Does Prison Deter Drunk-Drivers?
- PDF / 730,566 Bytes
- 23 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 53 Downloads / 200 Views
Does Prison Deter Drunk‑Drivers? Sara Rahman1 · Don Weatherburn2
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Objective To examine the specific deterrent effect of prison on driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) recidivism. Method The study outcomes were the probabilities of DUI re-offending over 6 months, 24 months and 5 years ‘free time’ (i.e. time not spent in custody). The comparison group consisted of offenders convicted of DUI offending who received a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The effect of imprisonment was examined in a series of 2SLS models; employing an extensive set of controls (age, gender, race, remoteness of residence, socioeconomic status, legal representation, number of concurrent offences, DUI blood alcohol range, number of prior court appearances, prior penalties) and variation in the judicial proclivity to imprison convicted drunk drive offenders as an instrument to identify the effect of prison on DUI re-offending. Results Our free-time analyses reveal no evidence that imprisonment reduces the risk of DUI recidivism. Separate analyses for first-time DUI offenders revealed a slight (5%) reduction in re-offending over 24 months free time but no effect over 5 years. Conclusion We conclude that the funds currently spent on imprisoning DUI offenders could be more fruitfully be invested in measures that show more promise in reducing DUI recidivism. Keywords DUI · Recidivism · Deterrence · Incapacitation · IV methods · Suspended sentences · Imprisonment
Introduction Driving while under the influence of alcohol (hereafter referred to as DUI) is a major cause of premature death. In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol impaired driving crashes in the United States, accounting for around 29% of all traffic-related deaths in that country (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2018). The situation is somewhat better in Australia, but even in this country 17% of fatal road accidents involve DUI (WHO 2018). Not surprisingly, a great deal of attention has been given by scholars and policy makers to * Don Weatherburn [email protected] 1
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney, Australia
2
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Quantitative Criminology
the question of how best to reduce the rate of recidivism amongst those convicted of DUI. The range of interventions that have been tried and evaluated include licence disqualification (e.g. Siskind 1996; Watson et al. 2017), fines (e.g. Weatherburn and Moffatt 2011), ignition interlocks (e.g. Roth et al. 2007), victim impact panels (e.g. Rojek et al. 2003), intensive supervision programs (e.g. Lapham et al. 2006), driver education (e.g. Robertson et al. 2009) and imprisonment1 (e.g. Martin et al. 1993). Among these interventions, one of the least well studied is that of imprisonment. This is perhaps partly because it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of prison as a det
Data Loading...
