are dui prevention laws ineffective?...proponents of the “tough on crime” approach thus suggest...

According to this reasoning,

ARE DUI PREVENTION LAWS INEFFECTIVE?By Lorne Tepperman and Nicole Meredith, authors of Waiting to Happen

Many laws have been passed over the years in an effort to deter driving under the influence. FINES, IMPRISONMENT, and LICENCE SUSPENSIONS are all formal methods of social control used to create the impression that the negative consequences associated with drinking and driving outweigh the benefits. Proponents of the “tough on crime” approach thus suggest that harsher punishments and rigid enforcement will virtually eliminate DUIs.

Despite the pervasiveness of this belief, research shows that the “TOUGH ON CRIME” approach is not as effective as we like to think:

13%

• In 1982, stricter DUI-related laws were introduced in California, including mandatory jail sentences for repeat offenders and restricted plea bargaining. There were about 51 fewer deadly car crashes in California per month, meaning these laws reduced fatal car crashes by almost 13 percent. However, there was no difference in alcohol-related and non-alcohol-related crash rates. If these anti-DUI laws had been effective, alcohol-related crash rates would have declined more sharply than other types of traffic collisions.

• Rather than plummeting immediately following the implementation of new anti-DUI laws, DRUNK DRIVING RATES OFTEN DECREASE A YEAR OR TWO LATER. This lag suggests that the laws might not be directly responsible for the change in people’s crash-causing driving behaviour.

Treating the law as the only means of

deterring DUI ignores other, socially

motivated preventive strategies.

Activist groups and even simply

neighbourhood gossip can spread

the word about the dangers of drunk

driving. Instead of fearing harsh

penalties, some are motivated to stay

sober when driving because they fear

social ostracism. For many, THE SHAME

AND EMBARRASSMENT ASSOCIATED

WITH THIS NOW TABOO BEHAVIOUR IS

ENOUGH TO DISCOURAGE THEM FROM

PARTICIPATING; the legal consequences

are merely secondary deterrents.

An even better solution would be to

offer these people the rehabilitative

services they need to overcome their

addictions. For example, DUI COURTS

HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN AN EFFORT

TO HELP PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN

REPEATEDLY CONVICTED OF DRINKING

AND DRIVING. THESE COURTS AIM

TO HELP DRINKERS MANAGE THEIR

ADDICTIONS, OFFERING COUNSELLING,

BEHAVIOURAL MONITORING, AND

RANDOM URINE AND BLOOD TESTS TO

ENSURE SOBRIETY. DUI courts focus

on REWARDING THEIR PARTICIPANTS

RATHER THAN PUNISHING THEM. For

example, people who successfully

complete the program have their

DUI convictions removed from their

criminal records. These courts have

proven to be a success; compared

to the people who do not take part,

participants do not usually drink and

drive again.

ONLY BY MAKING EXAMPLES OUT OF THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW CAN WE SCARE THE REST OF THE POPULATION INTO ABIDING BY IT.

• SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS reduce car crash rates only within the first 3 to 6 months following their implementation. And in some cases, the rates barely decrease at all.