Criminal justice contacts of users and sellers of hard drugs in Harlem.

• Author: Davis, W. Rees
• Position: Statistical Data Included

1. BACKGROUND

   Current American social policy and laws prescribe specific jail and prison time for those arrested for the sale and use of hard drugs (heroin, crack, and cocaine powder).(1) This policy is supported in part by the fact that persons selling and using crack, cocaine powder, and heroin frequently violate other criminal statutes.(2) They are likely to commit violent crimes, such as robbery, homicide, and aggravated assault, as well as property crimes, such as shoplifting, theft, burglary, fraud, and cons. They are also likely to participate in other street economic activities, including commercial sex work and assisting in drug sales as lookouts, pitchers, and packagers. Moreover, they routinely engage in behaviors labeled as quality-of-life violations, such as subway fare beating and marijuana smoking.(3) Severe sanctions against drugs users and sellers are promoted by politicians who wish to demonstrate their law and order missions, promoting policies that are "tough on criminals" to help get elected.(4) Arrest and incarceration of "criminals" are the most popular solutions to the "crime" problem among politicians, policy makers, and American voters.(5)

   During the past decade, police departments have been reorganized and mobilized to target sellers of hard drugs for arrest and imprisonment and to arrest hard drug users for misdemeanor crimes.(6) Special units have vigorously targeted sellers of hard drugs.(7) Persons convicted of crack selling and/or possession of several grams of crack have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms under mandatory sentencing statutes,s In New York State, the Rockefeller Drug Laws of 1973 contained provisions for sentencing sellers of heroin and narcotics to lifetime imprisonment.(9) With the advent of crack cocaine in the mid-1980s, federal legislation mandated a minimum sentence of five years for possession of over five grams of crack. This same penalty was imposed for 500 grams of cocaine powder.(10) Tens of thousands of persons have served, or are currently serving, sentences for drug offenses.(11)

   The policy-making rhetoric and harsh penalties are specifically targeted at "sellers," "dealers," "traffickers," and "peddlers."(12) Yet, virtually all anti-drug legislation also contains strong provisions criminalizing the "possession" of specified amounts of illegal hard drugs (mainly heroin, crack, and cocaine hydrochloride);(13) such statutes against possession are clearly targeted at users of these illegal drugs. Not only have statutes been altered, but New York City and State have invested heavily in criminal justice approaches aimed at solving the drug problem.(14)

   In the 1990s, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) enhanced enforcement of drug laws by adopting a policy of "zero tolerance" for "quality of life" offenses.(15) Misdemeanor offenses are sometimes strictly enforced in high crime areas as a tactic to gain information about more serious offenses from those who commit quality of life crimes.(16) Since the mid-1990s, the NYPD has reorganized its management system around the "Compstat" process for intelligence gathering and allocating and tracking police resources.(17) Police management effectively employ data compilations of the location of crimes, complaints of crime and arrests, displayed on electronic pin-maps formatted and generated by Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software.(18) When Compstat maps indicate high concentrations of certain types of crime in particular areas of New York City, the NYPD directs the necessary police resources to those areas to arrest the alleged perpetrators.(19) These pin maps locate crimes, allegations of crimes, and arrests.(20) Moreover, they are used to deploy and track police, applying specially trained units to supplement precinct police in suppressing particular types of crime.(21)

   Narcotics enforcement relies upon complaints or allegations of drug-related activities to identify areas for intensified policing, usually directed by special drug squads.(22) The NYPD made a large number of drug arrests (50,000 to 125,000) annually during the 1980s and 1990s.(23) To handle this flood of cases, special prosecutorial units and narcotics courts were organized to vigorously pursue convictions among persons arrested for selling and/or possessing hard drugs.(24) In large measure, the entire legal system (police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law students, and corrections) is routinely focused upon the "microcosm": whether a specific arrestee is guilty of a particular offense; what sentence shall be imposed; and how long will he/she actually serve time.(25) The legal system largely ignores the "macrocosm," or the larger picture of whether persons in society are arrested or imprisoned, and how this occurs across adult careers.(26)

   This Article addresses a central "macrocosm" question in the criminal justice enforcement of drug laws and all crimes: How many persons who regularly violate laws regarding hard drugs (crack, cocaine powder, and heroin) and/or commit other non-drug crimes have ever been arrested or ever imprisoned during their lifetime?(27) Specifically, among hard drug users and sellers in a community setting: (1) how many have ever entered the criminal justice system by being arrested for any crime;(28) (2) how many have experienced the most severe sanction of being imprisoned;(29) and (3) what are the major correlates of such lifetime contacts with the criminal justice system?(30)

   Along the way, the Article will address several other important issues. These include the drug eras and birth cohorts of users and sellers of hard drugs;(31) how well the current Compstat process identifies localities where hard drugs are used and sold;(32) whether persons who self-report current involvement are more likely to have lifetime arrests or imprisonment than those who report prior, or no, involvement in specific offenses;(33) and if having legal employment is associated with lower probabilities of arrest and imprisonment.(34) While many of these issues cannot--and probably never will--be satisfactorily answered, this Article examines self-reported interview data from 657 active hard drug users and sellers in Central Harlem, and compares their reported behaviors with police allegation data, in order to identify patterns of law enforcement contacts among hard drug users and sellers, and suggests avenues for future research.(35)

   Despite the harsh policing, prosecuting, and incarcerating of drug users and sellers, social research during the past twenty years indicates that arrest and penal punishments are not especially well "targeted" toward the most serious sellers or possessors of hard drugs.(36) Evidence of either a general deterrence or specific deterrence effect of arrest and/or incarceration upon drug users or criminal offenders has been nearly impossible to demonstrate empirically.(37) The evidence suggests that imprisonment primarily interrupts criminal careers by removing the offender from society, but does little to change the criminal patterns of the individual after release.(38) Limited evidence suggests that released prison inmates may or may not be able to fulfill criminal roles as a result of their status as previously convicted offenders or because they wish to avoid recidivism.(39)

   Although NYPD activities have been successful in largely eradicating street-based marketing of hard drugs, drug selling continues through social networks in private places and by more discreet, highly mobile operations.(40) The vast majority (probably over ninety-nine percent) of illegal hard drug transactions between buyers and sellers do not result in any arrest or contact with police.(41) Both buyers and sellers systematically organize their lives to avoid police and undercover officers. This was especially true in the late 1990s.(42) This Article will address many other factors that may influence the probability of criminals and active hard drug users being arrested or imprisoned in their lifetime.(43)

2. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

   This Article focuses on retrospective self-reports of subjects' experiences during their lifetimes of arrest and imprisonment. The research is based upon a carefully selected sample of current hard drug users and sellers in Central Harlem and is organized around the following key questions and hypotheses:

   Hypothesis A: Lifetime experience with arrest and imprisonment for specific drugs is strongly associated with birth cohorts and other demographic characteristics of the sample.

   Hypothesis B: Since crack has been singled out as a more pernicious problem than the use and sale of heroin and powder cocaine, allegations to police of drug activity will primarily reflect crack sales activity, rather than heroin or cocaine powder activity.

   Hypothesis C: The severity of offenders' self-reported involvement, and especially current participation, in specific criminal behaviors is positively associated with lifetime experience of arrest and imprisonment.

   Hypothesis D: The specific drugs used and the recency of use substantially increase the probability of lifetime arrest and imprisonment.

   Hypothesis E: The specific drugs sold and the recency of sale substantially increase the probability of lifetime arrest and imprisonment. For example, crack sellers who have sold the most recently should have the highest arrest and prison experiences.

   Hypothesis F: Specific crimes and demographic factors will predict increased probability of being arrested and imprisoned. These factors include older age, being male, and committing crimes more heavily sanctioned by current social policy and laws.

3. METHODS

   The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA--DA09339) funded this project entitled, "Estimating Current Hard Drug Users and Operatives" ("Estimating") to provide greatly improved methodologies for recruiting the "hard-to-access" and "hidden" users of heroin, crack, and cocaine powder...