Journeys into Drugs and Crime

Jamaican Men Involved in the UK Drugs Trade

Angie Heal

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781349564507, 9781137456649
• eBook ISBN: 9781137456656
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book analyses the life histories of Jamaican men involved in the UK drugs trade, including wholesalers, street dealers, specialist cooks, cutters, and growers. Employing a life history approach, their autobiographical accounts are examined to provide an in-depth and unique insight of their journeys into drugs and crime.

1

The Respondents

Introduction

… many of the stereotypes attached to those that deal in illicit street drugs are difficult to sustain for the vast majority of those who would be classified as drug dealers, whilst some such stereotypes are simply untrue. Although an attribution of evilness suggests the problem lies in individual pathology – they do the things they do because they are bad people (or in some versions the drugs turned them bad) – this attribution of evilness itself needs to be understood within a broader historical and contemporary context.

(Coomber, 2006: 2)

Coomber (ibid.) opens his book by stating ‘the first thing to be said about this book is it is not an apologia for drug dealers’ (i). Whilst placing this issue slightly further into this book, I must make a similar assertion; it does not excuse or condone any of the activities and behaviours recounted by the respondents in later chapters. It attempts solely to analyse and document them. One of the aims of this research is similar to that of Bourgois, in his study of Puerto Rican drug dealers in East Side New York: to ‘humanize the public enemies of the United States without sanitizing or glamorizing them’ (2003: 325). This study, conducted with Jamaican men, does not try to portray respondents in any particular light. It simply aims to better understand their lives and contextualise their experiences within the relevant literature, and whilst much of the supporting evidence comes from criminology, it also draws on a number of fields within the social sciences. It is, therefore, an attempt to breakdown some of those research barriers and to plug some of the gaps, in revealing the reality of the lives of some Jamaican men involved in the UK drugs trade. This chapter, therefore, discusses the methodological issues considered during the course of this study. It presents the sample for this research, how they were identified, accessed, interviewed and their accounts analysed. It examines challenges that arose in the course of the fieldwork, some of which were as a result of working with men entrenched in serious crime. It introduces the sample as individual respondents by providing a pen profile of each man, in order to aide understanding of their separable experiences which are revealed throughout the book.

The sample

The criteria for respondents to participate in this research were that they were male, born in Jamaica and involved in the UK drugs trade. Although there were a significant number of Jamaican women in prison for drug importation offences in the UK during the fieldwork period of this research, they were excluded from this study as they have been the focus of media and academic reports elsewhere (including Fleetwood, 2011; Prison Reform Trust, 2012; The Guardian, August 2013). It was Jamaican men involved in the drugs trade whom I particularly wanted to investigate and whose in-depth narratives have not previously been heard in academic research. British-born men of Jamaican parentage were not included in the research, even though they may have had strong Jamaican influences. They had not left their homeland to start life in another country, and it was this aspect that was particularly central to the research questions outlined in the Introduction.

Communicating with a ‘hard to reach’ or ‘seldom heard’ audience

This research has been undertaken with respondents who could definitely be described as ‘hard to reach’. ‘Hard to reach’ is a term believed to have been coined in social marketing (Beder, 1980) but now spans other disciplines. Whilst an exact definition of the term may be elusive, Jones and Newburn (2001) note that official documents, such as the Guidance on Crime and Disorder Partnerships established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, often list the ‘hard to reach’ as social groups of people considered to be disaffected or vulnerable. ‘Seldom heard’ is a more recent term, used by those concerned about possible negative connotations of labelling people as ‘hard to reach’. ‘Seldom heard’ puts the emphasis on the communicator to reach out to excluded groups (Robson et al., 2008). They identify four main such groups, one of which is black and minority ethnic groups. The fact that the respondents in this study were from a group who can be defined as ‘hard to reach’ is very pertinent. As will be discussed in more depth below, although much effort was made to attempt to locate respondents, the difficulties encountered during the fieldwork period resulted in a small sample. But as this research employs a life history approach, it is a study which requires quality rather than quantity. Although the number of participating respondents is low, there is a wealth, depth and originality to the data analysed and presented in later chapters. The results provide significant insights into the lives of a particularly ‘hard to reach’ group who are undoubtedly ‘seldom heard’; they illuminate and help explain the lives of criminalised immigrant men.

The interview outline

The purpose of the qualitative interview was to gather information about the lives of the respondents; their accounts of their life experiences and their particular journey. Yet the majority of interviews in which men in this research would have previously participated would have been confined to those in authority such as police, probation or immigration officers and will have occurred as a result of alleged or actual wrongdoing. I was keen, therefore, to provide a different experience for respondents, in order for them to feel comfortable about participating in the study. It was still necessary to have some structure to interviews, so that respondents could answer comparative questions. It was also important to be able to present an interview plan to them in advance, so they knew what types of topics would be covered. It was also hoped that this would provide some confidence in the process, especially as it would also indicate some prior knowledge of issues that would be pertinent to them. Liebling similarly believed ‘the questionnaire gave away the extent that we already know something (or had perceptions)’ (1999a: 158). Within this study, it was also a prerequisite to present an interview outline to different agencies when seeking permission to interview respondents; for example the (then) National Probation Service and different sections of the Prison Service. These reasons ruled out using an unstructured interview, as used, for example, by Sandberg and Pedersen (2009) in their research with street cannabis dealers. Focus groups as used by Liebling et al. (1997) were also deemed not suitable due to the delicate nature of the issues discussed, the private nature of respondents and the resulting likely lack of detail they would have elicited in such a setting. Using a semi-structured interview in which to gather respondents’ life histories was deemed the most appropriate method.

To be able to demonstrate I had knowledge and prior understanding of the context of their lives so as to facilitate productive discussions at interview with the respondents, I had first to understand the social, cultural and political life of Jamaica and its people, as well as the experience of selling drugs. Garnering an understanding of Jamaican life was achieved, in particular, by reading the weekly British printed edition of The Gleaner, as well as the Jamaican online version and The Jamaica Observer online. The works of Black (1958), Manley (1982), Gunst (1995), Harriott (2000; 2003; 2006), Klein et al. (2004) and Sives (2010) were also key. These publications provided invaluable historical, political, cultural, criminal and drug market perspectives on Jamaica. My reading of relevant literature, particularly the Jamaican press and global media reports about Jamaica, continued throughout the fieldwork period and beyond. Because the presence of Jamaican men involved in the supply of drugs in the UK has not been an area of previous published academic study, there is a dearth of directly supporting research literature. Other studies have proved invaluable, however, including Bourgois (2003), May et al. (2005), Matrix Knowledge Group (2007), Venkatesh (2008) and Sandberg and Pedersen (2009). As well as the press, other evidential resources have been used throughout; the internet has proved a particularly useful research tool, imparting such gems as speeches of the former prime minister of Jamaica, Michael Manley, from the 1970s (Manley, date unknown) and interviews with former CIA operatives (Stockwell and Wolf, 1982) via YouTube, for example. A combination of work-based and post-graduate research projects had already given me a extensive understanding of drugs markets, which I continued to develop, via the texts referenced throughout this book, for example.

An interview plan (Appendix 1) was developed for use during initial interviews. No interview plan was prepared for subsequent interviews, but they always followed on from discussions in the first interview, as well as any other issues they wished to discuss. It was not known at the start of each first interview with respondents as to whether subsequent interviews would be possible. This meant that core data needed to be elicited during the first meeting; the interview schedule therefore had to be tailored to this end. It was developed in chronological order, starting with family life, including parents, siblings and any relevant extended family; location of family during childhood and teenage years (rural or urban settings), education, employment, and any other relevant cultural issues. It was important to establish the circumstances of their early lives; their early influences – for example, parents, extended family, friends, presence of economic or social deprivation – in order to be able to ascertain how settled or problematic their early lives were. A further set of questions were asked in relation to any involvement in crime, violence, drugs or gangs in Jamaica. This information was requested so that understanding could be reached of respondents’ formative years in Jamaica and the key structuring frameworks that may help identify any particular influences that may have led them to involvement in crime later in the UK. The interview plan was also designed to include reasons for respondents moving to the UK. It was important to understand why respondents came to this country, so as to examine whether this had a bearing on their subsequent involvement in the drugs markets. Core data were also requested in relation to their social and family lives when arriving in the UK: where they had lived, with whom, their friends, their relationships, their children, and also their education and employment record. There were also questions in relation to becoming involved in crime in the UK, particularly in relation to drugs. Questions were asked about their own drug use, to establish if any of the respondents were user/dealers who were selling drugs to fund their own use, rather than dealer/sellers who were selling drugs solely for profit (May et al., 2005). By asking these questions, I was attempting to document the life course of respondents, as noted by Giele and Elder (1998) and Hunt (2005), and aid understanding of the reasons why they had become involved in drugs supply. The interview outline worked very well with the majority of those interviewed. Only one respondent did not allow me to follow the defined questions at interview, although, as he had received it beforehand, he knew the type of questions I intended to address. Although he did not give me any information that was not included, there were some small gaps in what he disclosed, mostly in relation to detailed family background and growing up in Jamaica.

An information sheet (Appendix 2) was also produced for respondents and prison authorities, to explain the nature of the research, why it was being conducted and what would happen to the data collected from respondents. A consent form (Appendix 3) was produced for respondents to sign prior to conducting the first interview. This included a clause giving permission for the researcher to tape interviews, if this was acceptable to them. A situation arose with one prisoner who moved prisons during the fieldwork period. Copies of his signed consent forms were sent to each subsequent prison when requesting permission to interview him. This was useful particularly as he had consented for interviews to be taped. His prior written agreement helped gain speedier access.

Identifying and accessing respondents

Whilst I had always anticipated it might not be a study with an ample number of willing participants, I did not expect the difficulties that in reality conducting such research presented. Finding men who met the criteria and were willing and able to participate in the study became a significant challenge. Three different routes were used to try to gain access to respondents during the fieldwork period. The first was to use existing working relationships with professionals in key positions, using personal contacts as noted by Eaton (1993) and Crewe (2006). The second was to use a snowballing technique as ‘when the sample emerges through a process of reference from one person to the next’ (Denscombe, 2003: 16); this requires participants to identify friends or associates who may be willing to be interviewed, once the respondent has spoken to them about their experiences of participating in the research. The third was to approach prisons directly to identify prisoners willing to take part, as Crewe (2006) and Liebling (1999a) detail. The most productive method of identification was undoubtedly via the National Probation Service. Probation officers who I already knew or who were willing to recommend me to other probation officers identified seven of the eight respondents. They also identified another seven men, to whom I wrote but who either did not reply or declined to take part. Disappointingly, ‘snowballing’ only yielded one respondent. I had expected that I would be able to use this technique for recruiting more respondents, as used, for example, by Jacobs and Wright (1999) in their study of street robbers. I had hoped that once people had participated in interviews, they would be able to encourage and recruit others who fitted the research criteria. This was not as straightforward as originally anticipated, however. Three respondents were very helpful in this matter, and attempted to get others involved. On a number of occasions, they were successful in getting some potential candidates interested. Two main problems emerged, however. First, on occasions when a prisoner did express interest, by the time I heard about their willingness to be interviewed, they had either been deported or moved to another prison not covered by the research permission restrictions of the (then) Prison Service Head Quarters. For example, one man had been transferred to another prison and then been deported before I could get permission to interview in that prison. Another two men were also deported back to Jamaica before the respondents I knew were able to inform me of their interest; one of them was wanted for the murder of a policeman in Jamaica. Second were issues of trust and culture. Whilst some respondents were comfortable being interviewed, they did not want to reveal to others they were talking to a researcher. Potential respondents came from a culture where talking was often seen as ‘informing’ (usually to the police or rival criminal gangs), which could be dangerous. As Steadman succinctly put it, we’re like the three wise monkeys: we see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Talking to any person linked to an authority or organisation is viewed with suspicion by many criminals, but is particularly sensitive in a Jamaican culture where ‘informing’ can lead to violence or death (see Chapter 8). One respondent knew a number of people who would have been suitable to take part, but for a long time he would not talk to his associates about his involvement in the research, let alone ask them if they would be interested in participating. When he eventually did, they still refused. The culture of keeping one’s business to oneself was a major influencing factor in the low number of respondents who were willing to be included in the sample.

The final sample group therefore constituted eight men, all Jamaican-born, and all had convictions for or related to drugs supply. They ranged in age from 23 to 67 years old, with a mean age of 40 and a median age of 35. At their initial interview all, bar one, were serving prison sentences; the other respondent was already out on parole. All of the interviews were conducted in prison, apart from two which were conducted in probation offices with respondents on parole (a second man was released on parole during the course of the fieldwork). Some respondents participated in more than one interview, bringing the total number conducted to 20. One man was interviewed eight times, and therefore could be regarded as a ‘key informant’, as described by Taylor (1993). Within the context of this research, however, it is appropriate to be sensitive to the connotations of such a phrase within the criminal world; therefore the term ‘key respondent’ is preferred.

Validation

I have been asked if I knew whether respondents were telling the truth, to which of course the answer is I did not – nor could I. Validation, the verification of accounts given by respondents within research interviews, however, does assist with an assessment of authenticity. Denscombe (2003: 186–187) notes four strands to verifying truthfulness of interview data, which have been supplemented with methodological matters from this research:

1) Check the transcript with the informant. Following their initial interview, the respondents who participated in subsequent interviews were given the transcript of the previous interview to read, although this was not possible for four respondents who only took part in one interview. Whilst it is appreciated that half the sample did not have the opportunity to check the accuracy of the transcripts, none of those who did made any comment about transcription errors or chose to amend any statement they had previously made.

2) Check the data with other sources. In relation to this point, supporting evidence of respondent accounts is available, albeit with certain limitations. Whilst case files were not available, it was possible to conduct some checks to verify respondent’s life stories. Probation officers had access to respondents’ pre-sentence reports which contained information concerning their offending behaviour, background and their circumstances at that time. Using this data and their knowledge based on their own interactions with respondents, probation officers corroborated the outline stories of all of the clients they referred. The officers were not privy, however, to the in-depth details that respondents disclosed during this research, due to the confidential nature of the interviews. Only one respondent was not referred by a probation officer. Verification of his offending history was found in internet searches. A search in relation to another respondent also revealed a detailed report from the European Court of Human Rights, in relation to an application to have his deportation order overturned. The report verified his life experiences as he relayed to me.

3) Check the plausibility of accounts. Published literature from both research and media reports provides evidence of the validity of respondents’ narratives. Whilst I cannot prove their experiences as portrayed to me were completely genuine, research literature and media coverage – as documented in later chapters – provides not only context for their narratives but confirmation of the plausibility of their accounts. The fluidity of respondents’ narratives during interview and the lack of contradictory stories for those interviewed more than once adds weight to their credibility.

4) Look for themes in the transcripts. Evidence of respondents independently corroborating each other’s accounts can be seen in the themes depicted in later chapters. Individuals within this sample group were quite diverse; there was not always a lot of homogeneity, in age or year of migration to the UK for example. But themes did emerge for the majority, as will be discussed later.

Confidentiality

The issue of confidentiality regarding research interviews can be contentious. To pledge full or partial confidentiality or to make no commitment to keeping data confidential is a decision that every researcher makes prior to commencing fieldwork. Lowman and Palys (1999) make the salient point that as it is the researcher who initiates contact, there is great ethical responsibility on them to ensure respondents do not suffer because of the intrusion into their lives. Israel (2004) discusses the damage that breaking confidentiality could do to the reputation of the researcher, but also the possible knock-on effect to other social scientists. This is supported by Fitzgerald and Hamilton who state: ‘Where there can be no trust between informant and researcher, there are few guarantees as to the validity and worth of information in an atmosphere where confidence is not respected’ (1997: 1102). Noaks and Wincup (2004) note, however, that criminological researchers need to balance the interests of the individual with that of their research, and that consideration should be given to strategies for breaching confidentiality if necessary, a view I strongly support. It is my belief that strict ground rules for confidentiality are essential when interviewing people who have been embroiled in a criminal lifestyle, and that the respondents and th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. The Respondents
• 2. Jamaica and UK Contexts
• 3. Family Life and Growing Up
• 4. Migration and Living in the UK
• 5. Getting Involved in the Supply of Drugs
• 6. Drug Careers and Other Crimes
• 7. Experiences of Violence
• 8. Experiences of Police and Sentencing Outcomes
• 9. Experiences of Prison Life
• Conclusion
• Appendix 1: Outline Interview Schedule: Life Experiences of Jamaican Men Involved in the UK Drugs Trade
• Appendix 2: Information Sheet for Participants
• Appendix 3: Consent Form
• Bibliography
• Index