Archives

Uncategorized — No Comments
13
Oct 21

Opioid Crisis & Crime

Every day, 128 people in the United States overdose and die from taking opioids. For over a decade, prescription opioids have been the primary treatment for chronic pain. Opioids are found in the opium poppy plant, which then are implemented in common drugs such as hydrocodone, oxymorphone, morphine, codeine, and fentanyl. Opioids relax the body and relieve pain quickly, which is what sparked the Opioid Crisis. In the late 1990s, pharmaceutical companies and medical professionals were sure that patients would not become addicted to opioids, so they prescribed more and more opioids to satisfy patients who were in extreme pain. After many opioid medications were prescribed, doctors came to the realization that opioids are highly addictive because accidental overdose rates were dramatically increasing. Ever since the decision was made to prescribe more opioids, overdose rates and criminal rates have been on a steady incline. Without stricter regulations and resources put into place, the next victim within the Opioid Crisis can be your parent, sibling, child, or even yourself. It takes one intake of an opioid to be on the verge of an addition, a potential overdose, or illegal action. It is difficult to remove opioids completely, so more resources and organizations need to be available to guide people onto the right path.

The use of opioids is not coming to an end, in fact more and more people are becoming addicted. Addiction is something that is very difficult to escape, and most people don’t know how to get help. A 2019 study conducted by BMC Health Services Research showed that adopting preventative strategies, such as prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), is highly effective and showed a reduction in opioid-related consequences. The study was broken into categories- opioid dependence, opioid-related care outcomes, opioid-related adverse events, and opioid-related legal and crime outcomes. As a result, applying PDMP programs limited the number of overdose deaths because help that was not available was now easily accessible (Rhodes par 1). By taking a closer look at what is being prescribed and giving other alternatives is what made this study successful. By implementing these programs, insightful information was shared, and it saved lives in the end.

Mental health and opioid dependence can become connected and can jeopardize someone’s health. Someone who is mentally unstable is at a higher risk of failing to meet the demands of opioids, therefore putting them at a higher risk of overdosing. An article written by Stephanie Watson, and medically reviewed by Timothy J. Legg, PhD, PsyD, CRNP, ACRN, CPH said, “A 2016 study in the Annals of Family Medicine found that about 10 percent of people prescribed opioids developed depression after a month of taking the drugs. The longer they used opioids, the greater their risk of developing depression” (Watson par 8). There is a clear link between mental health and opioid dependence, so it is important to address it now before more people are negatively affected. It is important that opioids are not prescribed unless they are needed. People with mental health disorders will struggle recognizing the negative effects of opioids and ignore them. People with depression and other similar mental health issues may use opioids more often than prescribed to escape from reality which could lead to addiction, an overdose, or death.

The use of opioids has been a problem for quite some time now and death rates have not decreased, so more changes need to be composed. Better regulations and strategies have been implemented in the medical world regarding opioids, but it just is not enough. More regulations within the legal system need to put into place to eliminate the selling and unnecessary usage of opioids. Anyone can be affected by opioids, rather they do it willingly or they are prescribed it. The expansion of opioid availability has made it an activity for people which is incredibly life threatening. One can observe these behaviors and replicate it, which relates to Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, and increase opioid related deaths. As more people take advantage of opioids, it will increase the amount of criminal behavior due to creating/using illegal drugs, selling illegal drugs, etc. Opioid usage can have biological influences, which can also lead to higher levels of crime and risks of aggression. As someone who has lost a loved one due to the overuse of an opioid, making small changes can make a huge impact, can change society’s perspective on opioids, and will save a life.

References:

Rhodes, Emily, et al. “The Effectiveness of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs at

Reducing Opioid-Related Harms and Consequences: A Systematic Review.” BMC

Health Services Research, vol. 19, no. 1, 2019. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1186/s12913-019-

4642-8.

Watson, Stephanie. “Mental Health and Opioid Dependence: How Are They Connected?”

Healthline. March 29, 2019. https://www.healthline.com/health/opioid-

withdrawal/mental-health-connection#1

Uncategorized — No Comments
15
Oct 18

Prorogued Prejudice

While most of the country was consumed by the news coverage of O.J. Simpson’s criminal case in the mid-1990’s, there was another murder trial that dominated the attention of many across the world, especially in my hometown of Corpus Christi, Texas. I can remember the day like it was yesterday. I was leaving school on a bright and sunny Friday afternoon when I received the news. Selena had been shot. The Queen of Tejano music was dead.

Though she had not reached the pinnacles of the mainstream American music scene, Selena Quintanilla-Perez was an international singing sensation and our hometown claim to fame. On March 31, 1995, she was murdered by Yolanda Saldivar, her fan club president. In continuing this week’s theme, a look at potential jury prejudices and the intervention in Saldivar’s case can further our understanding of the criminal justice system.

When choosing the members of an impartial jury, both defense attorneys and prosecutors often seek to eliminate the individual prejudices that may affect their client’s cases. These problematic biases, described as interest, generic, specific, and normative, are all thought to figure in to how a jury may decide a verdict (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, p. 263). The interest prejudice details how individual connections to elements of the trial may sway a juror. This may include knowing a member of one of the relevant parties in the case, or even someone who had been charged with a similar crime (Schneider et al., 2012).. Additionally, a generic prejudice may cloud one’s judgement if they hold sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., attitudes (Schneider et al., 2012).

The specific prejudice depicts how one’s opinions can play a role in being a fair juror. Often times, these notions are influenced by the media coverage surrounding the trial (Schneider et al., 2012).. Lastly, the normative prejudice illustrates how a juror may be led to a specific decision based on how a community views the evidence and players in question. With the hope of conforming to society’s opinions, a juror may be biased in their ability to objectively evaluate the relevant facts (Schneider et al., 2012). In terms of selecting jurors for the trial of Saldivar, the specific and normative prejudices likely played a role in the decision for judicial intervention.

With a constant barrage of media coverage on local television, radio, and in the newspapers, it was nearly impossible to find a person living in Corpus Christi who had not been exposed to the details of Selena’s death. After Saldivar shot Selena in the back, she locked herself in a red pickup truck for 10 straight hours, an event that unfolded live on televisions across the city (The Sweet, 1995). Everyone in town was talking about it, and they demanded justice. There would have been little doubt in any juror’s mind about how the community felt about Saldivar, and which way the jury should decide the case. Ultimately, a combination of these potential biases caused the trial to be moved to Houston so that an impartial jury could hear the case. On October 23, 1995, Yolanda Saldivar was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison (The Sweet, 1995).

One of the crucial components of the criminal judicial system revolves around the selection of an impartial jury, and intervention in case of an inability to eliminate biases. The interest, generic, specific, and normative prejudices can all play a role in a juror’s ability to fairly hear a case and must be managed if they are found to exist. Some jurors may be expelled for their connections to the case or its participants, or for their inability to dismiss their general beliefs that may interfere with their judgment. In other cases, intense media coverage may cause a juror to develop opinions that can shape the view in which they would hear potential evidence. Also, when a community has determined that a specific outcome should be found, a juror might follow this decision regardless of the facts in the case.

In the circumstances surrounding the murder of Selena by Yolanda Saldivar, a judge found that specific and normative prejudices were too intense to hold the trial in the location of the crime. An intervention was instituted, and the case was moved 200 miles from Corpus Christi to Houston, Texas. When the jury returned a verdict of guilty, it was safe to assume that the appropriate actions had been taken to ensure a fair trial occurred, and justice was served.

References:

Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J.A., & Coutts, L.A. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The Sweet Song of Justice. (1995, December). Retrieved from https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-sweet-song-of-justice/

Skip to toolbar