During the course of my life I have had the misfortune of dating two men who abused alcohol, both with disastrous outcomes. Both relationships occurred before I studied profiling and as such although I experienced both relationships as frightening I realise today that both relationships could have gone more horribly wrong than they did, had I not managed to extract myself from them in time.
Today, many of my clients bemoan the fact that they were intoxicated at the time they engaged in various offences and cannot understand why they committed the crimes with which they have been charged and convicted. They justify their behaviour with statements such as, “I was drunk,” I had no control,” “I don’t understand why I hit him so hard. Must have been the booze.” It’s easy to shift responsibility and blame for criminal behaviour to the use or abuse of alcohol. But what is the relationship of alcohol to crime and why?
Despite government and public concerns about the use of drugs such as heroin, opium, cocaine and marihuana, the most widely abused drug in society worldwide remains alcohol. In the USA it is estimated that approximately one third of American families have a problem with alcohol. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths and violence than all the other drugs combined. In South Africa, a high percentage of the crime, especially where violent crimes are committed, involve the use of alcohol by either the offender, the victim or both.
Another area where the use of alcohol continuously rears its ugly head is in road accidents involving intoxicated drivers. This costs the lives of thousands of road users annually, not to mention the often serious injuries to survivors, where families have to bear the extremely high costs involved of medical care and long term rehabilitation. I have engaged in many a interview where clients have tried to justify driving drunk. The questions I often put to them include; Did you drive yourself to the bar?; Did you intend to have one or a few drinks?; How did you intend to get home? To those who answer that they indeed drove to the bar, to have a few drinks and intended driving home afterwards, it is clear that they had an intent to drive drunk before they even took their first drink. This rationale highlights the fact that the offender had intent to operate a vehicle in an intoxicated state before they took their first drink. In these cases in my opinion intoxication can never be a mitigating factor in cases of drunk driving.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL
The psychological, physical and social effects of the excessive use of alcohol can be as destructive as heroin abuse. As in the use of heroin a strong physical and psychological dependence can develop in the alcoholic. The attitude of society in general is vastly different when it comes to the use and abuse of alcohol than it is concerning the use of other narcotics. In South Africa and Botswana it is legal and socially acceptable to consume alcohol. Drinking conduct is essentially unregulated, unless it involves heavy intoxication and associated unacceptable behaviours such as operating a motor vehicle or disturbing the peace. As such, in private, a person can get as drunk as one wants to be with no consequences, unlike with other drugs.
Because the effects of alcohol are complex, a brief discussion on the effects of alcohol will be addressed here. Low doses of alcohol, i.e. two to four tots of spirits, appear to act as a stimulant on the central nervous system. According to Curt Bartol, “it initially appears to effect the inhibitory chemical process of nervous system transmission, producing in the individual feelings of euphoria, good cheer, and social and physical warmth. In moderate and high quantities however alcohol seems to depress excitatory processes of the central nervous system as well as the inhibitory processes.” This results in the intoxicated persons neuromuscular coordination and visual acuity being compromised. At this stage they may experience pain and fatigue. The inebriated person’s ability to concentrate is severely impaired. Commonly self confidence increases and the person in inclined to take more risks, be more daring than they would if sober. Bartol points out that, “it is believed that alcohol at moderate levels begins to “numb” the higher brain centre’s which process cognitive information, especially judgement and abstract thought.” In alcohol poisoning the system is depressed to a point where the person loses consciousness, eventually slips into a coma and their system shuts down resulting in death.
CRIME AND ALCOHOL
Because alcohol appears to lower peoples inhibitions and contribute to poor judgement and aggressive behaviour in certain people it is widely believed that alcohol is a major cause of crime. In South Africa, especially with reference to impulsive violent crime, alcohol plays a part in approximately seventy percent of offences, and is a catalyst for violent behaviour. In a large number of these cases either the victim, the offender or both had consumed alcohol before the offence was committed. Wolfgang’s findings indicate that people become volatile under the influence of alcohol and that the danger is significantly increased when both parties are intoxicated. This is especially relevant in relation to rape and date rape, where an tipsy victim is vulnerable to intoxicated predators with lowered inhibitions resulting in a high risk situation.
High blood alcohol (BAC) content is time and again reported in the results of victim autopsies. High BAC levels in victims is most commonly observed with in fight-related incidents. However the high BAC – victim association does not necessarily mean that the victim is responsible for their own death. In certain cases the intoxicated victim certainly does contribute or provoke the offender to violence and may share the responsibility for their demise. It is therefore important to look at the social context in which the violence occurs. Violence recurrently occurs in social situations where there is heavy drinking, psychological arousal is high, ( i.e. irritation or antagonism) sensory arousal is elevated, (loud music in a club) interpersonal conflict is evident and cognitive process such as reasoning and judgement are impaired.
Psychological research has produced strong evidence that the consumption of alcohol facilitates physical aggression. Furthermore there appears to be a strong link between the amount of alcohol consumed and aggression as the amount of alcohol consumed increases so does the level of aggression, up to the point that the research subject loses consciousness.
It appears that heightened levels of violence may well be linked to drinking patterns. In some countries alcohol consumption is spread out throughout the day, including at meal times. In others like South Africa, Botswana and the USA, drinking commonly takes place at the end of the day, after work, on the weekends and during holidays. In South Africa I have noticed a very specific pattern with reference to drinking and violent behaviour. There are two peaks in every month relating to alcohol induced violent behaviour. The first is the weekend following “pay day” for civilian staff paid towards the end of a month. In areas where high numbers of military personnel are employed e.g. Pretoria, the second peak is their “pay weekend” for the military personnel who are paid mid month. On these weekends, partying and the heavy consumption of alcohol increases as does the number of violent incidents involving alcohol and drunk driving. According to Bartol “It appears to be this pattern of episodic heavy drinking that is most strongly related to aggression, violence and ant-social behaviour.”
The relationship between violence and the increased consumption of alcohol is well supported by research. Although there have been many explanations for this relationship over the last few decades they can generally be subsumed into two major categories according to Bartol these being: “disinhibitory models and social cognitive models”.
Bartol states, “Disinhibitory models contend that alcohol directly or indirectly influences neurological or psychological mechanisms that normally control aggressive and antisocial behaviour”. One disinhibitory model hypothesises that alcohol chemically alters the portion of the brain which regulates the expression of aggression. Control of a person over their behaviour significantly decreases as alcohol intake increases. Another disinhibitory model puts forward that certain people have a particular sensitivity to alcohol and that this may be genetic or have biological origins, viewing alcoholism as a disease or illness. AA supports the model that chronic drinking is a disease beyond the control of certain individuals, that it is irreversible as well as progressive and that the only solution to the problem is complete abstinence.
All disinhibitory models are based on the assumption that alcohol has the ability to suppress inhibitions, usually in place in any individual and that this disinhibition could result in alcohol-induced criminality. In addition alcohol provides a strong excuse for criminal behaviour. Offenders often make excuses such as: “I can’t remember what happened.”; “I don’t know what came over me”; “I couldn’t stop myself”: “Alcohol always makes me behave aggressively”. Alternatively if found guilty the accused may use intoxication as a mitigating factor at sentencing. There is a trend in society to use uncontrollable urges as an excuse for undesirable behaviour. We often see excuses like premenstrual tension, being lovesick, and having drug withdrawal being put forward as defences in crimes of violence.
Whereas disinhibitory models focus on internal influences, social-cognitive models focus on the influence of subjective belief systems and expectations as well as the social environment of the drinker. Social-cognitive models reject the loss of control assumptions which are the focus of disinhibitory models. They are of the view that problem drinking and many of the other psychoactive influences of alcohol are learned and situational determined. According to the social-cognitive perspective the argument that a person cannot help oneself because alcohol directly brings about a loss of control is a subjective, cognitive expectation that is self perpetuating rather than a disease. One’s expectations, cognitions and perceptions on how they act in response to consuming alcohol influences that response. In other words, alcohol acts as a cue for one to behave in a way that they believe intoxicated people act and to indulge in behaviours that they would usually avoid.
There is a considerably larger body of research that supports the social-cognitive model than the disinhibitory model. Rather than advocating total abstinence, the social-cognitive model support the research that the most effective way to treat heavy drinkers is to teach them to be responsible, light or moderate consumers for life. Total abstinence appears to have a poor track record, especially with younger men who are single, who face huge peer pressures and ample opportunities to drink.
Research by Marlatt, Lang and their colleagues indicated that as long as the person has certain expectations from the alcohol they consume, this will affect their behaviour after drinking. If they believe that alcohol makes them dizzy, loud and aggressive they will in all probability behave in this way after drinking it. Additionally because society accepts the excuse, “I was drunk” heavy drinking provides a socially acceptable excuse for socially unacceptable behaviour. This in turn allows the person to escape the consequences of their conduct which provides them with a reward, in effect teaching them that this type of behaviour is acceptable. When people believe they have consumed large amounts of alcohol they tend to feel less responsible for their conduct. This includes criminal and violent behaviour.
Even though cognitive expectancies seem to play a significant role, it is impossible to ignore the pharmacological effects of alcohol which definitely effects the central nervous centre by depressing a number of functions. Many of us who have tried to act sober when intoxicated can attest to this fact.
According to social-cognitive perspective the amount of alcohol consumed should not have much impact on overall behaviour. As long as the subject believes he has consumed a certain amount of alcohol he will act accordingly often with increased aggression. Low doses of alcohol according to Taylor’s research may suppress aggression, because it generates a sense of well being and euphoria. Higher doses on the other hand appear to facilitate expressions of violence and aggression. This research is in line with much of the research on the pharmacological effects of alcohol. Extreme intake of alcohol results in the breakdown of even simple cognitive functions and often end in stupor or sleep. For this reason if violence is going to occur it usually happens in the moderate state of intoxication where the integrating functions of the cortex are impaired causing some disorganisation and the impairment of complex cognitive functions.
Emotions also probably have a role to play in heavy drinking. Alcoholics tend to exhibit more irrational, violent and aggressive behaviour than non-alcoholics. Alcoholics also report very negative emotions when drinking, these would include feelings of anger, rage, depression, sadness and feelings of being out of control. These feelings often result in more feelings of depression and further aggression, spiralling until the person hits rock bottom. As the history of alcoholic aggression increases it becomes possible to reliably predict future dangerousness and aggression in the alcoholic.
Lastly situational factors are vital. Taylor’s research highlighted that aggression was not automatically produced by the consumption of alcohol, even if consumed in vast amounts. Test subjects that were threatened, provoked or were subjected to aggressive behaviour or situations, were far more likely to become aggressive themselves. He concluded that for aggressive behaviour to take place there must be some sort of instigation or provocation combined with the intoxication. Some situational factor or other person needs to threaten or arouse the intoxicated person. However internal cues such as beliefs, imagined insults or provocation, skewed perceptions also have a role to play in aggressive alcohol-related behaviour.
As the festive season approaches and annual bonuses are paid out by companies it follows that people may be cash flush and able to purchase greater amounts of alcohol, please be aware of the negative effects of alcohol consumption. Also as you attend office parties and end of year functions, have fun, but please think about the possible consequences of getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Understand that you will face criminal charges if you engage in criminal behaviour under the influence of alcohol. Intoxication can even be viewed as an aggravating factor at sentencing which would result in a harsher sentence for the offender. The consequences can be and often are devastating for all the parties concerned. Be safe rather than sorry!
I am available to assist in any criminal matters. Expert Profiling is contactable on Tel: 390 9957 e-mail – [email protected] or [email protected] or on Twitter @LauriePieters
