Substance use and abuse

Mostert

There is a body of research that investigates the link between drugs, alcohol and crime, and
more specifically aggressive crime. The association between crime and alcohol has been
confirmed by South African research as well as the strong link between drugs and crime.
Many individuals are either involved in the illegal drug trade, are under the influence when
they commit crime or are motivated by their addiction to offend. This means a substantial
proportion of inmates in South African correctional centres have a history of substance
abuse (Muntingh 2005:21-22). Internationally, substance abuse continue to be a major
problem in correctional settings after incarceration. This trend is further exacerbated by the
fact that correctional systems are densely populated by individuals with long and
established substance abuse behaviour, criminal lifestyles and poor cognitive skills (McVie
2001:7).

The abuse of substances in centres poses a threat to security and safety. The smuggling
activities of drugs and the violence associated with it compromises security and safety of
officials and inmates. Gangs in the correctional centre are usually responsible for the
smuggling of drugs and the violence that goes along with it (McVie 2001:7-8).

There are certain implications of substance abuse by inmates that will influence your work
as a correctional official and your interaction with inmates.

Substances are chemical compounds that individuals ingest to alter mood and behaviour.
Substances effect individuals on multiple levels; emotionally, psychologically, physically and
socially. Substance abuse and dependence are characterised by the following (Barlow &
Durand 2009: -389-393; Sadock & Sadock 2007:381-390):
 repeated use of substance
 continuous use despite health hazards, social, interpersonal and occupational
problems
  need to increase use to achieve intoxication, resulting in larger amounts used
 decrease in effect with
 experience withdrawal when not using
 time is spent on activities using and obtaining the substance
 experience withdrawal when the substance is not consumed

Abuse, dependence, intoxication and withdrawal from substance can have a range of effects
on the individual and his/her behaviour.
Intoxication causes impairment and affects mental functions such memory, orientation,
mood, judgement and behavioural, social or occupational dysfunction.
Withdrawal from a substance can cause physical symptoms and psychological changes, such
as headaches, muscle pains, stomach cramps, nausea, mood swings, agitation etc. (Barlow &
Durand 2009:390-393).

One of the biggest problems in a correctional setting is the violence associated with drug
abuse. Inmates will commit further crimes within the correctional centre such as stealing or
robbing to acquire the drugs or the materialistic means do to so. Aggression and violence
are also consequences of drug abuse in the centre. Inmates can act out irrationally,
aggressively or violently due to ingesting drugs. Many of the drugs used actually increases
the inmates confidence and decreases nervousness, which allows them to commit a certain
act. The withdrawal symptoms associated with drug abuse is another explanation for some
of the acting out behaviours found in correctional facilities (Ryan 1997:2).

Drug smuggling is associated with debt, bullying, exploitation and stealing from cells (Crewe
2004:10).

The following can be associated with inmate drug users:

 manipulative, cannot be trusted and contravene social and institutional norms
 they are volatile, confrontational and unpredictable
 they increase the overall stress of life in prison
 their drug use draws attention to others activities
  they are desperate and they deteriorate physically
 they are exploited, because their addiction is considered a weakness and
vulnerability that is used against them
 affiliations are based on drug use, on the acquisition and consumption of drugs

Being a drug dealer in prison can afford status and power to the individual. It can also make
life more comfortable for the dealer. Dealing in drugs is attractive to inmates because of
the prospects of goods, services and social status. Many were dealers outside and
subsequently continue with these activities inside to ensure a comfortable lifestyle amidst
the depravations of life incarcerated. For some there is also a sense of pride in winning over
the system (Crewe 2004:10-11).

Respect further accompanies dealing, even though it might be superficial and based on fear.
Many friendships are falsely based on the respect users show dealers and the disrespect
dealers can show users knowing the power they hold over users. Inmates are therefore not
only drawn to dealing because of the exploitation of others or material gain, but also
because it affords ordinary inmates the opportunity to climb the social hierarchy.
Affiliations are often based on drug use. They are not necessarily loyal to each other nor do
they trust each other, but they are loyal to each other's company. Their association is based
on the acquisition and consumption of drugs (Crewe 2004:11).

It is not only users drawn into the politics of the drug economy, but non-users are also
affected by the dealing and using of drugs. Dealers gain access to other dealable
commodities such as cigarettes or cellphones that non-users might be interested in. Non-
users will also be affected by violence brought upon by drug activities (Crewe 2004:11).

Dynamics Inmate Behaviour

Deception and Manipulation
Why do individuals lie?
Deception is common among offender populations, but it is not exclusive to these
populations. Manipulation actually occurs for very regularly and it is not specific or unique
to a correctional environment. Lying, deception and falsehood is part of ordinary social life
and actually occurs for very ordinary reasons. Lying as with honesty falls within the natural
spectrum of human behaviour. Dishonesty in itself or the presence thereof is not
necessarily the problem, the concern is however the degree or amount of dishonesty (Clark
2006:80).

Two assumptions about human behaviour have surfaced in research as explanations to

lying. The one is "I am a good person" the other "I am in control most of the time".
Individuals believe these two assumptions to maintain and enhance mental health. This will
lead to behaviour and ways of communicating that protect these assumptions (Clark
2006:81).

 An individual will lie to protect a positive self-image. In other words to save face - to
protect the belief "I am a good person".

 An individual will lie to protect relationships. Close relationships serves as a strong

motivation to lie, it creates conflict within the individual when they have to provide
damaging information about someone close to them.

 An individual will lie to protect freedom or resources that are threatened. The
inmate's problematic behaviour will have certain consequences and he/she will
weight up the costs and benefits of telling the truth or lying (Clark 2006:81).

Manipulation
In order for inmates to make their lives more comfortable in the correctional centre,
inmates may lie, scheme, steal or play mind games with officials to meet their needs of
safety, privacy, activity and emotional response. They try to manipulate correctional staff to
make their time served easier (Cornelius 2011).

Manipulation has three components:

1. to control or influence
 2. by unfair means or underhanded tactics
3. for self-interest.

Manipulation of correctional officials by inmates is to get something that is wanted or

needed. Inmates manipulate and victimise others because it is a way of life for them. Lying,
deceiving and violence are how problems are solved and how life is coped with (Cornelius
2011).

The following aspects of inmate deception are central:

 Inmates view manipulation as a tool to live life and will use it against staff and other
inmates.
 Manipulation includes verbal and situational deception. Inmates will either tell lies
or ask favours that appear harmless or they might create a situation to distract you
or your colleagues.
 Inmates can either manipulate for short-term or long-term gain. Requests might be
once off or it can be many requests over a period until the official is threatened to be
exposed by the inmate (Cornelius 2011).

Inmates employ various strategies and tactics to manipulate and deceive officials. Some
inmates might use the same tactics, others will use different strategies in their attempts to
control staff. The level of sophistication of these strategies will also differ. One explanation
for inmate manipulation and deception is power orientation. Power orientation is one of
the criminal thinking patterns that supports criminal involvement. Power orientation is the
offender's need for power and control over others and their environment. The thinking that
underlies this comes from their inability to cope with situations where they are not in
control and subsequently feeling like failures or nobodies. To correct this they exert
themselves over others (Elliott 2006:86). Elliott (2006:86) proposes 12 tactics that inmates
regularly use to manipulate and deceive:

Testing: the inmate gathers personal information about the official, his/her strengths, and
vulnerabilities, whatever can be used at a later stage against the official.
Diversion: one or more than one inmate attempts to distract the official from their task or
to divert their attention from another activity that is taking place somewhere else. Be
aware that many escapes, assaults, smuggling activities take place by means of diversion.

Extortion: officials are threatened, coerced and intimidated by an inmate to do something

that he/she are not allowed to do or does not want to do.

Disreputation: an inmate will attempt to cause damage to the official's reputation by

undermining his/her authority or, discrediting his/her professionalism or questioning his/her
competence.

Negotiation: negotiation refers to an arrangement or exchange between inmate and

official. This will include goods or services, for example an inmate might offer to polish an
official's shoes in exchange for a packet of cigarettes.

Rumours: inmates often spread information or distorted information about officials in an

attempt to misrepresent the official and to harm his character. An inmate would for
example spread gossip that he (the inmate) has sexual relations with a specific female
official.

Revenge: revenge refers to an inmate's retaliation efforts after perceived maltreatment or

unfair treatment by officials. This usually includes a formal grievance or legal action taken
against the official.

Ingratiation: inmate attempts to be liked by officials or to get in their good books by

complimenting them or make statements that would elicit feelings of gratitude. An inmate
might for example tell an official that they are the only one in the centre who are always
helpful.

Splitting: splitting occurs when an inmate plays colleagues off against each other to
undermine, discredit or to win favour.
Boundary intrusion: over time the inmate attempts to from a personal relationship or
friendship with the official. By doing this the inmate and official become equal. This usually
occurs in a situation where the inmate and official work together. When an friendship is
established the official is more likely to do things for the inmate.

Sphere of influence: this tactic is in general applicable to inmates who are influential. They
use their political and or financial resources to undermine authority or to side-step policies
and procedures. Inmates with financial and political influence often easily manipulates
management and are granted prefretiantial treatment.

Solidarity: a group of inmates undertakes organised action to convince management to take

a certain course of action or to deviate from one deemed unfavourable to them. The
inmates usually have something in common beside their goal, such as race, religion,
sentence etc.
Babaik, P. Folino, J. Hancock, J. Hare, R.D. Logan, M. Leon Mayer, E. Meloy, R. Häkkänen-Nyholm, H.
O’toole, M.E. Pinizzotto, A. Porter, S. Smith, S. and Woodworth, M. 2012. Psychopathy: An important
forensic concept for the 21st century. FBI: Law Enforcement Bulletin, 81(7): 3-13).

Barlow, D.H. and Durand, V.M. 2009. Abnormal Psychology: An integrative approach (9th ed.).
Wadworth Cengage Learning: Belmont CA.

Beck, J.S. 1995. Cognitive Therapy. The Guilford Press: New York.

Clark M.D, Walters S., Gingerich R.,and Meltzer M. 2006. Motivational Interviewing for Probation
Officers. Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice, 70(1): 74-85.

Cornelius, G.F. 2011. Avoiding Inmate Manipulation. Retrieved from:

http://www.correctionsone.com/correctional-psychology/articles/3328579-Avoiding-inmate-
manipulation/
Craissati, J., Minoudis, P., Shaw, J., Chuan, S.J., Simons, S. and Joseph, N. (2011). Working with
personality disorderd offenders: A practitioners guide. Ministry of Justice: National Offender
Management Service. UK.

Crewe, B. 2004. The Drug Economy and the Prisoner Society. Prison Service Journal, 156: 9-14.
Retrieved from:
http://www.perrielectures.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/PerrieSpurrCreweWyner2004.pdf

Daffern, M. 2010. A structured cognitive behavioral approach to the assessment and treatment of
violent offenders using offence paralleling behaviour. In M. Daffern, L. Jones and J. Shine. (Eds).
Offence Paralleling Behavior: A Case Formulation Approach to Offender Assessment and Intervention.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd. West Sussex: UK.

Elliot W.N. 2006. Power and Control Tactics Employed by Prison Inmates. Federal Probation: A
Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice, 70(1): 86-92.

Esbec, E. and Echeburúa, E. (2010). Vilence and personality disorders: Clinical and forensic
implications. Actas Esp Psiquitr, 38(5):249-261.

Hart, S.D., Cox, D.N. and Hare, R.D. 2004. The Hare PCL-SV: Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version.
Multi-Health Systems Inc.: Canada Toronto.

Ireland, J.L. 2002. Bullying in prisons. The Psychologist, 15(13).

Ireland, J.L., Archer, A. and Power, C.L. 2007. Characteristics of Male and Female Prisoners Involved
in Bullying Behavior. AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, 33: 220-229.

Larsen, R.J. and Buss, D.M. 2005. Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human
Nature (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill: New York.

Loots, S. and Louw, D.A. (2012). Criminal Thinking Styles of Offenders meeting the Criteria for Anti-
social Personalities in South Africa. Acta Criminologica, 25(2): 12-24.
Louw, D.A. and Edwards, D.J.A. 2003. Sielkunde: ‘n Inleiding vir student in Suid-Afrika (2de uitgawe).
Heinemann: Johannesburg.

Louw, D.A., Van Ede, D.M. and Louw, A.E. 2003. Menslike Ontwikkeling (3rd uitgawe). Kagiso Tersiêr:
Kaapstad.

Math, R.S., Murthy, P., Parthasarathy, R., Kumar, C.N. and Madhusudhan, S. 2011. Minds
Imprisoned: Mental Health in Prisons. National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences. India.
Retrieved from:
http://www.academia.edu/1185498/Minds_Imprisoned_Mental_Health_Care_in_Prisons

McAdams, D.P. and Pals, J.L. A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of
personality. American Psychologist, 61: 204-217.

McVie, F. 2001. Drugs in Federal Corrections: The issues and challenges. Forum on Corrections
Research, 13(3). Retrieved from: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/forum/e133/133c_e.pdf

Meyer, W.F., Moore, C. and Viljoen, H.G. 2008. Personology: From individual to ecosystem (4th ed).
Heinemann Publishers: Johannesburg South Africa.

Muntingh, L. 2005. Offender rehabilitation and reintegration: Taking the White Paper on Corrections
forward. Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative. Research Paper: No. 10. Retrieved from:
http://cspri.org.za/publications/research-reports/Offender%20rehabilitation%20and
%20reintegration%20-%20taking%20the%20White%20Paper%20on%20Corrections%20forward
%20(Research%20Paper%20No.%2010).pdf

Ryan, T. 1997. Drugs, Violence and Governability in the Future South Africa. Institute for Security
Studies: Occasional Paper, 22.

Sadock, B.J. and Sadock, V.A. 2007. Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry
(10th ed.). Liippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA.
Walters, G.D. 2006. Appraising, researching and conceptualising criminal thinking: A personal view.
Criminal Bheaviour and Mental Health, 16:87-99.