Assignment 3 ‐ Due Tuesday , April 10th, 2012.ThisAssignme.docx

Assignment 3 ‐ Due Tuesday , April 10th, 2012.
ThisAssignmentisworth60points(10extracreditpointsavailable)
This is to be submitted as a hard copy in Word format.
Please label your assignment clearly: full name, Assignment 3
You are to write a research paper titled:
MRSA: The Costly "Super Bug."
As a guide, your research paper should try and address the
following questions/points:
isk?

Please use as many reliable sources as possible for your paper.
As always, remember to clearly reference all sources you have
used both in text and as a bibliography at the end of the paper.
Your work should be typed in MS Word using a 10‐12 point
font with 2.0 line spacing. Layout, spelling and grammar will be
important.
The assignment should be 3 sides in length (not including
bibliography).
Grading: 50 points for the paper (does it read well? Does it
answer the important points about MRSA…?)
10 points for style and overall presentation
Total = 60 points
If you have any questions please see me.
Nothing will be accepted after the due date.
3
EMAIL - Assignment # 9: FINAL PAPER DUE- EMAIL-
Proofread and revise your Final Paper. Once completed, email
as an attachment to: [email protected].
Structure of the paper (will be a collaboration of assignments 2-
8) with final edits, revisions, ect. Please break up your paper
by titling each section (ex: abstract, introduction, ect) and
subtopics. Subtopics should be italicized.
1. Title page: Include topic, name, and date
2. Abstract
3. Introduction
4. Literature review- (broken up by subtopics)

5. Hypothesis
6. Research plan
7. Conclusion
8. Reference page- FULL references, in APA format,
alphabetically listed, using hanging indention. (To do hanging
indention, highlight your references, hit paragraph (option in
word), under special select hanging). APA format:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
Example:
Drug Addiction and Crime: Does one Cause the other?
________________
A Paper

Presented to
Department of Criminology
Indiana State University
________________
By
Brittny Downing
December 2009
ABSTRACT
The following study evaluates individual and social components
on how they influence drug addiction and crime. Historical
events and prison statistics have reflected social exclusion and
inequalities that create victimization among some members of
society. This victimization has been linked to self control and
expression. Victimization and expression of aggression has
created subcultures of violence in some areas which in turn
create more victimization. Legal policies and definitions appear
to be contributing factors toward exclusion and victimization
creating distrust and frustration. The influences of
victimization created by all or some of these factors contribute
to an individual’s perception in social interactions. These
influences appear to be contributors to deviant behaviors such
as crime and drug use/addiction. My hypothesis suggests that
victimization and drug abuse causes neurological changes in
mental functioning which impairs rationality and increases
aggressive perceptions.
INTRODUCTION

There is an apparent relationship between drug addiction and
crime. This relationship is reflected by the overwhelming
amount of prison inmates with reported drug use. In dealing
with state prison inmates, 69% report regular lifetime illicit
drug use, and more than 80% of state inmates have indicators of
serious alcohol or drug associations (Belenko, 2006). There is
existing data that suggests approximately 80% of all individuals
arrested test positive for an illegal substance (Klag et al, 2005).
In addressing whether drug addiction causes crime and vice-
versa, I will review the theorized ideas on casualty of crime and
addiction. In reviewing these theories I find that both
individual characteristics and social elements correlate with the
problems of drug addiction and crime.
Most inmates are driven to crimes by their drug abuse,
according to a study concerning New Jersey’s correctional
population (Wojtowicz et al, 2007). Addiction to hard core
substances has been the cause of income-producing crime,
placing many of these addicts in the criminal justice system
(Brownsberger et al, 2004). The concept of drug abuse is
defined as recurrent use associated with failure to fill role
obligations, physical hazards, negative consequences, and drug-
related legal problems or fighting (Brownsberger et al, 2004).
This concept defines the correlation between drug addiction and
crime, and assimilates that drug abuse eventually links into
criminal behavior. In correlation to this link, frequency of
criminal activity has been found to rise and fall depending on
the level of drug use (Klag et al, 2005).
Regardless of how an offender becomes affiliated with drugs
and crime, illegal drug use has become a complex social
problem that will continue to influence the criminal justice
system (Lurigio, 2000). The problem with drug use and crime is
that they often “co-occur as a part of a deviant lifestyle”
(Lurigio, 2000: 496). There are many pathways in which an
offender will become involved in addiction and crime; these

directions may be divergent, overlapping, or parallel (Lurigio,
2000). Studies have linked that criminally inclined individuals
commit more serious crimes as they become drug dependent,
and as their drug use decreases, so does the rate of crimes they
commit (Lurigio, 2000). The nature of the drug and crime
problem raises questions in genetic dispositions, as well as the
establishments of social elements that may create strain and
victimization, inhibit self control, and create a definition to
crime that excludes certain socio-economic classes.
In the scope of this problem I will evaluate the effects of
individual characteristics, social problems, and how they relate
to crime and addiction. An evaluation of biological
predispositions, subcultures of violence and victimization, self
control theory, strain theory, and legal definitions to crime will
then be assessed. Identification of the strengths and fallacies in
the theories will also be discussed. After completing my
research, I add to the knowledge of the causes of drug addiction
and crime by combining the establishments of crime into a
series of rippling effects and decisions based on
predispositions, life experiences, and victimization in social
interactions. The causes of victimization, such as social
exclusion and legal definitions, are linked to having effects on
self control and perception. The creation of subcultures
resulting from victimization, and creating more victimization as
well as aggression will be evaluated. My hypothesis suggests
that victimization and drug abuse cause neurological changes in
mental functioning by impairing rationality and increasing
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature on drug addiction and crime differentiates
among the variations of theories, which establishes issues
related to individual characteristics and social problems. In
extent theories of individual predispositions and social
interactions play a substantial role in both drug addiction and

crime. “In the 21st century, drug and alcohol use presents a
serious social problem for most countries in the world” (Klag et
al, 2005: 1777). Social factors play a major role in lifestyle,
outlook, and liberty of individuals. Throughout history there
have been many devastating social events such as social
exclusion, oppression, inequalities, and discrimination. There
have also been social issues concerning subcultures of violence
and with legal policies and definitions. For example, Russian
criminal studies found crime to be a social phenomenon that is
influenced by factors such as inequality, strain (from blocked
opportunities), inter-group conflicts, and living conditions
(Gilinskiy, 2006). Criminalization among females is linked to
poverty, sexual abuse, racial and class oppression, and
structural dislocation from schools and family (Katz, 2000).
Biological/Neurological
“ Neuropsychological dysfunction consistently characterizes
both drug abuse and violence, and may contribute to traits often
cited as precursors to both for example, impulsivity, poor
decision-making ability, disinhibition, and inability to assess
consequences” (Fishbein, 2000: 139). Serotonin, a
neurotransmitter in the brain, is another factor also relating to
impulse control, aggression, and other mood impairments
(Fishbein, 2000). In studies involving the orbitofrontal portion
of the prefrontal cortex (OFC) there is evidence that links
impulsivity, predisposition to drug abuse and dependence, and
violent behavior to the roles in cognitive functioning (Fishbein,
2000). In relationship to biological impairments there is also
evidence that both drug abuse and aggressive behavior are the
result of the inability to assess consequences and act on that
assessment, as reflected with the personality trait of impulsivity
(Fishbein, 2000). “Giancola (1995) has hypothesized that
impaired executive cognitive functioning (ECF) compromises
the ability to interpret social cues during interpersonal
interactions, which may lead to misperceptions of threat or
hostility in conflict situations” (Fishbein, 2000: 142).

Biological deficiencies have been an element of the causal
studies of crime and addiction. Biological characteristics are
used to study deficiencies and differences in the individual that
are linked with rational choice, aggression, and personality
characteristics. These studies are further evaluated to
understand the effects they have on an individual’s
interpretation of decisions and actions. The biological findings
conclude that the prefrontal cortex appears to alter social skills
(Fishbein, 2000). These social skills are consistently
distinguished with individuals having both occurrences of drug
abuse and violence (Fishbein, 2000). Biological impairment
involving chronic drug use has been found to alter prefrontal
function causing increased issues with violence (Fishbein,
2000). Biological dysfunctions are suggested to be contributing
factors to drug abuse and crime. In addition, biological
dysfunctions can also occur as a result of drug abuse, which
could create dysfunction or contribute to an existing
dysfunction, leaving the user more susceptible to aggression and
violence. Wikstrom hypothesizes that “violent moral rule
breakers are more neuropsychologically similar to
neurologically impaired controls than non-violent moral rule
breakers in EEG abnormalities, perseveration, and deficits in
working memory” (Wikstrom et Al, 2007:257).
Subculture of Violence/Victimization/Trauma
High rates of homicide in certain cultural areas of society are
described as cultures of violence (Surratt et Al, 2004). This
concept derives the idea that cultural values and social
conditions, rather than individual conditions, are determinants
of violent behavior (Surratt et Al, 2004). In addition, a theory
known as ‘subculture of violence’ has been implemented to help
explain the social structural causes of violence (Surratt et Al,
2004). This general concept is characterized by “dense
concentrations of socio-economically disadvantaged persons
with few legitimate avenues of social mobility, lucrative illegal

markets for forbidden goods and services, a value system that
rewards only survival and material success, and private
enforcement of the informal rules of the game” (Surratt et al,
2004: 44).
In researching subcultures of violence, a study concerning sex
workers in Miami found that violence was attributed to social
problems including gender inequality, class, and racial
discriminations (Surratt et al, 2004). These social problems
lead to complex situations resulting in an environment of
violence and victimization (Surratt et al, 2004). The sex work
in this study constituted a subculture of violence in the city.
The research found that many of the sex workers had underlying
experiences of trauma during childhood and adolescence. In
relation to their current environment, women stated that violent
victimizations were inevitable (Surratt et al, 2004). The
inevitability of violence results in lifestyles consisting of
repetitive histories of victimization (Surratt et al, 2004).
Many female offenders share characteristics of poverty and
traumatic childhood backgrounds (Fischer et al, 2007). Many of
these victimizations lead to substance abuse for the majority.
Recently, from 1995-2000 women convicted for federal
methamphetamine charges rose 133% making drug-related
crimes more frequent among female offenders (Fischer et al,
2007). Empirical work has reflected that male criminal
behavior is predicted by early victimization and female
victimization is a predictor for criminal involvement over the
life course (Katz, 2000). A traumatic bond is said to be linked
creating boundaries within victimized females making it harder
to detach from the lifestyle and the individual (Katz, 2000).
In evaluating male juveniles in relation to victimization, a study
found that physical, mental, and sexual abuse are all factors that
were associated with youth involvement in crime and marijuana
use (Robertson et al, 2008). The studies also found that African

American adolescents living in disadvantaged communities were
at risk for exposure to victimization and violence (Robertson et
al, 2008). These finding coincide with the idea of a subculture
of violence resulting in crime and victimization due to social
living conditions. Victimization plays a contributing role to
crime and drug abuse. A subculture of violence promotes crime
and dictates offenders to maintain their street identity by
valuing criminal activity (Copes et al, 2008). The offenders
thinking, self-concept, and daily interactions in urban street life
is what creates the boundaries with law abiding citizens (Copes
et al, 2008). This concept follows Durkheim’s theory of
anomie and the effects of social strain. The formulation of
deviance and crime, are responses to the conditions of strain
and the opportunity for illegal activity (Surratt et al, 2004).
Self control theory
Self control is a characteristic that has been scrutinized when
studying the actions and causes of addiction and crime.
Gottfredson and Hirschi established the General theory of
Crime, based on the concept that “human conduct can be
understood as the self-interested pursuit of pleasure or the
avoidance of pain” (Wikstrom et Al, 2007: 239). Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s theory consists of six defined elements of self
control and states people lacking self control usually have the
following characteristics: impulsivity, short-sightedness,
insensitivity, physical responsiveness, risk taking, and low
frustration tolerance, which makes them more inclined to take
part in criminal acts (Baron et Al, 2007). Since control theory
there have been revised concepts that have built upon the idea
of self control and crime.
Wikstrom and Strieber have analyzed the link between self
control and crime causation claiming that crime is not a
question of self control, but rather a question of morality
(2007). This concept views self control not as an individual
trait, but as a situational concept in the process of choice

(Wikstrom et Al, 2007). In this alternative to self control,
crime is viewed as moral actions in which one perceives the
alternatives and makes the choices based upon moral belief,
moral habit, and executive capabilities (Wikstrom et Al, 2007).
This study evaluates how individuals internalize social
components as moral beliefs, which can create moral habits.
These moral habits make it harder to change due to the
individual learning ways to adapt to changes, and then
internalizing that adaptation. Moral beliefs resulting in
situational concepts can have devastating effects when dealing
with victimized individuals. The way one interprets a situation
is derived by moral beliefs. The actions one chooses are a
result of those beliefs. This study also takes into account
executive deficits which are biological and neurological
impairments in the brain. In noting these impairments as well
as the establishment of interpretations one can apply this theory
to situational disputes. Another study known as the dispute
theory evaluates self control by dividing the elements into
active stages and applying them to situational incidences and
determinants on the basis of reaction.
The dispute theory is a study theorized by Luckenbill and Doyle
(1989) built from the ideas and elements of the self control
theory (Baron et Al, 2007). Their theory states that disputes are
episodes that occur in stages (Baron et Al, 2007). These stages
depend on the participant’s learned experiences and
expectations toward certain situations and states that the
reaction and stages are dependent on the subjective
interpretation from both parties (Baron et Al, 2007). This
theory is similar to the self control theory because it relies on a
number of individual characteristics that control the direction of
a situation into either a conflict or rational decision.
Shreck finds that self control components may also be
linked to victimization, since people who are impulsive aren’t
as likely to recognize consequences of their actions (Baron et

Al, 2007). Coinciding with the susceptibility to victimization,
low self control can also affect an individual by the way it
creates opportunity (Baron et Al, 2007). According to
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory, it appears that the six
elements are commonly linked with violence, violent acts and
victimization, but are not dependent on having all six elements
present (Baron et Al, 2007). One of the elements of low self
control, impulsivity, was found to predict alcohol and drug use
(Baron et Al, 2007). These findings surrounding self control
theorizes that low self control is linked with both crime and
drug use and can also be established by the social environments
of an individual.
Social Exclusion
Problem drug use is constructed socially, by having less to do
with individual choice and more to do with limited
opportunities, structural disadvantages, resources, and
alternatives (Buchanan, 2004). Social elements exclude certain
individuals and create groups of individuals being socially
victimized. The majority of problem drug users have endured
severe disadvantage and social exclusion prior to their drug
problem, and how struggle with limited opportunities
(Buchanan, 2004). The choices of drug use have been
influenced by negative pressures and aggravating factors that
limit opportunities in society by minimizing alternatives for the
individual (Buchanan, 2004). Drug taking can be understood
best by socio-economic problems (Buchanan, 2004). A social
understanding is needed in order to grasp the links of problem
drug use, viewing the compound problems of: low self esteem,
unemployment, sexual and physical abuse, educational
underachievement, and disrupted childhoods (Buchanan, 2004).
The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) found that problem drug
users come from many of the most deprived and socially
excluded communities (Buchanan, 2004). In one study
concerning Brooklyn, 50 % of parolees wound up on only 11%

of the city blocks (Sung et al, 2007).
Social disadvantage and social exclusion are major factors to
consider and are evidenced to be elements that lead to
problematic drug use (Buchanan, 2004). There is a pattern
amongst problem drug users showing an overwhelming amount
have suffered from difficult childhoods, have been in care,
struggled in education and finding employment, and have
committed crimes (Buchanan, 2004). Illicit drug use may be an
attempt to escape from reality or society due to the inability to
access materials legitimately that appear to be accessible to
other members of society (Buchanan, 2004). Problem drug use
has been a linking result of social exclusion, but in fact has
created further exclusion as drug users become anti-social and
engage in ‘othering’ “presenting themselves as they are
somehow different to the majority of society” (Buchanan, 2004:
394). Drug abuse and crime are aspects of reactive responses to
social injustice (Buchanan, 2004).
Russia is just one example of the effects of social
exclusion and economic inequality. Russia remains to have a
very high violence rate, which may be a resulting factor of
maintaining control over the country through repression
(Gilinskiy, 2006). Considerable inequalities have been placed
keeping most Russians in poverty and creating a cultural
mentality of intolerance (Gilinskiy, 2006). This intolerance
appears to be reflected by the continuing inflation of drug abuse
and crime. The rate of drug addicts in Russia per 100,000
inhabitants increased from “1.3 in 1980 to 31.0 in 1997”
(Gilinskiy, 2006: 274).
Campbell stresses how drug crime has become an issue of
social policies that label some behaviors as a “dangerous class”
but excuse behaviors of the dominant class (Malloch, 2004:
297). Social exclusion and unemployment provides a
substandard for deviance and a desire for illegal products
(Gilinskiy, 2006). Street crime has been a battle with police

and court due to the argument that they are creating a scapegoat
against criminality and promoting a selection process in the
criminal justice system (Gilinskiy, 2006). This selection
process focuses on certain types of crimes committed, primarily
by lower socio-economic classes, and overlooks white collar
crime such as organized crime and corruption. The selection
processes increasingly excludes individuals and the greater
number of individuals being excluded, the higher the rate of
crime (Gilinskiy, 2006). Social and economical issues have
been identified as infringing on the lives of criminal justice
clients (Malloch, 2004).
Legal definitions
The drug problem is by definition noted in many theories to be
the real problem (Boland, 2008). Policies made concerning
illicit drug use are filled with misinformation resulting in public
fear and questioning public policy (Boland, 2008). The
exclusion of some drugs such as alcohol and tobacco questions
the validity of the scientific classification system (Boland,
2008). In questioning the validity of policies and classification,
the link to drugs, crime, and social exclusion are an area of
interest when researching rational for public policies (Boland,
2008). Arguably the real problem is the definition of the drug
problem because it is based on moral prejudice, is biased, and
creates more problems than it solves (Boland, 2008).
The United States crack cocaine laws are just one example of
the discrepancies in drug policies. In the late 1970’s cocaine
was being used by many upper-class members for example, rock
stars and stock brokers, causing multiple visits to the
emergency rooms and resulting in congress passing laws
extending health coverage to include treatment for drugs
(Reinarman et al, 2004). In the mid-1980’s crack was being
used in inner cities amongst many African Americans and
Latinos, as a result congress passed new laws for harsher prison
sentences and expanded the amount of prison cells in the prison

industry (Reinarman et al, 2004). From 1986-2000 U.S. prison
population tripled giving U.S. the highest rate of incarceration
among modern democracy (Reinarman et al, 2004). The crack
scare that congress faced in the late 1980’s may have had
political purpose but also created racist consequences
(Reinarman et al, 2004). This racist repression frayed the
legitimacy of the criminal justice system in the eyes of many
members (Reinarman et al, 2004).
The war against drugs is inherently a war against drug users
creating more exclusion and targeting these individuals as a
force of hostility (Buchanan, 2004). Drucker finds that the
repercussions drug users face can be a greater danger than the
drugs (Buchanan, 2004). The drug war controls and excludes
drug users and places them under social stress and barriers of
discrimination and social exclusion (Buchanan, 2004). Many
problem drug users tend to internalize these problems which
create isolation and/ or lack of motivation to attempt to
establish an identity as a productive member of society
(Buchanan, 2004). The legal definitions create a dividing wall
against drug users and the rest of society. This wall creates
frustration, impatience and exclusion among the dividing
members.
The above literature focuses on the individual and social
characteristics associated with drug use and crime. There are
many elements that can be causes or byproducts of addiction
and crime. There is a need to evaluate criminal theories to
understand why individuals act in deviance to society. In
studying biological and social victimizations we can reasonably
establish that individual and social factors contribute to
aggression and strain amongst individuals. When combining
social and individual factors, regardless to the order of
establishment, we often find that under strain they lead to
deviance in society and associations with drugs and crime.

HYPOTHESIS
Victimization and drug abuse causes neurological changes in
mental functioning which impairs rationality and increases
METHOD
I plan to conduct a qualitative study measuring the relationship
between victimization and drug abuse. I will conduct individual
interviews with each subject asking subjects to explain their
experiences with victimization and drug abuse. This study will
examine the histories of four individuals (two female and two
male) applying a theoretical question concerning victimization
and drug abuse in their own lives. Subjects will be recruited by
flyers and posters and will be identified in an initial
questionnaire asking if they have undergone any victimization
and/or substance abuse. Once subjects are identified, this study
will review each individual by their interpretation of
victimization and drug abuse experiences. This relationship
will be qualitatively explored by each subject and interpreted
relative to the way in which each subject has come to
understand the ways in which their experience(s) of
victimization influenced their drug abuse behavior, rationale for
decision making, and aggressive perceptions.
In conducting the research, each individual will
be given an informed consent agreement to be signed informing
them of the nature of the study and the individuals involved.
Participants will be aged 18-24. Participants in this study will
consist of two male, two female, two Caucasian and two African
Americans. Posters and flyers will be sent to or set up in
grocery stores, jails, prisons, and gas stations. Each area will
provide an array of subjects and include both incarcerated and
non-incarcerated individuals. Subjects that claim to have
undergone victimization and have abuse drugs will be chosen
for the study. Once established with appropriate participants,
the study will be conducted in a normal classroom. The study

will consist of a general question asking them to describe their
experiences and the relation it has had their rationality and
perceptions. Follow up questions will be used to clarify
answers. Information received will be kept confidential, storing
only last names of clients, and maintained in a secure locked
area.
Risks to human subjects have been assessed and will be noted
on the informed consent forms. Some of the risks in dealing
with human subjects are: the recollection of potentially harmful
memories triggering psychological issues such as anxiety,
depression, and/or intrusive thoughts. Incarcerated subjects
will also be subjected to the same risks as well as the possibility
of peer issues/rejection due to speaking with a researcher, as
well as, informed breach of confidentially issues, concerning
statements of hurting self or others. All risks appear minimal
and will be explained to each subject prior to interviewing.
Benefits of this research lie with the ability to evaluate each
subject’s factors to determine influences of victimization and
drug abuse on rationality and perceptions. While undergoing the
interview process, subjects will have the opportunity to express
thoughts and feelings possibly harbored by the victimization
and drug abuse and may begin to assess the impact that
victimization has had on their lives. Clients will have the
ability to discuss their issues with a counselor and receive
psychological help for issues that they are currently dealing
with. By making such assessments for each subject, the risks of
this research remain minimal and short term. Any unplanned
adverse affects of this research will be assisted by
psychological counseling on an as needed basis. Following the
interview, each individual will be debriefed by the counselor to
determine this need by assessing for any trauma, depression,
anxiety, or intrusive thoughts. Probabilities of any
complications or adverse affects are very small to non-existent.

General benefits that the participant will receive in volunteering
in this study include: a sense of contribution to helping the
study of victimization and drug abuse, ability to express and
vent out feelings, frustration, and harbored thoughts and
emotions, and assistance in dealing with issues if needed.
Additional benefits also include a payment of ten dollars per
hour for their time in participating in the study. Participants
will be paid following the completion of the study. Since non-
completion of the study creates problems for both researchers
and participants, they will not be rewarded monetarily.
I will act as the research investigator in this study. I will
initially begin by informing subjects of the nature of the study,
guidelines, precautions, and the informed consent. In my
analysis, I plan to identify associations between victimization
and drug abuse and the influence they have on rationality and
perceptions. Limitations of using this technique consist of
issues with generalizing the findings due to the small sample of
individuals and lack of diversity. Interpretations and reliance
on honesty will also be apparent making the findings limited.
In conducting the following study I plan to conduct interviews
with each subject asking them to simply explain their
experiences related to victimization and drug abuse. Questions
will remain open ended to avoid coaxing. The research question
will be: Please describe as thoroughly as possible your
experience with victimization and any experiences with drug
abuse. The main purpose of the interviews will be to have the
subjects simply describe their experiences. Follow-up questions
will be used to clarify vague answers. Briefings will occur
following each interview to assess for any psychological effects
on the subjects.
Following the interviews, I will determine victimization and
drug abuse and the individual’s perspective on their rationale
and perception. Following the interviews, information obtained

will be analyzed to assess links in victimization and drug abuse.
Types of victimization and drug abuse will be noted for each
subject. Ages of victimization and drug abuse, amount of
occurrences, and individual opinions about the effect of
victimization and drug abuse will be assessed. This study will
face reliability issues due to using human subjects and reliance
on accurate memory and interpretation. However, the
information obtained from the interviews will allow me to
utilize this information to get a basic understanding of the
subjects and the link that victimization and drug abuse has on
rationale and perceptions.
DISCUSSION
Rehabilitative efforts are helping to prevent crime, further
addiction, and victimization. Studies have even found that
effective parental monitoring has been shown to substantially
reduce deviant behaviors in youth (Robertson et al, 2008).
However, one boundary is that low socioeconomic situations
can make parental monitoring and parenting more challenging
(Robertson et al, 2008). Another rehabilitative suggestion
involves substance abuse treatment. According to many
criminal justice professionals, treatment can help reduce crime
by reducing use and addiction (Brownsberger et al, 2004).
Studies reflect that many criminal offenders are in high need for
substance abuse treatment (Brownsberger et al, 2004).
Recovery can offer assistance in overcoming addiction and
thinking errors related to crime. However, in recovery,
individual problems such as family issues, employment, child-
care, and mental health may need to be addressed to assure a
successful transition (Malloch, 2004). The theories above also
provide awareness of individual and social problems that need
to be discussed for rehabilitative recovery.
These theories relating to crime causation share similar
links and should be combined systematically using
considerations of ripple and causal effects, as well as searching

for common denominators. The effects of biological
impairments should be first considered when analyzing criminal
behavior. In dealing with substance addiction, biological
impairments should be assumed (temporary impairments leading
to dependency) to a degree and addressed through rehabilitative
treatment. Substance abuse can cause an individual to think
irrationally which affects self control. Substance abuse can
create victimization, which is another obstacle that must be
considered when addressing individuals and should be
addressed through both counseling and treatment services.
Victimization that is being suppressed by substance abuse and
deviance should also be taken in consideration for treatment.
Social exclusion, which results in victimization of some
individuals, creates many problems in society and should be
conveyed and addressed for awareness among the general
public. Legal definitions and tactics used to socially exclude
individuals should be persistently reviewed and publicized in a
quest for justice.
CONCLUSION
Drugs and/or victimization alter neurology of the body
causing deficits in behavioral and conceptual processes. The
way one copes with victimization alters the mental functioning
skills by impairing rationality and increasing aggression.
Excessive drug and alcohol use creates neurological
impairments by lowering inhibitions and rational thinking, and
creating deficiencies that changes behavior and mood. Both
victimization and excessive drug use creates neuro-cognitive
impairment. Continued impairment over time establishes
collective habit, but optimistically, with extensive quality
counseling, can be changed by awareness and treatment.
Victimization can be understood by social elements.
Victimization can consist of physical, sexual, psychological,
social, or emotional abuse causing an individual excessive
frustration, pain, aggression, fear, stress, and/or exclusion.

Victimization forces the body to adapt using some type of
coping mechanism in order to continue everyday functioning in
society with social interactions. Excessive drug abuse has been
found to alter neurotransmissions and inhibit regions of the
brain. In altering these regions, behavioral and neuro-
congnitive changes begin, causing distorted or limited
perception. In some cases, victimized individuals turn to drugs
and alcohol as a coping mechanism compounding the problem
and creating more deficiencies and reliance. In other cases,
individuals using drugs and alcohol excessively become victims
due to their limited perceptions and abilities, again leading to
compounding the problem and creating more deficiencies due to
the body’s need to find a coping mechanism. Individual
characteristics play a role in how one copes with victimization
and excessive drug abuse. However, these characteristics are
constantly being challenged by positive and negative influences.
The initiation of drug use and the transition to addiction
for many drug users are supplemented by criminality (Farabee
et al, 2001). Drug use is also found to intensify criminal
activity and criminal activity is found to increase drug use
(Farabee et al, 2001). These findings indicate that drugs and
crime relate to and augment one another (Farabee et al, 2001).
Substance dependence versus occasional use or even abuse
holds different indications for criminal behaviors (Farabee et al,
2001). In the relationship to drugs and crime offenders who
began crimes proceeding drug use were less likely to engage in
predatory crimes than other who began criminality prior to drug
use (Farabee et al, 2001).
My critique contravenes prior research by favoring
biological/neurological theory and implying it to aspects of self
control, whereas victimization links to social exclusion and
legal definitions. My findings support the current knowledge
by assessing all characteristics into biological functioning. The
neurological studies find impairments relating to aggression and

personality characteristics. I find that these impairments can be
innate or altered by victimization. Strain endured by social
exclusion, oppression, discrimination, gender inequality, and
socio-economical issues have devastating effects. Elements to
consider when dealing with these issues are choice, alternatives,
opportunity, aggression, interpretations, self control, anti-pro
social behaviors, and moral beliefs. These factors are also
linked to neurological functioning. The implications of my
work find that drug addiction and crime is a byproduct of
negative interpretations of the events one is confronted with.
Victimization, expectations or impatience with decision making,
and establishments of habit rests on a person’s vulnerability.
This vulnerability resulting from victimization can create
deviant attitudes and mental strain. Crime and drug use are
types of coping mechanisms for this strain. This study was done
to understand strain and social effects on an individual’s
biology while applying it to scientific rationale for crime and
drug addiction.
The limitations of my criticism are that they rely on
subjective interpretation of other theories and attempt to assume
all links are casual factors of one another. My theory has not
been tested, and will be difficult to establish for research due to
the need for medical examinations, as well as reliance on
personal surveys concerning victimization. I recommend a
longitudinal study involving annual scans of individuals
beginning from birth through adulthood, and particularly
following any trauma or victimization. This study should look
for the impact of victimization and trauma on the brain, as well
as personal opinion as to level and type of victimization
endured. The study should determine whether neurological
functions and regions of the brain change in these given
circumstances. Drug abuse should also be part of the
longitudinal study to access self control elements.

REFERENCES
Aliverdinia, Akbar, and Pridemore, William Alex 2007. “A
First Glimpse at Narcotics Offenders in an Islamic Republic, A
Tests of an Integrated model of Drug Involvement Among a
Sample of men Incarcerated for Durg Offenses in Iran.”
International Criminal Justice Review 17(1): 27-44.
Baron, Stephen W., Forde, David R., and Kay, Fiona M. 2007.
“Self-control, risky lifestyles, and situation: The role of
opportunity and context in the general theory.” Journal of
Criminal Justice 35: 119-136.
Belenko, Steve 2006. “Assessing Released Inmates for
Substance-Abuse-Related Service Needs.” Crime &
Delinquency 52(1): 94-113.
Boland, Philip 2008. “British drugs policy: Problematizing the
distinction between legal and illegal drugs and the definition of
the ‘drugs problem’.” The Journal of Community and Criminal
Justice 55(2): 171-187.

Brownsberger, William N., Love, Craig T., Doherty, Paula L.,
and Shaffer, Howard J. 2004. “Potential Demand for Substance
Abuse Treatment in the Criminal Justice System.” Harvard
Medical School 15(1): 37-60.
Buchanan, Julian 2004. “Missing links? Problem drug use and
social exclusion.” The Journal of Community and Criminal
Justice 51(4): 387-397.
Copes, Heith, Hochstetler, Andy, and Williams, J. Patrick 2008.
“We Weren’t Like No Regular Dope Fiends: Negotiating
Hustler and Crackhead Identities.” Social Problems 55(2): 254-
270.
Farabee, David, Joshi, Vandana, and Anglin, M. Douglas 2001.
“Addiction Careers and Criminal Specialization.” Crime &
Delinquency 47(2): 196-220.
Fischer, Michael, Geiger, Brenda, and Hughes, Mary Ellen
2007. “Female Recidivists Speak About Their Experience in
Drug Court While Engaging in Appreciative Inquiry.”
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology 51(6): 703-722.
Fishbein, Diana 2000. “Neuropsychological Function, Drug
Abuse, and Violence, A Conceptual Framework.” Criminal
Justice and Behavior 27(2): 139-159.
Gilinskiy, Yakov 2006. “Crime in Contemporary Russia.”
European Journal of Criminology 3(3): 259-292.
Katz, Rebecca S. 2000. “Explaining Girls’ and Women’s Crime
and Desistance in the Context of Their Victimization
Experiences, A Developmental Test of Revised Strain Theory
and the Life Course Perspective.” Violence Against Women

6(6): 633-660.
Klag, Stefanie, O’Callaghan, Frances, and Creed, Peter 2005.
“The Use of Legal Coercion in the Treatment of Substance
Abusers: An Overview and Critical Analysis of Thirty Years of
Research.” Substance Use & Misuse 40: 1777-1795.
Lurigio, Arhur J. 2000. “Drug Treatment Availability and
Effectiveness, Studies of the General and Criminal Justice
Populations.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 27(4): 495-528.
Malloch, Margaret 2004. “Missing out: Bender, drugs and
justice.” The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice 51(4):
295-308.
Reinarman, Craig, and Levine, Harry G. 2004. “Crack in the
Rearview Mirror: Deconstructing Drug War Mythology.” Social
Justice 31(1/2): 182-199.
Robertson, Angela A., Baird-Thomas, Connie, and Stein, Judith
A. 2008. “Child Victimization and Parental Monitoring as
Mediators of Youth Problem Behaviors.” Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 35(6): 755-771.
Sung, Hung-En, and Richter, Linda 2007. “Rational Choice and
Environmental Deterrence in the Retention of Mandated Drug
Abuse Treatment Clients.” International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology 51(6): 687-702.
Surratt, Hilary L., Inciardi, James A., Kurtz, Steven P., and
Kiley, Marion C. 2004. “Sex Work and Drug Use in a
Subculture of Violence.” Crime & Delinquency 50(1): 43-59.
Wikstrom, Per-Olof H., and Treiber, Kyle 2007. “The Role of
Self-Control in Crime Causation, Beyond Gottfredson and

Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.” European Journal of
Criminology 4(2): 237-264.
Wojtowicz, James P., Liu, Tongyin, and Hedgpeth, G. Wayne
2007. “Factors of Addiction, New Jersey Correctional
Population.” Crime & Delinquency 53(3): 471-501.
This needs to be re-written. It is 50% plagiarized. It needs to be
put into your own words. Thanks
Literature Review
The United States government defines terrorism as the
calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful
violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate
governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are
generally political, religious, or ideological. Within this
definition, there are three key elements violence, fear, and
intimidation and each element produce terror in its victims. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) claims that terrorism is
the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or
property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof. This is done in furtherance
of political or social objectives. However you define it, it is a
heartless, cold blooded, cowardly way to protest indifferences
in religion, politics, and cultural diversity in the world today.
Terrorism has evolved over the last decade in the United States.
The U.S. has been accustomed to worry about extremist groups
such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. However, the U.S. now has a
new threat that has emerged into the limelight, the lone wolf
terrorist. A lone wolf terrorist or lone-wolf fighter is someone
who commits violent acts of terrorism in support of some group
or movement, but does so alone, outside of any command
structure. The term "lone wolf" was popularized by white
supremacists Alex Curtis and Tom Metzger in the late 1990s.
Lone wolf was subsequently adopted by US law enforcement

agencies and by media to refer to individuals following this
strategy. Currently, the term "lone-wolf terrorism" now refers to
violent acts that take place outside a command structure,
regardless of ideology. This means that the individual acts alone
when planning, organizing, and carrying out their acts of terror.
These individuals live and work right under our noses on a daily
basis and we know nothing about their intentions until it is too
late.
In contrast with the current political concern about the threat of
lone wolf terrorism, terrorism scholars predominantly focus on
group dynamics in explaining individual pathways into
terrorism. Terrorism is commonly viewed as essentially a
collective activity. Academic explanations of terrorism stress
the influence of leaders, recruitment, training, moral
disengagement, in-group solidarity, conformity and obedience,
among other factors. The lone-wolf terrorist does share an
ideological or philosophical identification with an extremist
group, however does not communicate with the group he or she
identifies with. While the lone wolf's actions are motivated to
advance the group's goal, the tactics and methods are conceived
and directed solely by the lone wolf, without any outside
commands or directions from the group’s leadership.
The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Director Janet Napolitano was at a conference in Paris, France.
She urged European partners to finalize a deal on sharing
passenger data that has met resistance over privacy concerns,
the risk of lone wolf attackers, with no ties to known extremist
networks or grand conspiracies, is on the rise as the global
terrorist threat has shifted. She also believes that we need to
keep dangerous travelers from reaching the United States.
History of Lone Wolves
The first time the term lone wolf terrorist was used was in the
1990’s by supremacists Tom Metzger and Alex Curtis. Tom
Metzger is a white supremacist from Indiana who founded the
White Arian Resistance (WAR), a known hate group. One of the
most influential aspects of Metzger's right-wing activism has

been his advocacy of the lone wolf or leaderless resistance. He
believes that people should be a part of a movement as
individuals or small cells fighting for one cause below ground,
as opposed to large membership based above ground
organizations. This makes it harder for law enforcement to track
operations. Law enforcement soon adopted the term and used it
in an investigation of white supremacist Alex Curtis.
At only 17 Curtis founded the Lemon Grove, CA Ku Klux Klan
and anointed himself the Exalted Cyclops. The group twice
burglarized his high school. Authorities say he vandalized the
building with swastikas and racist epithets and stole lists of
student addresses to write racist letters to parents "alerting"
them that their children were friends with nonwhite students. In
the late 1990’s Curtis used the internet to encouraged fellow
racists to act alone in committing violent crimes so that they
would not incriminate others. He called for the elimination of
nonwhites by whatever means necessary and promoted
assassination, illegal drug sales, and biological warfare as
useful strategies. The FBI and San Diego Police operation to
investigate Curtis' activities was code named Operation Lone
Wolf, largely due to Curtis' encouragement of other white
supremacists to follow what Curtis refers to as lone wolf'
activism. On November 9, 2000, Curtis himself was arrested
and charged with three federal counts of conspiracy to violate
civil rights. For each count, Curtis faced 10 years in prison and
a $250,000 fine. Law enforcement has since adopted the term
lone wolf as a reference to individual terrorist.
Current issues and Prevention
Lone Wolf seems to be the current terminology affecting U.S.
terrorism. Because of heightened security at all government
buildings and throughout our infrastructure, lone wolf terror is
becoming the current solution for low key, successful attacks on
U.S. soil. The year 2010 has brought unprecedented Lone Wolf
attacks on the U.S. There were three attacks on government
buildings in 2010, including one attack on the pentagon. The
research is clear. Lone Wolf attacks are spontaneous and

difficult to pre-determine.
Motivation for Lone Wolf attacks vary. Lone Wolves motivation
ranges from mental instability to political and religious reasons.
Lone Wolves such as Theodore Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph are
perhaps the most elusive yet effective Lone Wolves. Their
terror and destruction will be remembered for decades to come.
Luck seems to be the prevailing cause for preventing Lone Wolf
attacks. Lone Wolves are solitary individuals who strike alone.
This makes their detection prior to them striking very difficult.
This is in contrast to terrorist cells, which consist of more than
one person. Terror plots of radical cells are often disrupted by
intelligence leaks. When the Lone Wolf leaks the information to
someone else or documents and plans are found, the mission can
be compromised. Current government surveillance over phone
and email messages are some of the vital tools used to gather
intelligence on these cowardly perpetrators.
In some cases, the authorities are able to apprehend the lone
wolf before they are able to carry out their plans. The U.S.
Patriot act is one tool that law enforcement has at their disposal
to aid in identification and intelligence of any planned terror
attacks. The Patriot Act was created in 2001 by President
George W. Bush and amended in 2008 by President Barack
Obama. It gives the government substantially more powers to
track down terrorists. Security has been tightened at airports,
seaports, borders, and the Department of Homeland Security
was created to oversee the efforts. The most effective but
controversial element of the Patriot act is that the government
can more easily place wiretaps on phones and look into digital
correspondence without as many legal restrictions as before.
This act has probably saved lives by expediting the intelligence
of where these lone wolves are located and into when and where
they are planning to attack.
Radical/Fundamentalist Islam
The history begins with the birth of Islam in the year 610,

when the prophet Muhammed received his divine mission and
accepted Allah's instructions for a new religion that commanded
belief in one God. For the next 22 years, Muhammed served as a
transmitter of Allah's message, and his Muslim empire grew to
encompass most of the Arabian Peninsula. After the prophet's
death, the Muslim empire continued to expand until the 17th
century, when Muslims were unquestionably the world's greatest
military force, having conquered extensive territory and
converted millions throughout the Middle East and Southern
Europe. Islam had also achieved unmatched advances in
architecture, art, law, mathematics, and science.
Radical Islamists are dedicated to the conquest of the world by
any means they see fit. The primary objective of radical Islam is
to dominate all people within its reach and to suppress all other
religions and ideologies. Although not all Muslims are radicals
or politically motivated, the few that are put the whole world at
risk. Radical Islam draws on widely accepted Islamic religious
philosophy and customs. However the movement also draws
heavily on dangerous ideas that negate basic human rights and
freedoms of expression. Radical Islam's arsenal is diverse and
dangerous. Terrorism is only one of the tactics used by radicals,
with new tactics arising every day. Some are more subtle such
as the use of textbooks, while others are outright violent, such
as terrorizing those who embrace freedom of speech. Lone Wolf
terrorism is on the rise among radicals because of it being hard
to track by law enforcement personnel.
Islamic radicals hijacked airplanes to attack and undermine
the West. They killed thousands of innocents and never thought
twice about it. Their hatred is not just directed against us. They
also mean to hijack Islam itself and to destroy 13 centuries of
Islamic civilization. We are not in a war between two
civilizations. We are fighting an enemy of two civilizations. Bin
Laden and other Islamic radicals claim they represent ancient
Islam. It is true that they do represent one tradition in Islam, but
it is a tradition that Islam early on rejected as opposed to the
universal message of its Prophet. Militant Islam directs its

venom towards America and the West. The Taliban's supreme
leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, said after September 11 that
the plan to destroy America is going ahead and God willing it is
being implemented, but it is a huge task beyond the will and
comprehension of human beings. He believed that with the help
of God, this will happen in a short period of time.
Lone Wolf’s and America
Lone Wolf terror has been present in this country since the early
1990’s. Domestic terrorists usually target government buildings
or innocent civilians in a desperate attempt to get their
ideologies across. One of largest terror attacks on American soil
in the 1990’s was the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
building in Oklahoma City, Ok. The hardest part about dealing
with the lone wolf terrorist is that they are hard to flush out into
the eyes of the security world. Only if the individual is caught
doing something wrong through the internet or other forms of
anti-American Semitism, the watchful eyes of the DHS will be
on them. Lone wolf terror has been occurring in our country the
last couple of years; people just may not know it. Lone Wolves
do not need to be of Middle Eastern nationality. Some of the
Lone Wolves that carried out attacks in the U.S. were white.It is
almost unthinkable that some of our country’s military members
would be labeled Lone Wolf terrorist, however, they are. Major
Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who opened fire at
Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others,
was shot but captured alive in November of 2009. After taken
into custody, Hasan had said Muslims should "rise up" and
attack Americans in retaliation for the US war in Iraq, a former
army colleague said. Hasan was a field grade Army officer. This
means that he had been in the military for a number of years to
achieve this status. Hasan was a psychiatrist who had been
treating soldiers returning from Iraq for post-traumatic stress,
alcohol, and drug abuse problems. Hasan also had made
outlandish comments about the American occupation of Iraq and
his impending deployment there. Hasan also claims that there
was a lot of harassment and insults generated by his faith in

Islam and his Arab ethnicity. Hasan said he was "happy" when a
US soldier was killed by another lone wolf extremist in an
attack on a military recruitment center in Arkansas.
In Little Rock, AR on June 1, 2009, Pvt. William Andrew Long,
23, of Conway had just completed basic training. He was
volunteering at the west Little Rock recruiting office before
starting an assignment in South Korea. Both Long and another
new Army Pvt were standing outside the office smoking when
gunshots rang out in the shopping center. Muhammed allegedly
performed a drive-by shooting of the Army recruitment office
with the sole intention of killing soldiers. Pvt Long was killed
and his colleague, Pvt Ezeagwula, 18, was wounded. Ezeagwula
spoke briefly at a news conference at a Jacksonville, AR
recruiting center weeks after the shooting, saying he had
wounds in his back, head, and buttocks from the shooting.
Muhammad told the AP he admitted to his actions to police and
said he was retaliating against the U.S. military. "Muhammad
told the police upon his arrest that this was an act of retaliation,
and not a reaction on the soldiers personally. He also claims the
attack was not planned. He claimed it has been on his mind for
awhile. It wasn't nothing planned really. He also claimed it was
just a heat of the moment type of thing.
November 2011 in New York, an "Al Qaeda sympathizer"
accused of plotting to bomb police and post offices in New
York City as well as U.S. troops returning home was kept in
police custody after an arraignment Sunday on numerous
terrorism-related charges. Jose Pimentel of Manhattan, "a 27-
year-old Al Qaeda sympathizer" who the mayor said was
motivated by terrorist propaganda and resentment of U.S. troops
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly
said police had to move quickly to arrest Pimentel on Saturday
because he was ready to carry out his plan. They had to act
quickly yesterday because he was, in fact, putting his bomb
together. He was drilling holes and it would have been not
appropriate for us to let him walk out the door with that bomb.
The police commissioner said Pimentel was energized and

motivated to carry out his plan by the Sept. 30 killing of Al-
Qaeda's U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The Mayor of New
York claims that he is a total lone wolf and that he has no
accomplices in the acts of terror he was intending to carry out.
Lone Wolf Terror Overseas
There have also been cases of Lone Wolf terror across the ocean
in Europe. Because of the close proximity with Middle Eastern
countries known to harbor terrorists, European countries are
prime targets for lone wolves.
The Italian Unabomber is the name given to the man responsible
for over 20 bombings in northern Italy from 1994 to 2005.
Italian media named the attacker this because of the similarities
between his or her bombings and those of American serial
bomber Theodore Kaczynski, has been striking fear across the
country with over thirty explosions in thirteen years. Italian law
enforcement officials and the FBI believed that the Unabomber
is Elvo Zornitta, a 49-year-old engineer who has been charged
with the planting of 20 bombs. On August 28, 2006 Italian
police raided the house of Zornitta, who has been under
surveillance for a year. Police had suspected Zornitta for two
years but had no proof until investigators raided his house and
found a pair of scissors that forensic experts have linked to a
bomb that failed to go off in 2004, with the blades that match
the cut of a piece of tape used to fix one of the bombs. Booby-
traps have been left in household items such as egg boxes,
toothpaste and toys.
In London on July 7, 2005, 4 bombs went off in the subway
system. Four Islamist Lone Wolf (known as “home grown” in
London) terrorists detonated four bombs, three in quick
succession aboard London Underground trains across the city
and a fourth on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Three
bombs exploded within 50 seconds of each other. Three of the
four bombers were British nationals of Pakistani descent from
West Yorkshire. Fifty-two people, as well as the four bombers,
were killed in the attacks, and over 700 more were injured.
British security experts said the blasts had the hallmarks of the

Al Qaeda network, and that the suicide bombers were motivated
by Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War. It didn’t take much
thinking to see that this was a concocted line for propaganda
purposes against the coalition forces in Iraq.
Weapons Used
There are several weapons that are used by Lone Wolves
when carrying out their plan. Weapons used range from small
arms, such as rifles and pistols, to weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). Some terrorist are known for using improvised
explosive devices (IED’s). IED’s are a makeshift or homemade
explosive device commonly used against troops in Iraq,
however have been used on American soil in the past by Lone
Wolf terror suspects. They may use explosives alone or in
combination with chemical, biological, or radiological materials
to enhance the damage and casualties. IED’s may be detonated
in one of several ways, depending on their design and intended
target. Those that use concealed mortar and artillery projectiles
can be thrown into or placed in a designated area, often
concealed. Vehicle Borne IEDs (VBIEDs) use cars or trucks to
contain the explosive device. Suicide bomb IEDs makes use of
the human body to convey the IED. However the weapon is
deployed, it causes substantial damage to anyone or anything in
its vicinity.
Suicide bombers have been attacking the United States on
and off of our soil since the 1990’s. A suicide attack is violent
action against other people or property by an attacker aware that
he or she will be killed. The suicide attackers turn themselves
into an explosive by attaching an explosive device to their
bomb, or drive a vehicle such as a truck into a building or other
structure. Suicide attacks were made an object of widespread
attention during World War II, when Japanese Kamikaze pilots
flew their aircraft into allied ships and planes. Suicide attacks
are considered the tactic of extremely motivated or committed
groups. Their threat is capable of deeply disrupting everyday
life, since people, their packages and their vehicles may all
become objects of suspicion.

The above literary review focuses on the growing problem
of Lone Wolf terrorists and examples of how we can prevent
future attacks. In the last 20 years we have seen a surge in
terrorism that is perpetrated by lone individuals who are not
involved with any terror group, but carry extreme ideologies
just the same. When we look at our past attacks, we learn that
we must continue to hone our skills on combating terrorism
while upgrading policies and tactics to adapt to a continually
illusive adversary and to be on the offensive now and in the
future.

Assignment 3 ‐ Due Tuesday , April 10th, 2012.ThisAssignme.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assignment 3 ‐ Due Tuesday , April 10th, 2012.ThisAssignme.docx

Similar to Assignment 3 ‐ Due Tuesday , April 10th, 2012.ThisAssignme.docx (16)

More from sherni1

More from sherni1 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assignment 3 ‐ Due Tuesday , April 10th, 2012.ThisAssignme.docx