A national leader recently raised his concerns in the congress about the most threatening crime in the United States of America. This crime is the use and sale of narcotics. The politician pointed at the many problems the crime has caused in the American society especially its impact on the young people. From a criminological point of view, it is easy to understand the fears that the politician had because the use of narcotics is one of the factors that have engendered crime in the society. Such statements coming from a congress leader are very influential. The statements can shape people’s attitude towards the crime. This statement can be linked to the anti-drugs law especially those espoused in the Harrisons act of 1914 (Crutchfield 23). Before this law came into effect, there was no state or federal regulation that tackled the use of drugs. This leader is concerned about the increasing levels of narcotic consumption in the United States of America not because the use of narcotics is a crime, but because the use of narcotics is the cause of many other crimes in the society.
A criminologist can easily see the link between the statement made by the leader and the rising state of insecurity in the country without having to look for explicit references. Consumption is not a big problem; it becomes a problem when it leads to addiction because the addicts end up committing crimes to support their addiction. By the time Harrison’s act was passed, morphine was the most abused narcotic in the US; however, the drug was being administered medically by physicians especially to war veterans. This was hardly recognized as criminal offence but it produced the same levels of addiction as other drugs. That is why the Harrison’s act prohibited the administration of drugs to addicts by medical professionals and criminalized the possession of drugs. The law designated all addicts as criminals and if they were found in possession of drugs, they were subject to penalties regardless whether the narcotics had been prescribed by a physician (Hagan 64). Therefore it is important to note that this act made a statement about the prevalence of the narcotics and the value of the statement should be clear to policy makers, law enforcers and the general public.
There is something about the criminalization of narcotics that creates a missing link. Many criminologists have questioned the rationale that was used to criminalize narcotics. Was it because the use of narcotics is immoral or it was just a general fear. History has shown that fear of victimization has been influencing criminalization of certain behaviors. Politicians and advocacy groups also influence the process of criminalizing behaviors especially when they have vested interests. They use the media to create images that drive up the fear of victimization among the people; a gimmick they use to draw public support and this explains the intentions that the political leader had while addressing the congress on the issue of narcotics.
Another crime in the US whose stature has been heightened by the fear of victimization and media influence is kidnapping. Any politician or advocacy group with vested interests can easily get enough support if they focus on the crime of kidnapping. Most of them have already done so and have made the crime look so grave. The crime is not well developed in the United States of America and research shows that most of the kidnapping incidents that take place in the United States of America are not conducted by criminal gangs but by people who are well known to the victims. However, the American media, politicians and interest groups have given this crime a level of attention it does not deserve and in this case, they have succeeded in driving up the fear of victimization in the people. The problem with giving a very minor crime unwarranted attention is that the public shifts its focus from other crimes that are potentially threatening (Hagan 80). For example, corporate crime has not been given the attention it deserves mainly because it is not physically injurious buts economic effects are very dire. Corporate crime does not evoke the fear of victimization and that is why they do not enjoy the prominence that other crimes like narcotics and kidnapping enjoy. There are many other highly threatening crimes that warrant this attention.
In conclusion, from a criminological point of view, the politician’s worries about the problem of narcotics in the country are not based on any real criminological threat. The worries are just artificial and they are meant to drive up the fear of victimization among the people with a view of generating popular support. Most likely, the politician had some vested interests because his outcry was meant to criminalize narcotics but he did not have a sound criminological base to make his argument.
Works Cited
Hagan, John. Crime and Disrepute. California: Thousand Oaks/Pine Forge Press, 1994.
Crutchfield, Robert.Crime (Readings), 3rd ed. California: Pine Forge Press, 2008.