Background
In 1986, the state of California was experiencing a significant increase in the number of driving under the influence, or DUI, arrests. There were over 300,000 arrests for driving under the influence in 1982 and traffic deaths caused by these offenders were also on the rise. Another critical issue is that those convicted of DUIs were ultimately becoming repeat offenders. According to the text, “approximately one in three convicted DUI offenders in California had a prior record for the offense” (Haas and Springer, 1998). This was the main drive behind conducting this study, to determine whether or not the implementation of an ignition interlock system would reduce this surge in recidivism.
The installation and utilization of ignition interlock devices were fairly new concepts at the time of this case. The installation of this mechanism would prevent the offender’s car from starting if a certain level of blood alcohol count was detected; that is when the offender used the device properly.
Because of this noticeable rise in these types of crimes and also repeated convictions in the state, the Farr-Davis Safety Act of 1986 was passed. This law initiated a pilot program that would test the ignition interlock systems. California was the first state to explore use of this device
…show more content…
It can be deduced that this agency had the most at stake in this case. OTS was responsible for gathering information and conducting the experiment. From the perspective of OTS, the program evaluation produced affirmative results overall. Though the outcomes were a bit hazy and ambiguous, as mentioned previously, this evaluation essentially helped to pave the way for legislation being passed. This legislation would sanction interlock devices as a secondary DUI penalty for the state. With that said, one must not overlook the fact that the pilot program had its
This case involves the suspect being arrested for driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages in violation of CVC 23153(a)-DUI.
DAlessio, S; Stolzenberg, L., and Terry, W. Clinton III (1999). Eyes on the Street: The Impact of Tennessees Emergency Cellular Telephone Program on Alcohol related Fatal Crashes. Crime and Delinquency, 45(4): 453- 466
Kanable, Rebecca. "Driving home a message: DUI is a serious crime, and prevention and enforcement efforts need improvement." Law Enforcement Technology May 2005: 18+. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
Officially known as Habitual offender laws; “Three Strikes” laws have become common place in 29 states(Chern) within the United States and the Federal Court system; these laws have been designed to counter criminal recidivism by incapacitation through the prison system. The idea behind the laws were to maximize the criminal justice systems deterrent and selective incapacitation effect, under this deterrence theory individuals would be dissuaded from committing criminal activity by the threat of state imposed incarceration. Californians voted in the “three strikes” law (proposition 184) on March 7 1994 by a 72% vote with the intention of reducing crime by targeting serious repeat offenders with long term incarceration thereby eliminating the ability to commit another offense.
The facts are plain and simple, that alcohol and driving do not mix. About three in every ten Americans will be involved in an alcohol related crash at some time in their lives. Every single injury and death caused by drunk driving is totally preventable. To curb this national travesty, concerned Americans need to examine the problems, the effects, and the solutions to drunk driving. First of all, America has had a problem with drunk driving since Ford perfected the assembly line. Alcoholism is a problem in and of itself, but combined with driving can have a wide range of effects. The consequences of this reckless behavior can include a first time DUI or licenses suspension; a small fender bender, or worst of all a deadly crash. Most drivers that have only one or two drinks feel fine, and assume they are in control, which is irresponsible and dangerous. Alcohol is a depressant that slows down the body's ability to react and impairs judgment. To drive well, you need to be able to have a quick reaction time to avoid accidents. Unfortunately, people continue to drink and drive. However,...
Interlocks have been found to be very effective in reducing repeated or habitual relapse amongst offenders with an average of 3.5 convictions (That is a 65% reduction in this group, with a year's interlock program) this was found in a study by The University of Maryland.
Today there is a growing awareness of repeat offenders among society in reference to crime. Starting around 1980 there was noticeable increase in crime rates in the U.S.. In many of these cases it was noted that these individuals were in fact repeat offenders. So, on March 7, 1994 California enacted the Three-Strikes and You’re Out Law. This laws and other laws like it are currently being utilized today all around the Untied States. This law was first backed by victim’s rights advocates in the state to target habitual offenders. The reason California holds the most importance on this law is due to the fact that it has the largest criminal justice system in America, and it has the most controversy surrounding this law in particular.(Auerhahn, p.55)
Drunk driving has been an increasing problem for many years. One issue that contributes to this is that in the United States it is actually legal to drive with a certain alcohol percentage. The blood alcohol limit is 0.8 percent (Drunk Driving). This means that a person may drive legally as long as they have a blood alcohol percentage of 0.8 percent or under. However, even at a percentage of 0.3 there may be some impairment of alertness and concentration (Drunk Driving). Driving requires fast reflexes that may be impaired at a 0.5 percent blood alcohol level but a person with this level of intoxication is not legally drinking and driving. Many people are arrested for drunk driving. In 2009, more than 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving while under the influence (Drunk Driving). In addition, “an average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before their first arrest” (Get Involved). Therefore, there were a minimum of 112 million accounts of drunk driving in 2009 alone. Drunk drivers also cause an increasing number of deaths. Drunk drivers in the United States c...
Yu, J. (1994). Punishment celerity and severity: Testing a specific deterrence model on drunk driving recidivism. . Journal of Criminal Justice , 22, 355-366.
The first step in preventing DUIs is to prevent an intoxicated individual from driving. It is not always possible to prevent an individual from driving while intoxicated but various measures have been implemented to deter an individual who has been previously charged with a DUI to re-offend. The ignition interlock device is one such technology that is most widely used for deterring repeat DUI offenders. The ignition interlock device works by preventing the car from starting if the minimum BAC level in the breath of the driver is detected.
Main Point I: I’d like to start off by talking about the penalties of drinking and driving. Did you know that drunk driving is the nation’s most frequently committed violent crime? A chronic drunk driver is a person who has driven over 1,000 times before being caught. They do not respond to social pressures, law enforcement, and the messages that have been combined to reform the drinking and driving behavior of our society.
Driving under the influence is extremely dangerous. Those who drink and drive tend to have an increased risk of car accidents, highway injuries, and vehicular fatalities. However, there are countless ways to prevent drunk driving. Professor David J. Hanson at the sociology department at the State University of New York states that “designated drivers have saved nearly 50,000 lives and spared many more thousands of people from suffering injury from drunk driving. It is a proven fact that almost 30 people in the US die every day in a motor vehicle accident involving a driver impaired by alcohol.” Every accident caused by drunk driving is one hundred percent preventable.
...equiring ignition interlocks for every DUI offender. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, interlocks lower the re-arrest rate of drunken drivers by two-thirds. Actually, drivers with ignition interlocks have less alcoholic accidents than those who are punished by suspending their license. Some states have great success with interlocks already. After authorizing strict interlock laws in 2007, Arizona and Louisiana both cut drunken driving deaths by more than 36% in only four years. In a free society, it is too hard to try to reach zero carries. At least, it is clear that we will not see a large-scale push for DUI law reform in the near future. The fatality made by drunk driving will never be root out, but the government could prevent more suffering by using strategy already proven to work instead of making other laws that is not worth at all.
Once an individual makes the decision to get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol they are not only putting themselves at risk but the lives of other people on the road. After reviewing the Annual Report of the California DUI Management I was astonished to find that in 2008 there were a total of 214,811 DUI arrests (Annual Report). Of those 214,811 arrests I was sickened to find that 38,266 of the drivers were a second-offender (Annual Report). This means that these individuals have had one DUI arrest within the previous ten years. It is disheartening for me to discover that 26.4% of the reported 214,811 arrests are due to individuals who were second to fourth-offenders.
In addition, alcohol-related traffic accidents not only cause high death rates, but they cost society % 45 billion annually in hospital costs, rehabilitation expenses, and lost productivity (NHTSA 3). It also affects traffic safety, in that the amount of arrests of intoxicated drivers prevents the police from arresting other traffic violators. In 1995 more than 1.4 million people were arrested for driving under the influence, this totaled 10 percent of all arrests made in that year (Hingson 1).