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