The Relationship between Drug Crime and Property Crime
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between drug crimes and drug suppression policy that has an effect on property crimes in Thailand. Two hypotheses were examined in this research. The first hypothesis was that the use of drugs resulted in property crimes. In other words, an attempt to prevent and suppress a type of crime could create incentives for committing other types of crime. The second hypothesis was that law enforcement on drug-related crimes might result in property crimes. The economic model of crime was utilised to examine the statistical relationship between property crimes and relevant factors contributing to drug-related crimes, including socioeconomic factors on crime rates. The researcher then employed two-stage least squares (TSLS) to analyse the panel data from 2006 to 2015 of 77 provinces in Thailand.
According to research results from an estimate of the equation of indicative factors of property crimes in the first model, it was indicated that the size of the drug market could reduce property crime rates. This was opposed to the first hypothesis predicting that drugs caused property crimes. In Addition, it was found that the probability of arrest for a property crime had an impact on property crime rates. To illustrate, property crime rates would decrease when the probability of arrest was high. Furthermore, an increase in average income per capita could result in a reduction in property crime rates. Nevertheless, property crime rates would decrease when the Gross Provincial Products increased, which was in accordance with the hypothesis and the economic theory of crime. Additionally, a higher proportion of men could result in a decrease in property crime rates.
According to research findings in the second model, it was found that the arrest of drug offenders could decrease the probability of arrest for property crimes. This supported the hypothesis that law enforcement on drugs was one of the factors contributing to property crimes. It also supported the results from the first model because if the group of drug addicts and property crime offenders was the same group, the probability of arrest for drug-related offences and property crimes would increase in the same direction. Furthermore, the areas where contained a higher proportion of the poor tended to have a higher probability of arrest for property crimes. However, a rise of police budget decreased the probability of arrest for property crimes.
Finally, according to research results from an estimate of the equation of indicative factors of police budget in the third model, it was found that the amount of budget in the Royal Thai Police varied with property crime rates and the population size.However, it was found that the variable on the drug market size had an inverse correlation with budget appropriate in the Royal Thai Police which is contradicted to the hypothesis.
Article Details
เนื้อหาและข้อมูลในบทความที่ลงตีพิมพ์ใน วารสารวิชาการอาชญาวิทยาและนิติวิทยาศาสตร์ โรงเรียนนายร้อยตำรวจ ถิอว่าเป็นข้อคิดเห็นและความรั้บผิดชอบของผู้เขียนบทความโดยตรงซึ่งกองบรรณาธิการวารสาร ไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วยหรือรับผิดชอบใดๆ
บทความ ข้อมูล เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ใน วารสารวิชาการอาชญาวิทยาและนิติวิทยาศาสตร์ ถือว่าเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสาร วารสารวิชาการอาชญาวิทยาและนิติวิทยาศาสตร์ หากบุคคลหรือหน่วยงานใดต้องการนำทั้งหมดหรือส่วนหนึ่งส่วนใดไปเผยแพร่ต่อหรือเพื่อกระทำการใดๆ จะต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรจาก วารสารวิชาการอาชญาวิทยาและนิติวิทยาศาสตร์ ก่อนเท่านั้น
References
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.
Bennett, T. (2000). Drugs and Crime: The Results of the Second Developmental Stage of the New-Adam Programme, Home Office Research Study 205. London: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.
Benson, B., Kim, I., Rasmussen, D., and Zuehlke, T. (1992). Is Property Crime Caused by Drug Use or by Drug Enforcement Policy. Applied Economics, 24(7), 679–692.
Benson, B., and Rasmussen, D. (1991). The Relationship Between Illicit Drug Enforcement Policy and Property Crime. Contemporary Economic Policy, 9(4), 106–115.
Chitsawang, N. (2011). Drug and Crime: Literature Review Part 2. Retrieved September 27, 2017. from https://www.Gotoknow.Org/Posts/411418. (In Thai).
Chokprajakchat, S. et al. (2017). Analysis of the Decriminalization In the Development of Thai Policy On Drug. Parichart Journal, 30(2), 295-320. (In Thai).
Goldstein, P. (1985). The Drugs/Violence Nexus: A Tripartite Conceptual Framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 15(4), 493–506.
Kanazawa, S., and Still, M. (2000). Why Men Commit Crimes (and Why They Desist). Sociological Theory, 18(3), 434 – 447.
Miron, J., and Zwiebel, J. (1995). The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 175–192.
Morgan, J.P. (1991). Prohibition is Perverse Policy: What Was True in 1933 Is True Now. In Searching For Alternatives: Drug-Control Policy in the United States. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
Nilsson, A., and Agell, J. (2003). Crime, Unemployment and Labor Market Programs in Turbulent Times. Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy, Uppsala. 2013(14), 1-26
Royal Thai Police. (2017). Information on Reports of Crimes Against Property, Compared with Narcotic Act B.E. 2522. Retrieved September 27, 2017. from http://Service.Nso.Go.Th/Nso/Web/Statseries/Statseries13.Html. (In Thai).
Uaamnoey, J. (2008). Sociology of Crime. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. (In Thai).
Yodmanee, C. et al. (1991). The Relation Between Drug use and Committing Crime. Bangkok: Office of The Narcotics Control Board. (In Thai).