Alcohol and drug problems among Australian homicide offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most homicide studies focus upon 'acute' situational intoxication as opposed to 'chronic' substance misuse. The aims of the study were to: (1) determine the extent of homicide offenders' alcohol and drug use in the year preceding the homicide; (2) compare the individual characteristics of homicide offenders across levels of problematic substance use; and (3) compare homicide incident characteristics across levels of problematic substance use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study using data collected through face-to-face interviews in custodial and community correctional settings across Australia. Participants were recruited through an opt-in process. PARTICIPANTS: The data consist of 302 individuals convicted of murder or manslaughter. MEASUREMENTS: We used the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test and Drug Abuse Screening Test to determine problematic alcohol or drug use. We also used a range of self-report measures to ascertain offender characteristics [socio-demographics, developmental experiences, criminal history, personality] and incident characteristics (who was killed, and situational intoxication). FINDINGS: Of the sample, 38.8% displayed high levels of alcohol problems and 30.8% displayed high levels of drug problems. Those displaying high levels of alcohol and/or drug problems were more likely than those without high levels of alcohol and/or drug problems to report adverse developmental experiences, low education, financial difficulties, extensive criminal histories and high levels of trait anger, impulsivity and risk-seeking. In addition, offenders with problematic substance use were more likely to have killed non-family and to have used substances at the time of the homicide. CONCLUSIONS: High proportions of homicide offenders in Australia appear to have problematic substance use in the year preceding the homicide offence, and such use appears to be associated with a range of other challenging factors, including adverse childhoods, criminal involvement, low socio-economic factors and low self-regulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".