NCJ Number
161419
Journal
Alcohol, Drugs and Driving Volume: 8 Issue: 1 Dated: (January-March 1992) Pages: 17-31
Date Published
1992
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This paper discusses the commonalities and differences between two approaches to the process of adjudicating DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) offenses.
Abstract
Court Monitoring activities and No-Plea Bargaining laws are two efforts designed to affect the process of adjudicating DWI offenses. Both focus on consistent application of DWI laws and penalties. However, to achieve the ultimate goal, reducing accidents involving DWI, they must also affect police enforcement and normative driver behavior. This paper discusses the commonalities and differences between the two approaches, the difficulties inherent in the scientific assessment of their benefits, available data on their impact, and their potential benefits for reducing the number of DWI incidents. The few studies that have evaluated No-Plea Bargaining Laws (NPBL) indicate that they are effective in actually reducing plea bargaining. However, because NPBLs are always a part of other related laws all designed to deter DWI, it is difficult to attribute any other effects specifically to the NPBLs. Other effects such as increase in case loads, number of DWI arrests, and sanctions have not been consistently demonstrated. One finding, reduction in recidivism, suggests that drivers affected by the change in the law are less likely to reappear as repeat offenders. The deterrent effect of NPBLs on DWI has neither theoretical nor empirical support. The impact of monitoring and NPBLs on the more critical measures of driver behavior (i.e., DWI) and alcohol-related accidents remains to be demonstrated. Tables, figures, references