Inductive Thematic Analysis
Introduction
Drug crimes are increasingly becoming a major concern on both local and global fronts. Current research (Braun and Clarke, 2012) suggests that the thematic analysis of important data sources such as sentencing remarks would facilitate the efficacy of available strategies in these crimes. The purpose of this assignment is to analyse the themes that comprise the societal understanding of the occurrence and penalties of drug-related crime. The researcher uses information from seven courtroom sentencing remarks from Adelaide, Southern Australia. This inductive thematic analysis identifies overarching themes that are evident across all seven documents. The themes include “gender and drug crimes,” “drug crime stressors,” “recidivism and attitude towards crime,” and “socio-economic relationships and psychological evaluation effects on the terms of the sentence.” These themes act as the primary concepts that would explain the incidence and punishment of drug crimes in South Australia.
The Australian Institute of Criminology (2014) notes an increase in drug-related arrests in Australia over the recent years. For instance, the report cites a 30 percent increase in the number of amphetamine arrests from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012. The number of cocaine arrests also peaked at a 19 percent increase over the years 2009 to 2012. Further statistical analysis reveal an increase in the proportion of individuals testing positive for drugs in various Australian areas, including Adelaide, Parramatta, and Brisbane over the past four years (AIC, 2014).
The drug offenders, as shown in the AIC (2014), included in the arrests and sentencing fell under two broad categories, namely consumers and providers. On one hand, consumers included individuals charged with possession and administration for personal consumption. The providers, on the other hand, comprised of individuals that operated the supply chain. They took charge of trafficking, importation, cultivation, and manufacturing processes. Finally, the report shows males as more common offenders for the consumption and provision of drugs than their female counterparts. Particularly, the figures for drug-associated male offenders were high for cocaine at 90 percent, followed by amphetamines and cannabis at 83 and 81 percent, in that order (AIC, 2014).
Such statistics offer an interesting insight into the causes, demographics, and consequences of drug-related crime. Indeed, numerous factors influence incidences of drug crimes and their penalties. Overall, the adverse effect of drug abuse and trafficking causes some of the biggest concern, thus require further concentration. Payne and Antoinette (2012) show that drug addicts have a higher likelihood of becoming drug traffickers as well as experience other increased form of criminal behavior. Other studies further outline the link between drug abuse and gender, social vulnerability, as well as poor socio-economic statuses. For instance, the AIC (2014) determines that socially vulnerable individuals have a high likelihood of suffering drug-related crimes.
This paper uses seven courtroom sentencing remarks from Adelaide, South Australia to provide additional insight on this issue. An inductive analysis of these documents identifies a series of themes that will explain the incidence and penalties related to drug crimes in South Australia. The section below highlights the themes in the form of individual concepts such as gender-relatedness, stressors, recidivism, socio-economic relationship and psychological evaluation as associated to terms of a sentence.
Analysis
Coding
Five sentencing documents were under consideration for the inductive thematic analysis. The data availed was in a transcribed format, thanks to the relevant court officials. The researcher then went through the transcribed sentencing remarks to ensure accuracy and identify any possible closeness in the information. This phase then led to note taking to discover essential ideas for code generation. The researcher reasons that the codes identified would offer answers to the central research issue (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Some of the processes through which the researcher identified in the sentencing remarks are as follows. Note that the researcher uses initials as identifiers in place of the participant’s names to protect their privacy.
In the first sentencing document, the judge read, “P, you have pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled substance.” The second document reads, “H, you have been committed for sentence to this court for the offence of possession of a prescription drug.” Such quotes point to two major codes. First, there is the “male” as a gender connotation through naming and titles in association with the offence. Second, in all remarks, the judges sentence the accused for being in possession of, using, or manufacturing controlled substances.
In the second sentence, the judge states that “You have also discussed your reliance on methylamphetamine with your medical practitioner.” Also, the judge states, “You are fortunate to receive assistance from one of your daughters.” Such transcripts are doorways to codes related to the nature of “familial relationship, addiction, peer pressure, and socio-economic status” and their role in enhancing drug crimes. Furthermore, in the seventh sentencing, the judge notes that “As time has passed, your mental state has been adversely affected by these delays.” This transcription suggests that the sentencing could hurt the offender and those around them.
Finally, from the third sentencing, the judge quips, “You have breached that bond by committing the offence before me.” In the seventh sentencing, the judge notes, “As Mr. B observes you have made significant progress in overcoming you illicit drug use.” Also, from the sixth sentencing, the judge states, “In other words, it is a conditional release, provided you agree to be of good behavior for three years from today.” These transcripts offer codes such as” “repeat offender,” “a show of remorse,” and “first-time offender” in that order.
Themes
The researcher applied the analytic process to the seven transcripts and the codes as evident from the data. As suggested by Braun and Clarke (2012), the researcher viewed these codes as essential in determining the themes identical for all documents. The resultant themes, as perceived from the above sample, received the following identifications. That is, out of these codes, four themes were visible, namely, “gender and drug crimes,” “drug crime stressors,” “recidivism and attitude towards crime,” and “socio-economic relationships and psychological evaluation effects on the terms of sentence.” These themes exist as an appropriate interpretation of the attitudes and evaluations of the interrelated concepts that make the sentencing remarks on drug crimes.
Gender and drug crimes
This theme exists in the proportion of males to females at the receiving end of the judges’ sentencing remarks. The theme is vital in its capacity to help the researcher understand the gender distribution of drug crimes across both genders. That is, though relatively small in terms of sample size, the documents can offer a general view of gender representation among offenders. In essence, the gender distribution is visible through evidence from the documents as follows:
Judge 1: “P, you have pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled drug and you have been found guilty following a trial by jury for a further count of trafficking in a controlled drug and manufacturing a controlled drug for sale.”
Judge 2: “H, you have been committed for sentence to this court for the offence of possession of a prescription drug.”
Judge 3: “D, you pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled drug.”
Judge 4: “S, you pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of trafficking in a controlled substance, methylamphetamine.”
Drug crime stressors
Stressors most likely enhance an individual’s engagement in drug-related crime. Some of the stressors identified in the court documents include family relationships or traumatic experiences, dependence, peer pressure, and economic activity. Peer pressure, for instance, plays a vital role in pushing individuals towards drug related crime. This concept is visible in some of the sentencing remarks, especially among younger offenders.
Judge 5: “At approximately age 25 you became further involved with a negative peer group. It is in this context that you began using methylamphetamine.’’
Judge 6: “You admitted in your interview with the police that you threw the bag away and were selling or planning to sell the drugs apparently to help out a friend”
Judge 7: “You paid for the drug using your own credit card, but purchased it in a false name. Your intention was to keep a portion for your own use and divide the remainder amongst a group of friends.”
The above evidence shows pressure from peers as one of the participants’ reason to engage in drug crimes. The stressor, however, is more common in young offenders than their older counterparts. Particularly, the instances reveal that the choice of friends can determine their engagement in unique activities.
Judge 3: “Your parents separated when you were young but you now have their support. Your relationship with them was, however, strained during your teenage years.”
Judge 4: “You are a 42-year-old man who had a difficult childhood. After your parents had separated your mother married a number of times and you and your brother suffered at the hands of abusive stepfathers.”
Judge 4: “While in Sydney you were raped apparently by an older man who was one of your drug suppliers.”
Judge 6: “Your stepfather died suddenly in late 2013. This, along with earlier family deaths, including the stabbing of a cousin in 2007, were said to have affected you greatly.”
The above illustrations show an apparent evidence concerning strained family relationships or traumatic experiences and engagement in drug crime. In essence, the participants viewed controlled substances as a possible coping mechanism to their social problems. The evidence also suggests that they participants failed to acknowledge the importance of positive life behavior, as victims of injustices, thus resulting in drug abuse.
Judge 2: “You have also discussed your reliance on methylamphetamine with your medical practitioner and your participation in that program has assisted you to stay away from that drug.”
Judge 3: “You were using drugs but you could not afford to pay for them out of your Centrelink income. Therefore, you began selling them to support your habit.”
Judge 7: “You are currently suffering from a severe adjustment disorder characterized by anxiety and depression with has been exacerbated by the unforeseen legal delays.”
The above examples show that there exists considerable amount of evidence that dependence can result in drug-related crime. The condition encourages engagement in a series of undesirable behavior such as reliance, trafficking for self-support, and adjustment disorders.
There are further instances that connect economics to drug crime:
Judge 1: “Police also found various items of equipment and chemicals that can be used in manufacturing methylamphetamine.”
Judge 2: “You were also in possession of a mobile phone and there were a number of messages on that phone consistent with drug dealing.”
Judge 3: “I sentence you on the basis that you were a street level dealer who was selling drugs to fund your own habit.”
Judge 4: You admitted the drugs were yours and you were a user of the drug who was selling to support your own habit.”
Judge 4: “You worked as a plasterer for many years and have had employment other than in the plastering trade. In the last three years, you have been unemployed, unable to find work.”
Judge 6: “As I observed a little earlier, the sale of the drug was to support or supplement your own income as well as that of the family.”
These examples show that individuals who engage in drug crimes are mostly low-income earners. They resort to this habit as an economic activity for their livelihood and in pursuit for funds to satisfy their addiction. Such instances show a positive relationship between drug crimes and unemployment.
Recidivism and attitude towards crime
Recidivism exists as one of the most fundamental themes in criminal justice. The concept refers to instances that individuals would relapse into their old criminal behavior. The behavior occurs after offenders receive possible penalties for a previous crime. Judges in the sentencing remarks measure recidivism by the actions that result in re-arrest and breach of bond within suspended sentencing. Examples of recidivism and their link to attitudes towards drug crime in the documents are as follows.
Judge 3: “His Honor did not order supervision as he thought there was good reason for you to live outside of South Australia. You have breached that bond by committing the offence before me.”
Judge 4: “At the time of your offending you were also subject to a suspended sentence handed down to you in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court on 31 January 2013.”
Judge 7: “You have no prior convictions for offences of this type.”
The examples above highlight some evidence that the drug-related offenders are a mix of first-time and repeat offenders. In most cases, however, the judges discover that the offenders had breached the terms of their bond at the time of re-arrest. Such insights show that suspended sentences appear to encourage repeat offense, especially among high-risk participants.
Socio-economic relationships and psychological evaluation effect on the terms of sentence
There is a visible consensus among the sentencing remarks that socio-economic relationships and psychological evaluation results played an important in the ultimate punishment for drug crimes. These thematic elements share a close connection with their previous two counterparts. Their existence illustrates how their societal and psychological statuses influence court decisions. Take the examples below:
Judge 3: “But having said that, I note that you had been, for some little time, buying drugs from a man who acted as a middleman for a wholesaler. I have sentenced those two men already. Your conduct is less serious than theirs.”
Judge 4: “He points to your mental health problems and to the fact you remained drug-free for some time now. As I understand him, he also relies upon the fact that you are seeking treatment from your general practitioner and psychologist. In all of those circumstances, and I must say after quite a deal of hesitation, I am of the view there are good grounds to suspend the sentence.”
Judge 6: “Dr. Lim also reports you are socially vulnerable and that you are extremely susceptible to negative peer influences and easily led astray. Mr. E, I propose to not send you back to gaol."
Judge 7: “I also received references from other people that you have worked with and they regard you very highly. I have received two heartfelt letters; one written by your aunty and another by your mother.”
It is clear, from the examples, that poor socio-economic and psychological statuses had a positive correlation to drug crimes. That is, the judges found that offenders with social and psychological were increasingly at risk of engaging in drug crimes. Therefore, they often based their sentencing decisions of social and psychological evaluations by friends, family, personal experiences, and practitioners. Ideally, those individuals with poor psycho-socio evaluations, but with positive support from the society would most likely receive light sentencing.
Discussion
The following is a further link between available literature and these findings. The first theme on gender association to drug-related crime has a close connection to literature by Forsythe and Adams (2009) and Becker and Hu (2007).Forsythe and Adams (2009) explored the possibility of gender differences across various criminal activities in Australia. Their focus was on the tendency of both genders to commit drug-related crime concerning magnitude and intensity. The authors found significant differences in gender when it comes to committing drug crimes. Particularly, men have a higher likelihood to use and traffic drugs than their female counterparts. Other types of offences in the male domain include vehicle theft, burglary, kidnap, and murder. Women, on the other hand, tend to commit a less serious crime, and in the drug domain, limited to consumption. Nonetheless, given a chance, women, like their male counterparts, have an equal likelihood of committing both counts.
Becker and Hu (2008) conducted a similar study to determine sex differences in drug abuse in the US. They found the existence of sex differences for all stages of controlled substance abuse. These stages included initiation, usage escalation, addition, and relapse. Though there existed some differences in abuse among drug classes, the patterns of gender differences were similar across all drugs. Unlike their male counterparts, females consume controlled substances at low levels, thus are less likely to escalate to dependence. However, females exhibit a higher risk of relapse upon intervention.
Second, for stressors, Ali et al. (2011) discussed some of the factors associated with controlled substance consumption and supply. They determine that some of the stressors include the method of administration, peer influences, cost, dependency, and availability. These findings are in line with the judges’ approach to the causes of drug consumption and trafficking. Ali et al. (2011) also considered some of the therapeutic interventions available for drug crimes, including rehabilitation and pharmacological treatment. They found that unlike rehabilitation, pharmacological interventions in dependency are ineffective, hence disappointing in nature. Rehabilitation has also been equally difficult for offenders trying to avoid a replace. A number of cases in the sample hold similar evidence for these results. For instance, the fourth judge outlines adverse effects of a psychological intervention on an offender.
Shaw et al. (2007) conducted similar studies on the linked between socio-economic factors on the incidence of drug crimes. Particularly, they explored factors such as deprivation, increasing inequalities, poverty, and addiction. They also found a positive connection with unstable social bonds, unemployment, psychological instability, and unavailable community resources. The argument here is that such stressors weaken the social fabric required to reduce the occurrence and replace in drug crime rates. Such insight, in addition to evidence from the above discussion, builds to the claim that individuals on the margins of the Australian society are at most risk of drug crimes.
Spooner and Hetherington (2004)’s report outlined some of the elements in the environment influenced outcomes in relation to drug markets. Some of the elements included stress, peer-influence, self-identity, social isolation, and educational achievement. These factors exhibit both direct and indirect impact on drug commission. The physical environment also works in tandem with other contextual elements such as policy and social factors to reveal the extent to which individuals consume and supply drugs.
Furthermore, Payne (2007) look into the connection between attitudes drug crime and recidivism. The researcher outlines reduced re-incarceration, re-offense, and relapse as the primary priorities for judges when dealing with drug crimes. The article identifies recidivism as common among drug offenders. Ideally, the offender’s level of dependency on drugs would determine their likelihood of offense and re-offense. Their behavior further finds a link to the stressors and gender relationships of the drug crime. Thus, offenders with strenuous family and social support are highly likely to reoffending upon release. Given such insight, judges are stricter when dealing with repeat offenders than first-time offenders. They tend to correlate their physical, social, economic, and psychological statuses as attached to the attitude towards drug crime.
Lastly, there also exists literature that establishes the existence of a relationship between socio-economic statuses and psychological evaluation in sentencing. For instance, Spooner and Hetherington (2004) supported the importance of health and socio-economic status promotion and drug crime. These factors are increasingly vital as they serve as one of the judges’ reference points during sentencing. The researchers find that high-risk offenders can find great benefits from psycho-social and economic evaluation based on the following reasons. First, through these evaluations, judges can find that one’s drug consumption problem comes from social forces beyond their control. For instance, the sixth judge noted that the offender’s problems may have come from traumatic exposures given past events. Second, records of practitioners’ interventions act as guidelines that help judges choose sentencing mechanisms that would help address their risk behavior.
Conclusion
The discussions above outline important concepts concerning drug crimes based on gender, stressors, and penalties. The documents reveal drug crimes as more visible among males than their female counterparts. Also, the most common stressors to drug-related crime include peer pressure, traumatic experiences, addiction, and drugs trafficking as an economic activity. Furthermore, judges tend to view recidivism as having a negative factor for drug crimes. That is, individuals with a history of recidivism exhibit high chances of replaces in drug crime compared to first-time offenders. Finally, most judges will consider socio-economic relationships and expert psychological evaluations when sentencing drug offenders. Ideally, individuals with problematic psychological evaluation have a high likelihood of getting lighter sentences than their counterparts of sound mind.
References
Ali, S., Onaivi, E., Dodd, P., Cadet, J., Schenk, S., Kuhar, M., & Koob, G. (2011). Understanding the Global Problem of Drug Addiction is a Challenge for IDARS Scientists. Journal of Current Neuropharmacology, 9 (1), 2-7.
Australian Institutte of Criminology . (2014). Australian Crime: Facts and Figures (2013). Canberra ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Becker, J., & Hu, M. (2008). Sex Differences in Drug Abuse. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 29 (1), 36-47.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Chapter Four: Thematic Analysis. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 57-71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
Forsythe, L., & Adams, K. (2009). Mental Health, Abuse, Drug Use, and Crime: Does gender matter? . Canberra ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology .
Payne, J. (2007). Recidivism in Australia: findings and future research . Canberra ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Payne, J., & Antonette, G. (2012). Trend and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice: How Much Crime is Durg or Alcohol Related?: Self-reported attributions of police detainees. Canberra ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology .
Shaw, A., Egan, J., & Gillespie, M. (2007). Drugs and Poverty: A Literature Review. Glasgow, UK: Scottish Drugs Forum (SDF).
Spooner, C., & Hetherington, K. (2004). Social Determinants of Drug Use. Sydney : National Drug and Alcohol Research Center.
