Towards a national model for managing impaired driving offenders.

AIMS To describe a proposed national model for controlling the risk presented by offenders convicted of driving while impaired (DWI) and promoting behavioral change to reduce future recidivism. SETTING Traditional methods of controlling the risk they present to the driving public are not adequate, as indicated by the fact that approximately 1000 people are killed each year-in alcohol-related crashes involving drivers convicted of DWI in the previous three years. However, stimulated by the success of special drug courts for substance abusers and new technological methods for monitoring drug and alcohol use, new criminal justice programs for managing impaired driving offenders are emerging. INTERVENTION A national model for a comprehensive system applicable to both drug and alcohol impaired drivers is proposed. The program focuses on monitoring offender drinking or the offender driving employing vehicle interlocks with swift, sure but moderate penalties for non-compliance in which the ultimate sanction is based on offender performance in meeting monitoring requirements. FINDINGS Several new court programs, such as the 24/7 Sobriety Project in South Dakota and North Dakota and the Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Project, which feature alcohol/drug consumption monitoring, have produced evidence that indicates even dependent drinkers can conform to abstinence monitoring requirements and avoid the short-term jail consequence for failure. CONCLUSIONS Based on the apparent success of emerging court monitoring systems, it appears that the cost of incarcerating driving-while-impaired offenders can be minimized by employing low-cost community correction programs paid for by the offender.

[1]  A. McCartt,et al.  Observational study of the extent of driving while suspended for alcohol impaired driving , 2003, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[2]  J. Prochaska,et al.  Toward a Comprehensive Model of Change , 1986 .

[3]  N. Bellamy,et al.  Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for reducing drink driving recidivism. , 2004, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  S. Lapham Screening and Brief Intervention in the Criminal Justice System , 2004, Alcohol research & health : the journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

[5]  Bret Fuller,et al.  Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation: Final Report , 2007 .

[6]  Paul R. Marques,et al.  The alcohol ignition interlock and other technologies for the prediction and control of impaired drivers , 2009 .

[7]  M. Rempel,et al.  The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Policies, Participants and Impacts: (640692007-001) , 2003 .

[8]  M. Kleiman,et al.  “Managing Drug-Involved Probationers With Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Evaluation Report” NCJ 229023 , 2009 .

[9]  Lawrence W. Sherman,et al.  Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. , 1997 .

[10]  Robert B Voas,et al.  Barriers to Interlock Implementation , 2003, Traffic injury prevention.

[11]  P R Marques,et al.  Predicting repeat DUI offenses with the alcohol interlock recorder. , 2001, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  Scott Tippetts,et al.  Estimating driver risk using alcohol biomarkers, interlock blood alcohol concentration tests and psychometric assessments: initial descriptives. , 2010, Addiction.

[13]  Bo Bjerre,et al.  An Evaluation of the Swedish Ignition Interlock Program , 2003, Traffic injury prevention.

[14]  T. Nochajski,et al.  The limited utility of BAC for identifying alcohol-related problems among DWI offenders. , 1992, Journal of studies on alcohol.

[15]  Ann,et al.  Conclusions : The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation Policies , Participants and Impacts , 2003 .

[16]  Tara Kelley-Baker,et al.  The impact of a novel educational curriculum for first-time DUI offenders on intermediate outcomes relevant to DUI recidivism. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[17]  R. Voas,et al.  Requiring suspended drunk drivers to install alcohol interlocks to reinstate their licenses: effective? , 2010, Addiction.

[18]  Scott Tippetts,et al.  Estimating Driver Risk Using Alcohol Biomarkers , Interlock BAC Tests and Psychometric Assessments : Initial Descriptives , 2011 .

[19]  H L Ross,et al.  Effects of license revocation on drunk-driving offenders. , 1988, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[20]  Bo Bjerre,et al.  Positive health-care effects of an alcohol ignition interlock programme among driving while impaired (DWI) offenders. , 2007, Addiction.

[21]  Bo Bjerre,et al.  A Swedish alcohol ignition interlock programme for drink-drivers: effects on hospital care utilization and sick leave. , 2007, Addiction.

[22]  A T McCartt EVALUATION OF ENHANCED SANCTIONS FOR HIGHER BACS: SUMMARY OF STATES' LAWS , 2001 .

[23]  Bo Bjerre Primary and secondary prevention of drink driving by the use of alcolock device and program: Swedish experiences. , 2005, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[24]  J. Yu,et al.  Punishment and alcohol problems: Recidivism among drinking-driving offenders , 2000 .

[25]  Amy L. Tobler,et al.  General deterrence effects of U.S. statutory DUI fine and jail penalties: long-term follow-up in 32 states. , 2007, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[26]  Paul R Marques,et al.  Field and laboratory alcohol detection with 2 types of transdermal devices. , 2009, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[27]  A. Hawken The Message from Hawaii: HOPE for Probation , 2010 .

[28]  A Scott Tippetts,et al.  Behavioral measures of drinking: patterns from the Alcohol Interlock Record. , 2003, Addiction.

[29]  W R Williford,et al.  Drunk-driving recidivism: predicting factors from arrest context and case disposition. , 1995, Journal of studies on alcohol.

[30]  H. Ross,et al.  Deterring the Drinking Driver: Legal Policy and Social Control. , 1983 .