rehabilitation, while some felt the police needed more power to arrest people. The submission from Drug Free Australia (DFA) suggested the need to: During the consultations some held the view that a national drug strategy did not need to differentiate between drugs (given the commonalities), while others argued that ATS have characteristic effects different from those of other drugs that require specific responses. This debate is complicated further by the fact that many ATS consumers are polydrug users. One of the themes of the consultations was the divergence in opinion about the efficacy of drug courts and the capacity of the courts to effect change in offenders’ behaviour. The MERIT program received considerable support during discussions, although it is not widely available. During consultations, the need to strengthen opportunities for the support and training of police and to make provision of alternative placements for offenders (other than watch-houses and hospitals) who need respite was also highlighted. Other recommendations focused on treatment and other supports for offenders, particularly within the criminal justice system. The emphasis of the discussions and comments focused on prevention and rehabilitation. Many statements referred to the need to assess the amount of funding provided to law enforcement and that provided for treatments. The general view was that more money was used to fund law enforcement initiatives than health, social intervention and treatment, and that funding should be based on a return on investment model.

Top of Page

A number of consultations referred to the need for post release support for prisoners as a critical issue. Provisions of parole, the stigma of prison, loss of goods and identity, and lack of financial support are significant in people’s reintegration or re-offending. Reference was made to New Zealand initiatives for assisting prisoners to re-enter the community. There are high rates of ATS users in prisons going ‘cold turkey’ (i.e., having no management of their withdrawal symptoms) who are then released into the community with no support. Often their friends and acquaintances are still using and it is therefore easy to return to the previous lifestyle of drug use and crime. A need was expressed for halfway houses for exprisoners to go to when released. Also, there was concern over the lack of forensic mental health specialists in the drug and alcohol field.

The issue of co-morbid mental health problems and drug use among the prison population has been subjected to some research. Heffernan and colleagues (2003) investigated the prevalence of substance-use disorders and psychological morbidity among 288 police arrestees at the Brisbane City Police Watch House. The study found that 86% of arrestees had at least one substance-use disorder, over 80% were substance dependent and amphetamine was among the most predominant drugs used. The vast majority of the sample exhibited significant psychological distress, reported by 82% of males and 94% of females.

Other research has compared psychological disorders among prisoners in comparison to community samples. Butler and colleagues (2006) compared data obtained from 916 prisoners admitted into the NSW correctional system with an Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. After controlling for demographic differences between the samples, the 12-month prevalence of any psychiatric illness within the previous year was 80% in prisoners and 31% in the community. The most common disorders among the prisoner sample were symptoms of psychosis, substance use disorders and personality disorders. White and colleagues (2006) specifically investigated psychosis in a sample of 621 remandees at a Queensland centre and 61 screened positive for a psychotic disorder (9.8%). Of this sample, 80% were dependent on alcohol, cannabis or amphetamine, and 81% were receiving no treatment at the time of their offence.

Some examples of current initiatives that address health issues for prison populations include:

Juvenile justice services

The overall incarceration rate for juveniles has declined 58% from 65 to 27 per 100,000 from 1981 to 2005 (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2006). The Drug Use Careers of Offenders (DUCO) survey was conducted with a sample of 371 young offenders aged between 11 and 17 years who were remanded in or sentenced to detention in 2004 (Prichard & Payne, 2005). In terms of drug use, almost all juvenile detainees reported lifetime use of alcohol or cannabis, and half reported amphetamine use. In the six months prior to detention, 63% reported using cannabis on a regular basis and 20% reported regular amphetamine use. The links between drugs and crime were measured in a number of ways in this study and the results suggested that the majority of juveniles did not commence drug use until after their first offence; however two thirds reported being intoxicated (either drunk on alcohol or high on drugs) at the time of committing the offence/s for which they were now in detention; and the majority of juveniles reported that drug use had a definite impact on their lifetime criminal offending behaviour.

Top of Page

Diversion initiatives with juvenile offenders can be traced back to the establishment in the late 19th century of the first children’s court, which was designed to redirect offending children away from punitive adult courts into a more informal and more benign system which could better meet their need for specialist guidance and treatment (Seymour, 1988). Currently, most states and territories include ‘victim–offender conferencing’ as part of juvenile justice, which typically involve the victim, the young offender and representatives from the criminal justice system. The aim is to develop a negotiated response to the crime with the young person taking responsibility for the offence, and for the needs of both the victim and the young person to be heard and met (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2007). Conferences may be held at a number of stages of the juvenile justice process and are administered variously by the police, courts or juvenile justice department. The range of juvenile justice services is outlined in Table 6.6.

Discussions about juvenile justice issues during consultations focused on support and treatment in the case of ATS, with an emphasis on the need to determine whether offences committed had an underlying drug element. Again, as with the case of many issues around juvenile offending, access to diversion and treatment options depend on geographic location. Those in rural areas commented that offending juveniles had to be transferred away and removed from their families as there are no holding facilities available locally.

Table 6.6: Range of juvenile justice outcomes and services available by state and territory, June 2006

Table 6.6: Range of juvenile justice outcomes and services available by state and territory, June 2006
Note: Shaded cells indicate items that are within NMDS scope and for which data are collected in the NMDS. Other ticked cells indicate juvenile justice outcomes and services that the states and territories offer, but which are outside the scope of the NMDS.
* Indicates items which are within NMDS scope but for which data are unavailable for the NMDS.

Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2007) Juvenile justice in Australia 2005-06, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

Top of Page

Rehabilitation in Corrections

The adult prison population in Australia is increasing. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics – 2006 Prisoners in Australia (Trewin, 2006b), show an increase of 42% from 18,193 in 1996 to 25,790 in 2006. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology (2007a), 60% of prisoners in 2006 were known to be in prison previously. The median age of prisoners is 33, with most prisoners (70%) aged between 20-39 years.

According to the 2006 Prisoners in Australia (Trewin, 2006b), of those sentenced for illicit drug offences in 2006, 5% were sentenced to fewer than 12 months, 12% to between two and five years and 14% between five and ten years. The New South Wales Justice Health Service (2005) reports that about 80% of people in custody have committed drug related crimes. By comparison with the other purposes of prison such as acting as a deterrent to further offending or as punishment, the capacity of corrections to effect rehabilitation is very dependent on the lengths of prison sentences and the rehabilitation programs available to them.

Black, Dolan and Wodak (2004) undertook a study of supply, demand and reduction strategies in Australian prisons. The authors commented on the absence of information about the effectiveness of some strategies, the long term consequences of these strategies in terms of benefits and adverse consequences, and their costs. The study found, for example, that supply reduction strategies which include drug detection dogs and urinalysis are yet to be evaluated in terms of overall benefits, value and cost. The study identified favourable outcomes for some demand reduction strategies including detoxification, methadone treatment, inmate programs and counselling, and drug-free units but found that the availability of these services was insufficient. There was also evidence of insufficient implementation of relatively inexpensive harm reduction strategies such as education, peer education, blood-borne viral infection (BBVI) testing, hepatitis B vaccination, condom provision, bleach/detergent provision, naloxone provision and needle and syringe programs despite favourable evaluations and their relatively low cost of implementation.

In 2006, a draft National Corrections Drug Strategy 2006-2009 was developed to complement the National Drug Strategy. It identified six principles for consideration by jurisdictions. These include: Top of Page

prev page| TOC |next page