Spiking: Prevalence and Motivation

Spiking is the covert administration of substances (e.g., drugs, alcohol) to another person without their knowledge or consent. This can be an act on its own or be followed by another offence (e.g., rape or robbery). This presentation outlines the findings of a literature review on the prevalence of, and motivations for, spiking. Drawing on literature from around the world, 87 papers were identified and reviewed. The overarching finding was that prevalence rates vary from less than 1% to 66% with the explanation for the differences most likely due to the diversity of datasets. Papers were often framed from the perspective of the follow-on offence meaning that spiking where no follow-on offence occurs are often missing from studies and so prevalence could be under-reported. It was also found that, despite media attention on the topic, there was little reference to needle spiking as a method of administration. Thus, there is scope for additional research on spiking including how the act is committed. Motivations for spiking were mostly inferred from the follow-on offence but other motivations such as pranking and having fun were also identified. Additional findings identified contexts in which spiking occurs (e.g., night time economy, domestic, public transport), and that (perhaps surprisingly) so-called “date rape drugs” (such as GHB and Rohypnol) were rarely found in spiking cases. In fact, alcohol was the most commonly found substance indicating more attention needs to be paid to this type of spiking. Limitations centre on the caveats of datasets and testing (e.g., detection windows for drug tests) but also the complexities of making direct comparisons between papers. There is also an overarching issue of how to reliably disentangle voluntary consumption of substances by victims (of crime) with involuntary administration (i.e., spiking). If an offence occurs due to vulnerability associated with intoxication then, although still abhorrent, it would not be classed as a spiking incident. It is important we separate out perpetrators who use different modus operandi (i.e., targeting vulnerable people who are intoxicated versus proactive administration of substances) as different tactics might be needed to apprehend these offenders.