C:\Documents and Settings\Russell\My Documents\Drunk ...



Transportation Committee

Wabe House of Representatives

TO: You

FROM: Ferguson Williams

Chairman

SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DRUNK DRIVING

DATE: Today

Review the attached data and make appropriate recommendations concerning what policies the Transportation Committee should consider in the fight against repeat drunk driving. Concern yourself only with sanctions or measures that could be imposed in drunk drivers. Do not address the issue of the best blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or any police patrolling issues.

There is still money in the research budget. If you do not have enough information here, please request an additional research project that will obtain the information you need. You should specify: what you need to know, how you plan to obtain the information, and whom you would ask for information.

Your memo with recommendations should be addressed to me and may not be longer than five pages.

Information on Drunk Driving and

Data from the Studies

The problem of drunk driving in the United States

Drunk driving has been a serious problem on American roads and streets for several decades. Approximately 15,000 people are killed each year in traffic accidents in which one or both drivers had been drinking.

Although only a small percentage of people stopped for drunk driving are ever stopped again, some repeat drunk drivers are stopped repeatedly. Repeat drunk drivers tend to be young men, and many are alcoholics.

Suggested solutions to the problem of drunk driving

An amazing variety of remedies have been suggested to address the problem of drunk driving. They can be classified into several categories, including:

▪ Alcohol policy, such as placing the legal definition of “drunk” at .10% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or .08%, or another figure

▪ Patrolling, such as setting up roadblocks or using improved methods to recognize drunk driving or to test for sobriety

▪ Dealing with the drunk drivers after they have been caught in the act. This is the subject of your analysis.

Many types of measures are used to deal with people after they have been caught driving drunk. Different states use different measures in varying degrees of severity. Some measures apply to all drunk drivers, while others apply only to repeat drunk drivers. Virtually all experts on drunk driving agree that the first step in dealing with a drunk driver is to conduct an assessment. An assessment is an evaluation of the drunk driver’s situation. It is used to determine which sanctions should be imposed on the offender—such as jail, fines, treatment, or education. Experts think an assessment is important because different offenders will respond to different sanctions.

After an assessment, some of the more common measures are:

Short-term incarceration

Drunk drivers may be put in jail—sometimes for only a day or two, and sometimes for several months. Some states jail first-time drunk drivers, while others wait until the second or third offense. Jail is sometimes used in conjunction with other measures; for example, an offender might have a jail sentence waived or shortened if he participates in alcohol treatment.

Long-term incarceration

Sometimes drunk drivers are incarcerated in prison for a year or more. States usually imprison drunk drivers only after several offenses, such as five or more. One problem with long-term incarceration is that it is very expensive for the state. If a large number of drunk drivers were incarcerated for long periods, new prisons would need to be built, which would be very expensive.

Incarceration with work release

Under a work release program, an offender spends nights and weekends in jail but is able to go to work during the day. An offender is thereby able to keep his job, provide for his family, and maintain ties to his community.

Fines

All states levy fines on drunk drivers. Fines for first-time offenders are typically several hundred dollars, while fines for repeat offenders can be thousands of dollars. For repeat drunk drivers, fines are often more than the offenders can pay. Large fines imposed on repeat drunk drivers are seldom paid.

Driver’s license suspension

All states suspend a drunk driver’s license. The time of suspension may be a few days to more than a year. Suspensions are shorter for first-time offenders than for repeat offenders.

Occupational licenses

Most states offer occupational licenses to drunk drivers. These licenses allow the offenders to drive to work, to alcohol treatment, or other necessary places. They are usually valid only for certain hours. Offenders are not allowed to drive for other purposes or at unapproved times.

Treatment

Most states treat drunk drivers for alcoholism. Treatment involves the offender learning how to control his need for alcohol. It usually includes counseling. Alcoholics Anonymous is a successful non-governmental treatment approach.

Education

Education includes several areas: 1) education about alcoholism; 2) education about social dynamics, family dynamics, and resisting peer pressure to drink; and 3) education for job skills so that the offender can get a job. In referring to the first type of education, about alcoholism, education and treatment are very similar, and there is no accepted distinction between the two. People often refer to “treatment and education” without differentiating them.

Intensive supervision or probation

Sometimes drunk drivers are required to report frequently, as often as daily, to probation officers. They often have to undergo sobriety checks and participate in treatment programs. Failure to keep appointments or maintain participation in treatment can result in being sent to jail or prison.

Home confinement or electronic monitoring

With electronic monitoring, an offender is able to live at home but not allowed to leave home except to go to work or for other approved activities. Offenders typically wear bracelets on their ankles that need to be within a short distance of a base unit in the home; if the offender goes too far from the base unit, an alarm will sound at the probation officer’s office.

Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDs)

IIDs are installed in an offender’s vehicle. The vehicle will not start unless the driver blows into an alcohol-sensing device. If the driver is not sober, the car will not start. In addition, the driver will need to blow into the device periodically, or the engine will stop. The IID costs over $1,000. The cost is borne by the offender.

Seizing the vehicle

Sometimes a drunk driver’s vehicle is seized. It may be returned after a specific amount of time or it may be sold. If it is returned, the offender must pay for storage. If it is sold, the offender loses his vehicle as well as paying a fine. A problem with this sanction is that judges are often reluctant to seize an expensive car driven by a first-time offender, and offenders with many drunk driving arrests frequently have vehicles that are worth less than the cost of seizure.

Victim impact panels

Offenders are sometimes required to listen to the victims of drunk drivers. They hear of relatives killed and lives ruined by the actions of drunk drivers. The panels frequently become very emotional.

Special license plates

Sometimes offenders are required to use special license plates on their cars. They may be a different color than the state’s other plates, or they may have special stripes on them. They may be clearly marked as “drunk driver” plates so that anybody can tell what they are, or they may begin with specific digits so that police officers can tell what they are but most people will not notice that they are special.

The data from the studies

Quotations from focus group and individual interviews

The following quotations were taken from focus group discussions and individual interviews with four types of people who deal with drunk drivers in their jobs:

▪ Police officers

▪ Jail and other corrections officers, including parole or probationary officers

▪ Judges and other court officials

▪ Treatment, education, and counseling professionals

The first quotations are about the overall approaches to take in dealing with drunk drivers.

• “Focus on the first offense. Make it bitter.”

• “We don’t have penalties that are strong enough. The first offense is the most important. That’s where we get them.”

• “Treating the first offense as civil, instead of criminal, trivializes the offense. Are we doing a disservice to society and the offender? If we were tougher the first time, maybe they would not recidivate.”

The next quotations are about the “traditional” sanctions of fines, incarceration, and license suspension.

Fines

• “We need fines. Money is high on the list of consequences for people.”

• “High fines are ineffectual. They are already so astronomical. These offenders are usually at the bottom of the economic ladder anyway. Higher fines won’t do any good.”

• “Fines become irrelevant when they get very high.”

• “Fines are for the short term. Six months or a year down the road, they’ve forgotten what they paid.”

• Intoxicated people can’t pay fines. Fines won’t change behavior. They are not effective.”

• “Extremely high fines are not useful. A $5,000 fine might as well be a $5 million fine. High fines keep them from getting their license and reinforce the cycle of depression and hopelessness—one more reason to drink. Smaller fines would have more of an effect than larger fines.”

• “With fines you might as well be talking about the Academy Awards. Fines are not a part of their reality. They can’t pay them. A fine does nothing to deter people.”

• “There needs to be fines. All taxpayers should not have to pay for treatment of an offender who pays nothing. The offenders should pay the fines and should accept responsibility for their actions. If they are too poor and can’t pay it, they can pay it later. Maybe they could use community service to work it off.”

Incarceration

• “Incarceration is a slap and wakeup. Something needs to happen for the offenders to get treatment.”

• “What works is fear of jail—fear of being taken away from drinking.”

• “Everything that is done needs to be in conjunction with jail time. First-time offenders should go to jail. The first offense needs to criminalized. Even if there is no jail time, the first offense needs to be recorded as a criminal offense.

• “Most drunk drivers are good working citizens who have a drinking problem. They are not criminals. I don’t look on an alcoholic as a criminal.”

• “Long term incarceration tends to make criminals out of people. They say, ‘I’ll do my time.’ We create tough hardened people. Even with treatment, if there is no incentive. They are not invested in the treatment and it probably isn’t effective.”

• “There should be a threat of incarceration if you fail in your treatment and education programs.”

• “Drunk drivers in jail are taking up bed space that could be used for more serious criminals.”

Incarceration with work release

• “Without work release, you punish the offenders’ families. You can’t keep them in jail if they have a job and family. You’re putting his family on welfare.”

License suspension

• “Suspension is not working. Just look at the number of people we have driving after losing their licenses.”

• “Suspension creates a lot more work for law enforcement. The drunk drivers are still out there. They’re just driving without a license.”

• “The state of Wabe is turning people into criminals. Wabe is a rural state without much mass transportation. By suspending the licenses of so many drunk drivers, it is forcing them to drive without licenses. They need to drive in order to go to work.”

The next quotations are about other measures, primarily treatment and education.

Treatment and education

• “Incarceration shows the severity of the offense, but you can’t make a lifestyle change with incarceration. You need education and treatment.”

• “What works is a combination of treatment, sanctions, close monitoring, and incentives. You can reduce your jail time by one-half by longer monitoring.”

• What works is a combination of treatment, supervision, testing, and regular follow-up in the community. But these things work best in conjunction with jail or the threat of jail. The offender may get electronic monitoring if he follows orders, or he may get his incarceration stayed. Jail alone is usually not effective.”

• “Early and harsh intervention works, with all offenders, including first-time offenders, receiving a comprehensive assessment and a follow-up plan and a strong education component about alcohol and family relations.”

• “Traditional sanctions work most effectively if they can be used persuasively to keep people in counseling or establishing the terms of counseling. Incarceration has to be kept in the mix as what will happen if they don’t complete their counseling or do what they are supposed to do.”

• “Give them a choice. Go to jail, take away the drugs, and give them a chance to go into treatment and education. They are more susceptible to change—even if they are just trying to get out of jail. They learn something; it gives them other options.”

• Education is vital. Rehabilitation often does not have an impact without education. You can’t do one without the other. The offenders have to learn what alcohol does to your body—physiologically, developmentally, and behaviorally—what it does to others, and that drunk driving is wrong.

The last quotations are about other measures.

Vehicle seizure

• “I would like to see more vehicles seized. It has great merit.”

• “You don’t need a license to drive, but you do need a car.”

• “It’s a humongous waste of time. Seizure is a lot of work for absolutely nothing. It is totally ineffective as a deterrent.

• “Most of the time you end up with a $50 piece of junk. They just get another car.”

Special license plates

• “The police are more likely to stop somebody with special plates, so the driver would not drink and would drive carefully.”

• “Special plates discriminate against the family members who are not responsible.”

• “Public shame is rarely effective. It makes other people feel good, but it does nothing for the community, and it doesn’t do anything to change the behavior.”

Ignition Interlock Device

• “It is effective. I would like to see that across the board for all counties for the third offense and above.”

• “It doesn’t work. Most men in rural areas know how to re-wire a car to get around the device.”

Telephone Survey with Experts

The following table includes the results of four identical telephone surveys. The respondents were the same four types of officials who deal with drunk drivers in their jobs: law enforcement, corrections and probations, court systems, and treatment and education. Each respondent was asked to evaluate the effectiveness of 15 sanctions used in fighting drunk driving, using a “1 to 5” scale in which “5” meant “very effective” and “1” meant “not at all effective.” The following table shows the percentage of each type of respondent who gave each sanction a rating of “4” or “5.”

|Effectiveness of Measures |

|Percent Receiving the Highest Ratings |

|Of “4” or “5” on a “1 to 5” Scale |

|In Which “5” Means “Very Effective” |

|Measure |Type of Respondent |

| |Law |Corrctn/Probat. |Court |Treat/ |

| |Enformt | |System |Eductn |

|Intensive supervision or probation |62% |63% |66% |75% |

|Treatment, such as drug or alcohol treatment |54 |58 |77 |77 |

|Education on alcoholism or alcohol abuse |46 |47 |51 |52 |

|Ignition Interlock Device |44 |58 |30 |58 |

|Victim Impact Panels |30 |43 |36 |62 |

|Education to develop employable skills or get a GED |42 |53 |38 |46 |

|Long-term jail or prison sentences |48 |57 |43 |38 |

|Education on family dynamics and resisting peer pressure |44 |47 |28 |51 |

|Incarceration with work release |28 |38 |43 |42 |

|Seizing the drunk driver’s vehicle |44 |52 |12 |42 |

|Jail time on the first conviction |38 |32 |33 |43 |

|Home confinement or electronic monitoring |32 |32 |20 |45 |

|Short-term jail sentences |30 |22 |31 |35 |

|Suspending the drunk driver’s license |32 |28 |15 |30 |

|Special license plates, recognizable by the public |40 |28 |10 |20 |

|Sample Size = |50 |60 |61 |69 |

Adult residents of the Sheffield metropolitan area

The following table includes the results of a telephone survey of adult residents of the Sheffield metropolitan area. Sheffield is the largest city in Wabe. Survey respondents were asked if legislators should support or oppose ten countermeasures to drunk driving.

| |

|Percentage Distribution of Support for |

|Drunk-Driving Countermeasures |

|Survey of Residents of the Sheffield Metropolitan Area |

| |Percent Indicating Legislators Should |

| |Support or Oppose Countermeasures |

| |Should |Should |Should |Should |

| |Definitely |Probably Support |Probably Oppose |Definitely Oppose|

| |Support | | | |

|All people convicted of drunk driving must attend victim |72% |24% |3% |2% |

|impact panels | | | | |

|Anyone convicted of drunk driving automatically loses |40 |31 |21 |9 |

|his/her driver’s license for one year. | | | | |

|Require all convicted drunk drivers who are alcoholics to |39 |34 |17 |9 |

|have psychological treatment. | | | | |

|Mandatory jail time for anybody convicted of drunk driving |28 |37 |22 |12 |

|All convicted drunk drivers have special license plates on |28 |30 |22 |21 |

|their cars | | | | |

|Require all new cars to have an ignition interlock devices |26 |28 |21 |25 |

|More government funds for treatment programs for people with|21 |43 |24 |13 |

|alcohol problems. | | | | |

|Have the police take away and impound a convicted drunk |17 |27 |29 |26 |

|driver’s car for one year, before returning the car to them.| | | | |

|Anyone convicted of first drunk driving offense pays a fine |15 |24 |36 |25 |

|of at least $5,000 | | | | |

|If a person is convicted of a second drunk-driving offense, |13 |19 |34 |35 |

|have the police take away the drunk’s car for good and then | | | | |

|sell the car to the public at an auction. | | | | |

|Sample Size = 400 |

National telephone survey of Americans aged 16+

|Should penalties for violating drinking-driving laws be… |

|Response |Total Sample |Type of Driver |

| | |Drinking Drivers* |Other Drivers Who Drink** |

|Much more severe |43% |23% |41% |

|Somewhat more severe |27 |25 |30 |

|Stay the same |25 |NA |NA |

|Somewhat less severe |3 |NA |NA |

|Much less severe |1 |NA |NA |

|Sample size = |6,002 |1,300 |2,193 |

|*Drinking drivers reported driving within two hours after drinking in the past year. |

|**“Other drivers who drink” reported drinking alcohol, but not within two hours of driving. |

|NA = Data not available. |

|Perceived Effectiveness of Strategies |

|to Reduce Drunk Driving |

|(% “Very Effective”) |

|Strategy |Type of Driver |

| |All Respondents |Drinking Drivers* |

|Providing people who have had too much to drink an alternative way of |60% |55% |

|getting home other than self driving | | |

|Making bars and stores that sell alcohol more legally responsible for |55 |44 |

|selling to minors/drunk patrons | | |

|Increasing police and other law enforcement efforts to arrest drunken |49 |36 |

|drivers | | |

|Making treatment of alcoholism and alcohol abuse problems more |41 |29 |

|available to people | | |

|Limiting the amount of certain types of alcohol advertising and |36 |21 |

|producing more public service announcements and dangers | | |

|Reducing the number of places selling alcohol or making it more |28 |14 |

|difficult to get alcohol at certain times or days of week | | |

|Increasing costs of alcohol for example, through higher taxes on |20 |6 |

|liquor sales | | |

|Sample size = |6,002 |1,300 |

|*Drinking drivers reported driving within two hours after drinking in the past year. |

|Most Likely Outcome |

|First Time Drunk Driving Arrest |

|(Multiple Responses Accepted)* |

|Outcome |Total Sample |

|Fine |46% |

|License suspended / Restricted |41 |

|Going to jail |20 |

|Attend class on DWI* |12 |

|Probation |10 |

|Reprimand / Warning |8 |

|Community service |7 |

|Being arrested / convicted / record |4 |

|Treatment program |4 |

|Other |3 |

|Nothing |5 |

|Don’t know |5 |

|Sample size = 6,002 |

|*Respondents were asked what they thought would be the most likely outcome for a person arrested for drunk driving for the first |

|time. Multiple answers were allowed. |

|** DWI = Driving While Intoxicated (Also know as Driving Under the Influence – DUI) |

|If drinking and driving, what will happen? |

|(Percent saying: “Will get stopped by the police” |

|and “Will have a crash”) |

|Response |Total Sample |Gender of Respondent |

| | |Male |Female |

|Will get stopped by police |32% |27% |37% |

|Will have a crash |44 |37 |50 |

|Sample size = |6,002 |2,607 |3,395 |

|*Drinking drivers reported driving within two hours after drinking in the past year. |

Mail survey of drivers who had lost their licenses

The following tables show the results of a mail survey of drivers who had lost their licenses, mostly for drunken driving:

|How has not having a driver’s license affected your job? |

|It hasn’t. I have the same job. |48% |

|I have the same job but my duties have changed. |19 |

|I lost my job but got another one easily |5 |

|I lost my job and not having a driver’s license made it difficult to find a new job. |29 |

| |

|Overall, has your life been different without a license |

|compared to when you had a regular driver’s license? |

|No, my life is about the same overall |5% |

|Yes, my life is more difficult overall |45 |

|Yes, my life is much more difficult overall |50 |

| |

|What are the main ways you get around without a Driver’s License? |

|I get rides from friends |76% |

|I get rides from family members |69 |

|I drive anyway |52 |

|I walk or ride a bicycle |52 |

|I take public transportation |21 |

|All others |7 |

| |

|How often do you use public transportation to get where you need to go? |

|Very often |5% |

|Often |10 |

|Occasionally |13 |

|Rarely |12 |

|Never |60 |

|Sample size = 358 |

|How often do you drive without a license? |

|Every day |17% |

|Almost every day |14 |

|3 to 4 times a week |11 |

|1 to 2 times a week |3 |

|3 to 4 times a month |6 |

|1 to 2 times a month |3 |

|Only in emergencies |17 |

|Never |29 |

| |

|In your own words, please describe how not having a license has affected your life? |

|(Open-ended question) |

|I have to depend on others |26% |

|I am restricted in the area I can travel |21 |

|I lost my job |14 |

|It is hard to get to work |14 |

|I still drive |14 |

|It is hard to get a job |10 |

|I have little or no social life |7 |

|I can’t visit my family |5 |

|It is hard to get to school |5 |

|I can’t support my family |5 |

|Sample size = 358 |

Sources of the information included in this exercise:

All of the data included in this assessment are real. The sources of the data are:

Focus Groups, In-Depth Interviews, and Four Surveys of Experts

Russell G. Brooker, Laura M. Cleary, and Richard W. Yob, Evaluation of Alternatives to Incarceration for Repeat Drunken Driving (Madison, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2001). The study was conducted by The Dieringer Research Group, Inc. for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. The author of this exercise was the principal investigator in that project. The complete study is available at:

Telephone survey of a cross section of adults in the Sheffield metropolitan area (n=400)

Barndon K. Applegate and Francis T. Cullen, “Public support for drunk-driving countermeasures: Social policy for saving lives.” Crime & Delinquency, April 1995, V. 41 #2, pp. 171 +. The study was conducted in the Cincinnati area. In this exercise, some data are omitted and some terms have been changed for consistency with the rest of the exercise. The names of some measures have been shortened for the sake of continuity and simplicity, but all of the numbers are accurate.

National telephone survey of a cross section of Americans of driving age (n=6,002)

National Highway Traffic Administration, 2001 National Survey of Drinking and Driving: Volume I: Summary Report (NHTA, Washington, D.C., 2003). The survey was conducted by The Gallup Organization. A summary of the study is available at:



Mail survey of drivers who had lost their driving licenses (n=358)

Russell G. Brooker, Laura M. Cleary, and Richard W. Yob, Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Occupational Licensing Program (Madison, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2002). The study was conducted by The Dieringer Research Group, Inc. for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. The author of this exercise was the principal investigator in that project. The complete study is available at:

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download