The Uneasy Alliance Between Criminal Justice and Substance Use Intoxication and Crime

Criminal justice systems worldwide grapple with the ever-present issue of alcohol and other drugs (AOD) influencing criminal behaviour. Studies like Lightowlers and Pina-Sánchez (2017) highlight the prevalence of intoxication in court cases, making it crucial to understand how courts handle these situations. This article delves into the complexities of this relationship, focusing on England and Wales as a springboard for examining broader global trends.

Specialist Substance Use Courts (SSUCs): Treatment or Coercion?

SSUCs, problem-solving courts designed to reduce recidivism through treatment and supervision, have become increasingly popular. However, their effectiveness remains a subject of debate. Reviews by College of Policing (2015) suggest some success in reducing substance use and recidivism, but concerns linger. Studies by Carr (2020), Seddon (2007), and Stevens (2012) raise questions about:

Effectiveness: Collins et al. (2019) point out limitations in program design and a lack of addressing underlying social issues that contribute to substance use.
Coercion: The pressure to comply with treatment, often under threat of punishment, raises ethical concerns about genuine consent (Seddon, 2007; Stevens, 2012).
Racial and Socioeconomic Bias: Tiger (2011) argues that SSUCs potentially overlook racial factors and may disproportionately impact those already facing social and economic marginalisation (Donmall et al., 2009).

Sentencing Guidelines and the Intoxication Factor

The emergence of sentencing guidelines for AOD-related offences is another trend with significant implications. However, the approach taken in England and Wales, which suggests intoxication increases culpability (Sentencing Council, 2011), is controversial. Critics like Dingwall and Koffman (2008) argue this contradicts scientific evidence on intoxication’s varying effects (Room, 2020) and clashes with social views on diminished responsibility. Additionally, Bègue et al. (2020) highlight that unlike England and Wales, countries like France and Germany don’t consider alcohol an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring: A Technological Solution or Overreach?

Technological advancements have led to the introduction of court-enforced Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirements (AAMRs) using transdermal ankle bracelets (Ministry of Justice and The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, 2022). While studies by Pepper and Dawson (2016) and Hobson et al. (2018) show high compliance rates, the long-term impact on recidivism remains unclear (Harrison et al., 2020). Additionally, concerns exist about:

Health Risks: Forcing abstinence on those who are dependent can have serious health consequences (Eaglin, 2016).
Stigma: Wearing the monitoring device can be stigmatising (Piper, 2020).
State Control: The extension of state control over individuals beyond the determination of guilt raises concerns about potential future incarceration for non-compliance (Eaglin, 2016).

The Punitive Reinforcement of Abstinence

These developments, including SSUCs, sentencing guidelines, and AAMRs, all point towards a growing emphasis on the “abstinence ideal” within criminal justice policy (Powell et al., 2007). This approach prioritises punishment and abstinence from substances over treatment and harm reduction. Studies by Carr (2020) highlight the potential for increased criminalisation of specific populations, particularly those already facing social and economic marginalisation, who may be more likely to use substances (Reiman & Leighton, 2023).