Despites various legalizations in the prevention of repeat DUI offenses, research shows that the do little in the prevention of first time DUI offenses. Studies on the effectiveness of DUI laws and legislation produce a wide variety of results. Furthermore, some research relies on self-reporting, rather than the use of statistical data from courts, government agencies and other databases. To gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of DUI legislation, much research focuses on rates of recidivism, or repeat DUI offenses. A study of offenders in the Commonwealth of Virginia’s VASAP program indicates that those who failed to complete the program were more likely to receive a second DUI and have their license revoked, regardless of prior knowledge of consequences for subsequent DUIs (Williams, et al, 2000). The results of the study of VASAP indicate that interventions rather than legislation act as a greater deterrent in repeat DUI offenses.
“A conviction for DUI and the incumbent penalties are not a deterrent from continued drinking and driving for some offenders” (LaBrie et al, 2007, p. 604). The authors suggest that tougher or harsher consequences for such offenders will do little to deter this group from future DUI offenses. Furthermore, those committing offenses, whose profiles fit specific criminal typologies, are generally more likely to commit crimes involving substance abuse. For these offenders, DUI is only one aspect of the criminal behavior, so they are less likely to be deterred by laws in general, regardless of the crimes they are intended to prevent.
Some individuals may argue that any attempt to get more drivers under the influence off the roadways is worth the effort. However, studies reveal such sanctions for offenders do not act as a deterrent for future DUI offenders. Groups such as MADD welcome sanctions that prohibit or restrict offenders from driving, even if for a limited period of time (Baker, 2004). Long terms efforts in reducing recidivism of DUI offenses appears to be elusive. It appears as though sanctions, fines, jail time and other efforts merely postpone or delay the next offense for many repeat offenders. It seems as though offenders with a specific number of DUI offenses should face more permanent sanctions, such as permanent license revocation, ongoing community service and the inability to own or purchase a motor vehicle. Florida revokes driver licenses upon the fourth DUI offense or in cases of Murder committed with a motor vehicle (NHTSA, 2009). Alaska, on the other hand, does not revoke the license for the fourth, fifth and even sixth offense. It does require a host of conditions to be met for license reinstatement, however.
There are many laws and legal sanctions in place to prevent repeat DUI offenses. Research shows that they do little to prevent first time DUI offenses. The success of sanctions and various forms of punishment in preventing subsequent DUIs may also be dependent upon coexisting education programs and programs that address specific behaviors. First, those underlying behaviors and risk factors must be identified. The type of intense evaluation the NHTSA suggests may prove too costly for all but the worst or most obvious offender behaviors.
Research studies reviewed here indicate the some of the most effective deterrents of future DUIs are those that restrict or prohibit driving. While making DUI laws more stringent may seem harsh, it may also serve as a further deterrent. Criminal behavior theory recognizes that” swift and sure consequences are most effective” (Sorrell, 2001) in deterring others from committing similar crimes. Therefore, efforts such as immediate license suspension, retribution and treatment should continue in jurisdictions where they are efficient. In jurisdictions where they occur more slowly, efforts should be made to speed up such processes.
There is no perfect solution in deterring or preventing DUI offenses. Current research recognizes the impact on human life, as a result of DUI offenses in the U.S. Legislation on the national level is limited to funding for states and has not been proven to deter incidence of DUI, such as with lowering the BAL limit. However, the lower limit may help to identify more potential repeat offenders. Sanctions such as license suspension have varying levels of success in different states. It appears that those jurisdictions that impose additional consequences and impose more severe consequences for more severe offenses are more effective than sanctions alone. The uses of devices such as ignition interlock are successful in preventing future DUI offenses for short periods of time, though this effect is better than not preventing the offenses at all.
Much of the literature examined suggests that intensive treatment programs in conjunction with sanctions are most effective. If such actions occur quickly, while the offender is required to use electronic devices, there is a window of opportunity to change underlying attitudes and behaviors that may lead to DUI.