1 / 19

Incapacitating the DUI Offender: Dealing with the No-car Barrier to Interlocks

Incapacitating the DUI Offender: Dealing with the No-car Barrier to Interlocks. Robert B. Voas Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Calverton, Maryland. Acknowledgements. This, as is the case on most of our work, is the product of a “augmented” PIRE team: Dr. Paul Marques (PIRE)

urit
Download Presentation

Incapacitating the DUI Offender: Dealing with the No-car Barrier to Interlocks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Incapacitating the DUI Offender: Dealing with the No-car Barrier to Interlocks Robert B. Voas Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Calverton, Maryland

  2. Acknowledgements • This, as is the case on most of our work, is the product of a “augmented” PIRE team: • Dr. Paul Marques (PIRE) • Mr. Scott Tippetts (PIRE) • Dr. Dick Roth in New Mexico

  3. Interlocks Are Effective When Installed • Ten studies suggest 50% or more reduction in recidivism. • Lybrand and Bellamy-Cochrane database of systematic reviews—14 studies found RR.36 when installed = 64% reduction.

  4. Ten States of DUI Offenders with Interlocks On and Off Their Vehicles 140% During Interlock 120% After Interlock 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 OH 2 OR 3 NC 4 AB 5 WV 6 MD 7 AB 8 QC 9 IL 10 NM

  5. Original Expectations of DUI Offender’s Acceptance of Interlocks • Interlocks allow offenders to drive when they would otherwise be suspended. • Interlocks allow family members to operate offender’s car. • Interlocks avoid vehicle registration cancellation. • Interlocks avoid family plates.

  6. Despite These Advantages Interlocks Underused • 1.4 million DUI arrests each year in the United States. • 100,000 interlocks in use.

  7. Offenders Resist Interlocks • Usual installation rate is about 10% • Highest rate in a “voluntary” program is about 25% (Quebec, Canada) • Highest rate for a mandatory program is about 40% (New Mexico) • Highest rate achieved by courts 62% when house arrest was alternative (Indiana)

  8. What Happened? • Low risk of apprehension for driving while suspended (DWI) • While sanctions nominally severe, they are frequently not imposed (in Florida only 1/3 convicted). • Limited hardship licenses not requiring interlocks available.

  9. What Happened? • Interlocks are “expensive.” • Interlocks may interfere with drinking. • Interlocks are a nuisance. • Interlocks are embarrassing. • Interlocks require insurance.

  10. Percentage Representation of Court-Order DUI Sanctions (1998)

  11. Ways Interlocks Are Avoided • Delay-avoid installation (California) • No car • Agree not to drive • Install but drive noninterlock car (25% in New Mexico)

  12. Overcoming Offender Resistance • Hamilton County study of 21,325 DUI offenders • Judge required house arrest as alternative to interlock • 62% of the offenders installed interlocks • First DUI recidivism reduced 51% relative to 6 comparison counties • Second offender recidivism reduced 46% relative to 6 surrounding counties

  13. Low-Cost Alternative Needed for No-Car Excuse • House arrest reduces recidivism (Lacey et al.), but costs $10-$12 per day (compared to $2 per day for interlock) and interferes more with normal living. • SCRAM transdermal monitor probably effective, but costs $10 per day (compared to $2 for interlock) and may interfere with normal living.

  14. Full Service Program Needed • Court sentences DUI offenders to “Impaired Driving Control Program” (IDCP). • Provider available who can implement either Interlock or BAC monitoring (SCRAM/electronic home confinement). • Probation officer or provider presents alternatives to offenders who choose one of the options. • No alternative to IDCP except jail.

  15. Full Service Program • Time in program the same whatever the type of control chosen by the offender. • Single price for either option. • Either type of control requires monthly (bimonthly?) visits to provider’s service facility. • Either type of control results in BAC record to the court and treatment provider.

  16. Features of Full Service Program • Provides standardized method for protecting the public applicable to all offenders. • May make mandatory laws effective. • Offenders can choose method of control. • Provides partial record of drinking during the control period. • Can be an important adjunct to DUI/drug courts.

  17. Potential Issues with Full Service Programs • Few interlock providers equipped to provide a Full Service Program. • Pricing of alternative to interlock a problem. • SCRAM is generally in use for only short periods (2-3 months). • Will integrating the more expensive alternatives to the interlock effect the period that judges will sentence offenders to Full Service Program?

  18. Public Acceptance • Punishment fits the crime. • Minimum interference with daily living. • Fair: Equally applicable to all offenders. • Offender pays. • Can be a support to DUI/drug court programs. • Limiting drinking can support recovery for individuals with alcohol use disorders.

  19. The End THANK YOU! Questions?

More Related