-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
The burgeoning recognition and accommodation of the social supply of drugs in international criminal justice systems: An eleven-nation comparative overview
R. Coomber, L. Moyle, V. Belackova, T. Decorte, P. Hakkarainen, A. Hathaway, KJ. Laidler, S. Lenton, S. Murphy, J. Scott, M. Stefunkova, K. van de Ven, M. Vlaemynck, B. Werse,
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články
- MeSH
- internacionalita MeSH
- kontrola léčiv a omamných látek zákonodárství a právo MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- obchodování s drogami zákonodárství a právo psychologie MeSH
- sociální sítě * MeSH
- trestní zákon MeSH
- uživatelé drog psychologie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
BACKGROUND: It is now commonly accepted that there exists a form of drug supply, that involves the non-commercial supply of drugs to friends and acquaintances for little or no profit, which is qualitatively different from profit motivated 'drug dealing proper'. 'Social supply', as it has become known, has a strong conceptual footprint in the United Kingdom, shaped by empirical research, policy discussion and its accommodation in legal frameworks. Though scholarship has emerged in a number of contexts outside the UK, the extent to which social supply has developed as an internationally recognised concept in criminal justice contexts is still unclear. METHODS: Drawing on an established international social supply research network across eleven nations, this paper provides the first assessment of social supply as an internationally relevant concept. Data derives from individual and team research stemming from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, England and Wales, and the United States, supported by expert reflection on research evidence and analysis of sentencing and media reporting in each context. In situ social supply experts addressed a common set of questions regarding the nature of social supply for their particular context including: an overview of social supply research activity, reflection on the extent that differentiation is accommodated in drug supply sentencing frameworks; evaluating the extent to which social supply is recognised in legal discourse and in sentencing practices and more broadly by e.g. criminal justice professionals in the public sphere. A thematic analysis of these scripts was undertaken and emergent themes were developed. Whilst having an absence of local research, New Zealand is also included in the analysis as there exists a genuine discursive presence of social supply in the drug control and sentencing policy contexts in that country. RESULTS: Findings suggest that while social supply has been found to exist as a real and distinct behaviour, its acceptance and application in criminal justice systems ranges from explicit through to implicit. In the absence of dedicated guiding frameworks, strong use is made of discretion and mitigating circumstances in attempts to acknowledge supply differentiation. In some jurisdictions, there is no accommodation of social supply, and while aggravating factors can be applied to differentiate more serious offences, social suppliers remain subject to arbitrary deterrent sentencing apparatus. CONCLUSION: Due to the shifting sands of politics, mood, or geographical disparity, reliance on judicial discretion and the use of mitigating circumstances to implement commensurate sentences for social suppliers is no longer sufficient. Further research is required to strengthen the conceptual presence of social supply in policy and practice as a behaviour that extends beyond cannabis and is relevant to users of all drugs. Research informed guidelines and/or specific sentencing provisions for social suppliers would provide fewer possibilities for inconsistency and promote more proportionate outcomes for this fast-growing group.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of Guelph Guelph Ontario N1G 2W1 Canada
Institute for Social Drug Research Ghent University Universiteitstraat 4 9000 Ghent Belgium
Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention Namesti 14 rijna 12 150 00 Prague 5 Czech Republic
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052 Australia
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19035193
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20191017093451.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 191007s2018 ne f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.05.010 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29890504
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ne
- 100 1_
- $a Coomber, Ross $u Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, L69 7ZA, United Kingdom. Electronic address: ross.coomber@liverpool.ac.uk.
- 245 14
- $a The burgeoning recognition and accommodation of the social supply of drugs in international criminal justice systems: An eleven-nation comparative overview / $c R. Coomber, L. Moyle, V. Belackova, T. Decorte, P. Hakkarainen, A. Hathaway, KJ. Laidler, S. Lenton, S. Murphy, J. Scott, M. Stefunkova, K. van de Ven, M. Vlaemynck, B. Werse,
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: It is now commonly accepted that there exists a form of drug supply, that involves the non-commercial supply of drugs to friends and acquaintances for little or no profit, which is qualitatively different from profit motivated 'drug dealing proper'. 'Social supply', as it has become known, has a strong conceptual footprint in the United Kingdom, shaped by empirical research, policy discussion and its accommodation in legal frameworks. Though scholarship has emerged in a number of contexts outside the UK, the extent to which social supply has developed as an internationally recognised concept in criminal justice contexts is still unclear. METHODS: Drawing on an established international social supply research network across eleven nations, this paper provides the first assessment of social supply as an internationally relevant concept. Data derives from individual and team research stemming from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, England and Wales, and the United States, supported by expert reflection on research evidence and analysis of sentencing and media reporting in each context. In situ social supply experts addressed a common set of questions regarding the nature of social supply for their particular context including: an overview of social supply research activity, reflection on the extent that differentiation is accommodated in drug supply sentencing frameworks; evaluating the extent to which social supply is recognised in legal discourse and in sentencing practices and more broadly by e.g. criminal justice professionals in the public sphere. A thematic analysis of these scripts was undertaken and emergent themes were developed. Whilst having an absence of local research, New Zealand is also included in the analysis as there exists a genuine discursive presence of social supply in the drug control and sentencing policy contexts in that country. RESULTS: Findings suggest that while social supply has been found to exist as a real and distinct behaviour, its acceptance and application in criminal justice systems ranges from explicit through to implicit. In the absence of dedicated guiding frameworks, strong use is made of discretion and mitigating circumstances in attempts to acknowledge supply differentiation. In some jurisdictions, there is no accommodation of social supply, and while aggravating factors can be applied to differentiate more serious offences, social suppliers remain subject to arbitrary deterrent sentencing apparatus. CONCLUSION: Due to the shifting sands of politics, mood, or geographical disparity, reliance on judicial discretion and the use of mitigating circumstances to implement commensurate sentences for social suppliers is no longer sufficient. Further research is required to strengthen the conceptual presence of social supply in policy and practice as a behaviour that extends beyond cannabis and is relevant to users of all drugs. Research informed guidelines and/or specific sentencing provisions for social suppliers would provide fewer possibilities for inconsistency and promote more proportionate outcomes for this fast-growing group.
- 650 _2
- $a trestní zákon $7 D003416
- 650 _2
- $a obchodování s drogami $x zákonodárství a právo $x psychologie $7 D064423
- 650 _2
- $a uživatelé drog $x psychologie $7 D055030
- 650 _2
- $a kontrola léčiv a omamných látek $x zákonodárství a právo $7 D004335
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a internacionalita $7 D038622
- 650 12
- $a sociální sítě $7 D060756
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Moyle, Leah $u Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus G06_2.08, Queensland, 4222, Australia. Electronic address: l.moyle@griffith.edu.au.
- 700 1_
- $a Belackova, Vendula $u Department of Insitutional Economics, University of Economics, UE Prague, W. Churchill Sq. 4, 130 67 Prague 3, Czech Republic. Electronic address: belacova.vendula@resad.cz.
- 700 1_
- $a Decorte, Tom $u Institute for Social Drug Research (ISD), Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: tom.decorte@ugent.be.
- 700 1_
- $a Hakkarainen, Pekka $u Alcohol, Drug and Addictions Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare, PO Box 30, FI-00271, Helsinki, Finland. Electronic address: pekka.hakkarainen@thl.fi.
- 700 1_
- $a Hathaway, Andrew $u Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada. Electronic address: hathawaa@uoguelph.ca.
- 700 1_
- $a Laidler, Karen Joe $u Department of Sociology, University of Hong Kong, The Jockey Club Tower, Centennial Campus, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China. Electronic address: kjoe@hku.hk.
- 700 1_
- $a Lenton, Simon $u National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Building 609, Level 2, 7 Parker Place Technology Park, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia. Electronic address: s.lenton@curtin.edu.au.
- 700 1_
- $a Murphy, Sheigla $u Center for Substance Abuse Studies, Institute for Scientific Analysis, 390 4th Street, Second Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. Electronic address: sheigla@aol.com.
- 700 1_
- $a Scott, John $u School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Level 4, C Block, Gardens Point, 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. Electronic address: j31.scott@qut.edu.au.
- 700 1_
- $a Stefunkova, Michaela $u Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention, Namesti 14. rijna 12, 150 00, Prague 5, Czech Republic. Electronic address: stefunkova@adiktologie.cz.
- 700 1_
- $a van de Ven, Katinka $u National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. Electronic address: k.vandeven@unsw.edu.au.
- 700 1_
- $a Vlaemynck, Marieke $u Institute for Social Drug Research (ISD), Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: marieke.vlaemynck@ugent.be.
- 700 1_
- $a Werse, Bernd $u Center for Drug Research, Institute of Social Education and Adult Education, Goethe University, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, D-60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: werse@em.uni-frankfurt.de.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00008614 $t The International journal on drug policy $x 1873-4758 $g Roč. 58, č. - (2018), s. 93-103
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29890504 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20191007 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20191017093919 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1451853 $s 1073743
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 58 $c - $d 93-103 $e 20180608 $i 1873-4758 $m The International journal on drug policy $n Int J Drug Policy $x MED00008614
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20191007
