Abstract
This special issue of Criminal Justice Review is in honor of Paul Goldstein. Well, really it is in honor of an idea that he had three decades ago. In 1985, The Journal of Drug Issues published “The Drugs/ Violence Nexus: A Tripartite Conceptual Framework.” Therein, Goldstein suggests that drugs and violence are linked in three ways. In his words, “[t]he psychopharmacological model suggests that some individuals, as a result of short or long term ingestion of specific substances, may become excitable or irrational, and may exhibit violent behavior” (p. 494); “[t]he economically compulsive model suggests that some drug users engage in economically oriented behavior, e.g. robbery, in order to support costly drug use” (p. 495); and “[i]n the systemic model,… violence refers to the traditionally aggressive patterns of interactions within the system of [illicit] drug distribution and use” (p. 495).
During the last 30 years, this tripartite framework has become one of the—if not the most —influential ideas in the study of drugs and violence as well as crime more broadly. But why? There are many reasons. Below, I list four admirable traits of the framework that helped to make “The Drugs/Violence Nexus” a seminal piece.
First, the idea is conceptual and thus foundational. The article gets to the core of the issue: what is the drugs/violence nexus. This is somewhat of an overstatement, but we cannot fully theorize, research (i.e., collect and analyze data on), or change (e.g., via policy) something until we specify what it is. Prior to 1985, there was clearly a link between drugs and violence, but the nature of the link was uncertain. The tripartite framework brought conceptual order where it had been lacking and thereby helped us figure out exactly what it is we are studying.
Second, the idea is simple. How many ways are drugs and violence linked? Just three. For various reasons: less is more. Simplicity is beautiful and, maybe more importantly, easy to remember and work with. Yet, somewhat ironically, coming up with a simple idea can be hard to do, especially because drawing too few lines means important information will be left out.
On that note, the idea’s third virtue is comprehensiveness. It is hard to think of another way that drugs and violence are related. I’ve tried without success. So too have my students and colleagues. Give it a go: can you think of something Goldstein missed? If so, write it up immediately; but be prepared for someone to point out where you are mistaken.
Fourth, the idea is generalizable; not statistically, but rather conceptually. Too often, I think, social scientists think of generalizability in terms of research design. Of course, it is important to know—or at least know that you do not know—whether a study’s findings are statistically generalizable to a particular population. But it is just as important—no, more important—to produce generalizable concepts and theories. Whether studying people who are poor or rich, black or white, American, Chinese, or whatever: drugs and violence are linked in the same three ways.
For the earlier reasons and surely many others, the tripartite framework has served as a spring board for hundreds if not thousands of studies into the link between drugs, violence, and crime. The articles in this special issue add to this body of work.