The Law as a form of Deterrence for Drinking and Driving - Research Paper Example

? It is difficult to ignore the impact and volume of DUI deaths and the overall annual cost to society in the US [APPENDIX A]. Likewise, the number of arrests and convictions for offenses related to alcohol annually across the US is equally alarming. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in the reporting year 2009, alcohol related offenses across the US totaled 15,331 out of 71,048 traffic related offenses [APPENDIX B], and some studies have placed this estimate at as much as 60 % of all fatalities [Fell & Taylor, 2011, p. 123]. Stated in terms of a percentage, this represents over 20 % of all traffic offenses According to the NHTSA, this is a drop overall in the past few decades which coincides with tougher sentencing, greater public awareness and higher conviction rates. However, the numbers continue to be alarming which means that something within the correlation of deterrence and public perception along with convictions and arrests has not been entirely successful. The following will argue that however much deterrence is a factor in the decline of incidents, it is not sufficient to make that much of a significant impact. Toward demonstrating this thesis, the following will look at the legal and social transformations that have taken place, and in turn, examine the nature of deterrence. Before examining the data, existing literature and arguments for and against the relative success of deterrence, a few remarks concerning methodology need to be stated or outlined. In the field of social research, and indeed, any scientific research, there is an important distinction to be made between a correlation and an association that is causal in nature [Kothari, 2008, p. 138]. There is a common methodological problem with mistaking a correlation as a causal relationship, and this has significant bearing on the following analysis. A simple and absurd example can best illustrate the problem of mistaking a correlation for a causal relation. If we were to say that sea-gulls like eating marine life because they are white, would be a clear mistake of confusing a correlation for a cause. While it is true that sea-gulls eat or diet on seafood to speak, and it is true (mostly true for the sake of an argument) that seagulls have white coloring, it is not true that the color of a bird is going to effect the dietary practices of the bird. The prevalence of the color is being confused for a cause in this instance. While absurd, the example nonetheless highlights an important preliminary methodological consideration. The following will look at the correlations of deterrence as it pertains to lowered amounts of drunk driving offenses and fatalities, but it will do so cautiously. This common problem in social research will be kept in the foreground of the analysis, and concerning ultimate causes of the decline of offenses, this analysis will suspend making an conclusive judgments, and in turn, focus on the 'correlation' of variables that are associated with deterrence and their prevalence. STRATEGIES FOR DETERRENCE. LEGAL STRATEGIES & INTERVENTIONS: Before blood levels became the way in which DUI was determined, arrests used to be done on the basis of the officer acting as a witness and by them administering some basic road-side tests that would evaluate the co-ordination and response time of the individual who was suspected of DUI [Chambliss, 2011, p. 63]. Because of the relatively subjective nature of the investigating techniques, and many of the successful challenges to the enforcement of this, the measurement of blood alcohol levels, through blood, breath and urine, became the more accurate standard, and in almost all states the blood alcohol line is .08 % [Chambliss, 2011, p. 64]. Moreover, a more accurate way of measuring blood alcohol levels, impacted the conviction rate for offenders [Chambliss, 2011, p. 65]. However, it did also create a few problems regarding the administration of the test. If a police officer suspects a driver of DUI they can ask them to submit themselves to a chemical evaluation, and this is a form of "implied consent" [Chambliss, 2011, p. 65]. That is, by virtue of having a driver's license, driver's are submitting themselves to the legal scrutiny of their driving. In most states, individuals who do not reply with the request, have their licenses suspended and up to a year under regulations known as the Administrative License Revocation [Chambliss, 2011, p. 65-6]. The revocation of driver licenses is also one of the other legal changes that has had a measurable impact or correlation with lower DUI rates. Unquestionably, this is also something -- logically speaking, that has had a major impact on recidivism rates. If it were not the case that individuals continue to drive while intoxicated without a license, there would be a zero recidivism rate. The Zero Tolerance Juvenile Alcohol Law, was also another important legal measure undertaken to deter young people from DUI. In some states, this is a law which means that any level of alcohol measured by an offender results in immediate loss of license and a conviction, while in other states this law is utilized but with a level of .02 % blood alcohol -- which is significantly lower than that of adults [Scheb, 2010, p. 268]. Another legal change in the past few decades has been the 'Habitual Violator Law', and while the punitive measures for this vary, it is an act that increases the sentencing and punishment for individuals with "multiple offenses for drunk driving" [Taylor & Oberman, 2006, 84]. The introduction of "sobriety checkpoints" [Evans, 2009, p. 148] is also another legal measure taken to curb DUI offenses These are checkpoints along roads and highways where officers will routinely pull vehicles over for a basic inspection of the driver, and when an individual is suspected of drinking because of the smell of their breath or because of their behavior, then, they are asked to submit to a test for the purposes of determining blood alcohol levels. Another area of legal significance that has changed over the last few decades, concerns the serving of alcohol. That is, where laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors and this means for both locations like restaurants or bars or adults who procure this for a minor; laws prohibiting minors from possessing alcohol and laws prohibiting minors from possessing fake identification [Barth, Hayes Ninemeier, 2001, p. 342]. It should be added that along with the increase in regulations concerning the sale of alcohol in public places, has also been accompanied by guidelines such as how to evaluate the blood-alcohol of customers on the basis of how many drinks they have been served in any given hour. Very often, liquor licenses are contingent upon a given owner being aware of the basis of serving alcohol and the legal liability that they are responsible for [Barth, Hayes Ninemeier, 2001, p. 342]. Among legal measures or changes taken to curb alcohol related incidents among youths, was the increase of the minimum drinking age. While the changes in the minimum driving age was not solely for reasons for preventing drunk driving, and that it is a regulation that is one state-by-state, there was nonetheless a positive correlation between this particular legal change and drunk driving incidents. Of course, an important corollary of this, is the fact that a significant percentage of the overall DUI offenses would have to be within the age groups effected. That is, changing the minimum drinking age is hardly going to impact the number of DUI's in the age group of 65 and over. This said, one study determined that 31 % of l traffic fatalities for individuals between the ages of 16 and 20 were alcohol related [Ryan, 1993, p. 1]. LEGAL INTERVENTIONS - EVALUATION: In keeping with the argument that maintains that mistaking correlation for cause, it can be said that the relative success of the legal changes are difficult to evaluate. That is, they have occurred at a time when there are a number of other variables to consider -- that is, variables outside of legal measures that have likewise been implemented for the same end of deterring people from committing DUI: "recent literature has yet to identify a specific law (except minimum drinking age legislation) that is unequivocally responsible for a significant decline in drinking and driving" [Evans, Neville & Graham, 1991, p. 287]. Indeed, the same author's maintain that mandatory seatbelt laws and increased taxes on alcohol consumption could be regarded as at least equally responsible as the legal changes that have been made in the same period [Evans, Neville & Graham, 1991, p. 279]. Studies however, run completely counter to these conclusions because of further measures such as "graduated teen licensing and stricter DUI laws" [Traynor, 2009, p. 425]. This very same conclusion is made in a comprehensive study of traffic fatalities in the State of Maryland: "For the alcohol-involved drivers in all crashes, tests indicated a 4.9% decrease associated with the implementation date of the .08 law, which was significant (t = 2.84, p = .005) ... The primary seat belt law was nonsignificant (p = .85) [Fell & Lacey, 2011, p. 133]. Moreover, through the same period it has been shown that changing the rate of taxation on alcohol has an impact on the relative increase or decrease of consumption [Cook & Moore, 1994, p. 561]. That is to say, with less consumption, there is a decline in accidents relating to alcohol consumptions. It should also be added that taxation is also a form of legal or governmental intervention, although the intention of this is not necessarily connected to the deterrence of DUI. Regarding the suspension or revocation of a license, it is maintained in a study that looked at data from 46 different states, that while measurably effective it is significantly more effective the quicker the punishment is implemented [Wagenaar & Maldonado-Molina, 2007, p. 1404]. Other studies show or demonstrate significantly different results. For example, while the data collected by the NHTSA demonstrate a significant decline in incidents through the 1980's, the problem or occurrences have been relatively steady through the 1990's [NHTSA, 2006]. One study argues or maintains that the legal changes or transformations that have occurred, only have an impact if they are done quickly: “Efforts to strengthen the deterrent impact of impaired driving laws through enforcement and swift, certain, and meaningful penalties…are important in sustaining reductions in traffic crashes” [Giesbrecht & Greenfield, 2003, 76]. Finally, several studies suggest that between 50 and 75 % of individuals with a suspended licenses continue to drive and continue to abuse alcohol [APPENDIX A]. And, a number of studies cited by Jacobs [Jacobs, 1989, p. xvii; 173; 209] show a very strong or a positive correlation between raising the minimum drinking age and the rate of fatalities and incidents in the states that did so, and over against the states that continued with the same minimum driving age. Finally, the legal changes that have had the most effect, are the ones that have established a prohibition on alcohol consumption [Webster, Pimental & Clark, 2007, 980]. Although it should be added that prohibition in the few places where it continues, has also not completely eradicated the practice of DUI [Webster, Pimental & Clark, 2007, 977] The legal changes and transformations are significant but ambiguous in terms of their impact or effect. While significant in terms of making a substantial statement where public and government sentiment stands over the issue, they remain ambiguous in terms of their causal effect. There is a strong correlation between the legal changes and a decline of DUI, it is nonetheless ambiguous in regard to measuring or evaluating the impact. Evaluating the other changes that have the same deterrence agenda as the legal changes will hopefully fill-in this picture. That is, while the changes legally have had a correlative impact, it is also the case that there have been other changes that need to be evaluated alongside the legal changes or transformations that have occurred largely since the early 1970's. OTHER VARIABLES IMPACTING DUI LEVELS: Media strategies are implied in three different senses for present purposes. First, there have been changes in how alcohol has been allowed to be marketed. Second, the media has been used for purposes of public awareness campaigns, and finally, this discussion of the media will concern also the general public relations efforts or public awareness strategies that have been implemented in the past few decades. It will be maintained that these types or forms of interventions have evolved alongside the legal interventions discussed above, and thus, measuring the impact or influence of legal variables against other factors like media and public awareness strategies is difficult and at best, empirically ambiguous. It should be stressed that while changes in advertising is being discussed under 'media 'strategies', they are equally legal strategies as the transgression of these regulations are prosecutable offenses Some of the more significant changes that have been made with respect to advertising and alcohol, include the portrayal of children or child associated images such as the display of toys or any other material that can be said to be explicitly associated with children; municipal limitations or ordinances on the placement of advertising in places where children frequent (e.g. playgrounds or schools etc.); the prohibition on the portrayal of intoxication or any images that might be said to glamorize drinking or alcohol consumption, and finally, the use of coupons that encourage the sale of alcohol [Horvath, Villafranco & Calkins, 2009, p. 225]. One of the problems identified with the legalities of these changes, is the ambiguous nature of the defining what images are intended for children or what images 'glamorize' alcohol consumptions: "... this is not surprising since many advertisements are of high production value and use a combination of fast action, popular music, provocative imagery and humor" [Giesbrech & Greenfield, 2003, p. 66]. Moreover, however much there are curbs on the content of advertising, data has shown that alcohol advertising continues to have a positive influence on both youth and children and this is measured both in terms of behavior but also on their ability to recall advertisements that they have viewed in the past which are particular to alcohol [Lieberman & Orland, 1987, p. 36]. Further, where complete bans on alcohol advertising have been implemented, there have been no known impacts or consequences [Ogborne & Smart, 1980, p. 295] Measured in terms of changing beliefs or perceptions, it can be said that public relations and media campaigns have been relatively successful. These include the counter-advertising or public awareness campaigns, but also the warning labels that are affixed to alcohol beverages [Greenfield & Zimmerman, 1993, p. 21-2]. By 'measure' it is implied in terms of how the general public views the problem and seriousness of DUI. That is, as opposed to a measurable impact in terms of changed behavior patterns surrounding DUI. However, whether this has a direct impact on behavior patterns surrounding DUI, remains ambiguous. Some studies suggest that there is a known impact by counter-advertising and public awareness campaigns while other studies show that it is difficult to adequately establish whether or not there is any effect. Again, this is a problem of correlation versus cause. There is an increase in perception of the problem, but it is difficult to establish whether greater awareness has an impact on behavior -- and, again, a measurable one or one that is unequivocally understood -- the problem remains ambiguous as far as one comprehensive literature review on the topic maintains [Smart, 1988, p. 319]. CONCLUSIONS: Deterrence is a difficult problem as there will seemingly always be individuals who break laws. Putting a stop sign in place or a speed limit, creating laws that regulate traffic, and having a means of enforcing those laws does not prevent individuals from speeding or running stop signs. Likewise, one of the long standing justifications for the use of capital punishment has been an argument that says that the existence of this is a deterrence. However, the best and most comprehensive studies on the relationship of capital punishment alongside murder rates, suggests that there is absolutely no determining success of capital punishment. Indeed, in the developed world, the USA is the only nation to still have capital punishment, and it is the nation with the largest and most overwhelmingly large murder rate [Kronenwetter, 2001, p. 30]. That fact alone should be sufficient to suggest that deterrence is pretty ambiguous both in terms of its value, but also in terms of how it is measured. Keeping with what was said about about 'correlation' versus 'causal' relations, the issue of murder rates is also mitigated by the fact that the USA also has the most lax gun laws world-wide or in the developed world and also the highest prevalence of guns at the very same time. It might seem rather melodramatic, manipulative or simply off-topic to raise an analogy with capital punishment, however, it stands as a solid example of deterrence overall in relation to the law. And, the same is being argued for present purposes in regard to many of the legal changes that have transpired over the last number of years. This discussion has pointed to a variety of changes to the law that have increased the amount of legislation covering DUI -- that is, from establishing clear protocols and levels for blood/alcohol percentages to more severe punitive measures for offenders, and more so, for repeat offenders. And, legal measures that include legislation and regulations prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors and the laws governing the advertising industry and their respective campaigns such that they do not appeal to minors in any measurable sense. However, none of these measures can be said to have a sole or isolated impact. While it is the case that DUI has declined over the years, and it is the case that the public awareness of the problem has also increased, the decrease is not entirely very significant and likewise, greater awareness does not necessarily equal lower incidents. While there was a decrease in the number of DUI cases from the 1980's onward, at the same time, the decrease leveled off by the 1990's. What has been argued in this analysis is that there a number of correlations that have to be posited and understood in order for there to be clearer understanding of the potential ways in which to curb the problem of DUI. It cannot be said that any one measure has had a definitive impact, precisely because none of the measures discussed in this analysis has been historically isolated from other measures. For example, it was noted above that while some see the introduction of seat belt laws as having an influence on the fatalities caused by DUI, other scholars have argued that the very same phenomenon has had a negligible or insignificant impact. At the same time, to argue that one cannot isolate any single law and its impact in terms of deterrence, is also not to say that it is not having an impact either. One of the most significant laws that has had an impact is the Minimum Drinking Age and likewise, full scale prohibition. Both can unquestionably said to act as deterrence, and if some laws can unquestionably said to have an impact, the potential exists for other laws to likewise have some form of an impact. This said, it has to be concluded that laws have a correlative impact on deterring DUI. While it cannot be argued with any conclusive evidence (except minimum drinking age and prohibition) that supports the claim that the law has a deterring effect, it can also be said that there are a number of variables that correlate with the decline in DUI offenses in the US. This suggests that this is not necessarily a relation that will never be better defined, rather, it suggests that there is unquestionably more room for research on the question. REFERENCES: Barth, S.C., Hayes, D.K. & Ninemeier, J.D. (2001). Restaurant Law Basics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Chambliss, W.J. (2011). Courts, Law, and Justice. USA: SAGE. Cook, P.J. & Moore, M.J. (1994). This tax’s for you: the case for higher beer taxes. National Tax Journal, 47, 559–573. Evans, W.N., Neville, D., & Graham, J.D. (1991). General Deterrence of Drunk Driving: Evaluation of Recent American Policies. Risk Analysis, 11, 279-289. Fell, J.C., & Lacey, J.H. (2011). An assessment of Maryland’s driving under the influence laws. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 3(2). Giesbrecht, N. & Greenfield, T.K. (2003). Preventing alcohol-related problems in the US through policy: Media campaigns, regulatory approaches and environmental interventions, The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 63–104. Green?eld, T.K. & Zimmerman, R. (1993) (Eds.) CSAP Prevention Monograph - 14: Second International Research Symposium on Experiences with Community Action Projects for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems. Washington: Department of Health and Human Services. Horvath, A., Villafranco, J., & Calkins, S. (2009). Consumer Protection Law Developments. Chicago: American Bar Association. Jacobs, J.B. (1989). Drunk Driving: An American Dilemma. USA: University of Chicago Press. Kothari, C.R. (2008). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. Second Edition. New Delhi: New Age Publishers. Kronenwetter, M. (2001). Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Lieberman, L.R. & Orlandi, M.A. (1987). Alcohol advertising and adolescent drinking. Special Focus: The economics of alcohol abuse. Alcohol, Health and Research World, 12, 30–43. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006). Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, US Department of Transportation, Washington DC. Retrieved August 22, 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/Countermeasures/index.htm. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Fatality Analysis Reporting System. US Department of Transportation, Washington DC. Retrieved August 22, 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS. Ogborne, A., & Smart, R. (1980). Will restrictions on alcohol advertising reduce consumption? British Journal of Addiction, 75, 293–296. Ryan, G.H. (1993). Dui Fact Book: Drinking & Driving Can Tear Your Life Apart. USA: DIANE Publishing. Smart, R. G. (1988). Does alcohol advertising affect overall consumption? A review of empirical studies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 49, 314–323. Taylor, L. & Oberman, S. (2006). Drunk Driving Defense. Sixth Edition. New York: Aspen Publishers. Traynor, T.L. (2009). The impact of state level behavioral regulations on traffic fatality rates. Journal of Safety Research, 40(6), pp. 421-426. Wagenaar, A.C. & Maldonado-Molina, M.M. (2007). Effects of Drivers License Suspension Policies on Alcohol Related Crash Involvement: Long-Term Follow-up in Forty Six States. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 31, 1399-1406. Webster, J.M., Pimentel, J.H., & Clark, D.B. (2008). Characteristics of DUI offenders convicted in wet, dry, and moist counties. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(3), 976-982. APPENDICES. APPENDIX A: General Statistics. The following are taken from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (2011) website. The sources for the M.A.D.D facts are cited alongside each. (see: http://www.madd.org) This year, 10,839 people will die in drunk-driving crashes - one every 50 minutes. (NHTSA, 2009) Full cite: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. ?2008 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment ? Highlights? DOT 811 172. Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.pdf An average drunk driver has driven drunk 87 times before first arrest. (Zador, 1997) Full cite: Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore, ?Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,? Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997. Drunk driving costs each adult in this country almost $500 per year. (Taylor, et al 2002) Full cite: Taylor, Dexter; Miller, Ted; and Cox, Kenya. ?Impaired Driving in the United States Cost Fact Sheets.? Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/impaired_driving_pg2/US.htm One in three people will be involved in an alcohol-related crash in their lifetime. (NHTSA, 2001; NHTSA FARS data) Full cite: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. ?The Traffic Stop and You: Improving Communications between Citizens and Law Enforcement.? National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, March 2001, DOT HS 809 212. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/Traffic%20Stop%20&%20You%20HTML/TrafficStop_index.htm 50 to 75% of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license. (Peck, et al, 1995 and Beck et al, 1999) Full Cites: Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. ?Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.? Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49. and Beck, KH, et al. ?Effects of Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Drivers with Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A Randomized Trial in Maryland.? American Journal of Public Health, 89 vol. 11 (1999): 1696-1700. APPENDIX B Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Fatality Analysis Reporting System. US Department of Transportation, Washington DC. Retrieved August 22, 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS. Read More