Migrants in the criminal justice system: A qualitative understanding of the role of substance use in their lives
Background: Previous research illustrated how migrants are particularly vulnerable to use substances. In addition, persons with a substance use disorder frequently come in contact with the criminal justice system. For example, a large meta-regression analysis showed that at least around one quarter of the persons in prison had an alcohol or substance use disorder, while another study in an Australian forensic mental health service revealed a prevalence of 77,7% of lifetime substance use disorders in its population. Yet, it remains unknown whether persons with a migration background who use substances come in contact with the criminal justice system more or less frequently, what the role of using substances in their life stories is and what the relation of their substance use with committing criminal offences is.
Method: Semi-structured Good Lives interviews were conducted with 17 persons who are labelled Not Criminally Responsible (due to their mental illness) in forensic mental health and penitentiary facilities. Only participants with a migration background (i.e. 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation) were eligible to participate in this study.
Results: Eleven of the seventeen participants had a history of substance use, ranging from alcohol and cannabis use to opiates and heroin use. These participants committed criminal offences under the influence of substances or at least during a period of intense use of substances. The use of substances was, similar to committing criminal offences, mostly used as a maladjusted strategy to satisfy their basic human needs, such as attaining some peace of mind or pleasure, engaging in meaningful relationships or being part of a group, or to sustain a certain level of physical and mental health. In addition, substances often became an obstacle in itself to satisfy these needs, such as to maintain good physical and mental health or to maintain positive relationships with their family or communities. The participants described how compulsory character of their care and the strict conditions for their probation forces them to abstain from using substances. Yet, they also recount that throughout their forensic care trajectories, they enhanced their (emotion regulation) skills and received sufficient (therapeutic) support to abstain from substance use and to employ more adjusted strategies to satisfy these basic human needs.
Conclusions: While the use of substances in this group of people does not significantly differ from the general forensic population, this study clearly illustrates the significance and frequency of substance use in their life stories. Substance use seems to be both a (maladjusted) strategy and an obstacle to secure basic human needs. These results demonstrate the need and opportunities for prevention of crime and substance use by not only community drugs treatment services, mental health care services and social welfare services but also migrant integration services.
