Limited Jurisdiction Courts: Their Place in a National DUI Deterrence Strategy

• NCJ Number: 137126
• Journal: Alcohol, Drugs and Driving Volume: 8 Issue: 1 Dated: (January-March 1992) Pages: 33-49
• Author(s): F M Russillo
• Date Published: 1992
• Length: 17 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Paper presented at an International Symposium on Problems with DWI Arrests, Convictions, and Sentencing, 1991, Santa Monica, California

Annotation

Current evidence of the impact of substance abuse and the DUI (driving under the influence) offender on the criminal justice system is summarized with particular emphasis on limited jurisdiction courts and the limitations of these courts in terms of existing deterrence system deficiencies in system support, adjudication, education, and treatment, are discussed.

Abstract

The National Institute on Drug Abuse indicates that 15 percent of working Americans suffer from some form of drug or substance abuse problem including alcohol. The 1984 crime-related economic costs of drug abuse were estimated at $13.3 billion; costs of alcohol abuse were estimated at $4.3 billion. The single offense category of DUI accounts for about 2 million arrests per year, more than the figure for any other single offense for which national data are available. DUI offenders present an increasing correctional burden; they represent approximately 7 percent of the current jail population and constitute the largest single category of probationers. Arrests for DUI increased by 223 percent between 1970 and 1986. In contrast, the percentage of licensed drivers increased by only 42 percent during the same period. National strategies to deter the substance-abusing driver include Alcohol Safety Action Programs (ASAP) initiated in the early 1970's and the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving appointed in 1982. Limited jurisdiction courts play an important role in any national deterrence strategy. Their role, however, is tempered by limitations in funding, functions, and institutional resources. These limitations must be acknowledged and addressed within a true systems approach that begins with State-level efforts to design a countermeasure system incorporating system support, adjudication (mandatory sentencing, speedy trials, presentence reports, and probation services), education, and treatment. Recommendations to improve the judicial system's response to DUI offenders are offered. 50 references