Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Crim Justice. 2011 MARCH-APRIL;39(2):137–142. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.01.001

First-time DWI offenders are at risk of recidivating regardless of sanctions imposed

Eileen M Ahlin a,*, Paul L Zador a, William J Rauch a,b, Jan M Howard a, G Doug Duncan a
PMCID: PMC3095888  NIHMSID: NIHMS265653  PMID: 21603059

Abstract

Objective

Research demonstrates that punitive approaches to DWI employed by the judiciary have failed to significantly reduce recidivism. However, little is known about the deterrent effects of administrative and diversion sanctions. We examine whether such sanctions deter first-time DWI offenders.

Methods

We grouped combinations of administrative, judicial, and diversion sanctions routinely employed in the state of Maryland for processing drivers arrested for DWI into one of eight mutually exclusive disposition sequences. We applied this classification to Maryland drivers who had been licensed in the state and had precisely one DWI on their record prior to January 1, 1999. We then used a proportional hazards model to estimate the probability of remaining free of a new DWI during a 6-year period (January 1, 1999 – December 31, 2004) as a function of the disposition of the index violation, and of selected factors that could affect that probability.

Results

Drivers with a prior DWI were at relatively high risk of recidivating regardless of how they were sanctioned. Those who received administrative and alternative sanctions had a risk of recidivating similar to that of drivers who were convicted.

Conclusion

All dispositions sequences, not just convictions, indicate that first-time DWI offenders are at high risk of recidivating.

Keywords: DWI, alcohol, recidivism, first offenders, arrest

In 2008 there were about 1.48 million arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2009).1 Two mechanisms exist for sanctioning these DWI2 offenders: administrative penalties through a state Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) or Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and criminal sanctions through the judiciary.

Administrative penalties are generally the initial procedures used to sanction alcohol-impaired drivers and hold them accountable for failing or refusing a breath alcohol test. Administrative statutes expedite license sanctions for alcohol-related traffic violations, thereby promoting swiftness of sanctions, an essential element of deterrence theory (Beccaria, 1764/1963). Instead of waiting for courts to schedule a case, hear it, and consider criminal charges against alcohol-impaired drivers, a process that can take years, administrative per se regulations allow for the immediate suspension or revocation of a driver’s license in the interest of public safety (McArthur & Kraus, 1999; Wagenaar & Maldonado-Molina, 2007).

In addition to administrative processing and sanctioning, drivers may face criminal charges through the judicial system. At roadside, law enforcement officials may criminally charge drivers with violating a variety of alcohol-impaired driving laws (e.g., driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence). These drivers may then be prosecuted criminally which may lead to dismissal, conviction, or a diversion program (e.g., probation).

As of 2006, thirty-three states had explicit laws authorizing the use of diversion programs for DWI offenders (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009). Probation is the most prevalent form of sentencing in the United States for crimes in general (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997), and at the end of 2008, 13.6 percent3 (N=308,258) of adults granted probation for various crimes were placed on probation as a result of driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009).

The state of Maryland uses all three mechanisms to sanction DWI offenders. An alcohol-related traffic violation may result in administrative penalties, criminal penalties, and under certain conditions, an offender may be placed on probation before judgment (PBJ) following a conviction or a plea of nolo contendere.

Administrative sanctions in Maryland are handled by the MVA. Administrative per se at .10g/dL BAC became law in Maryland on January 1, 1990, and the limit was reduced to .08g/dL BAC on October 1, 2001. Drivers who fail the breath test in Maryland have their licenses suspended immediately (45 days for a first offense and 90 days for a second or subsequent offense). Those who refuse the breath test also have their licenses suspended immediately (120 days for a first offense and one year for a second or subsequent offense). Drivers who fail or refuse the breath test may request an administrative hearing and at this time, the Administrative Law Judge may dismiss the license suspension if the driver enrolls in the ignition interlock license restriction program for at least one year.

Criminal sanctions for DWI in Maryland are handled by the judiciary. Drivers criminally charged with an alcohol-related traffic offense may be prosecuted for driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of alcohol per se, or driving while impaired by alcohol. Criminal penalties for alcohol-impaired driving in Maryland include fines, jail, and community service (Zwicker, Hedlund, & Northrup, 2005). In addition, drivers may be further sanctioned administratively by the MVA for criminal convictions resulting from DWI. Drivers criminally charged with DWI may receive the same administrative penalties used for failing or refusing the breath alcohol test (i.e., license suspension, license revocation, or an ignition interlock license restriction).

Maryland’s diversion program for alcohol-impaired drivers (i.e., PBJ) allows a driver to plead guilty or nolo contendere, or to be found guilty in a criminal proceeding but have judgment stayed pending completion of a probationary period. Conditions of probation may include participation in treatment, an alcohol education program, self-help groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous), and/or the ignition interlock license restriction program. Drivers who violate the terms of probation (including having another alcohol-related offense) may have the original charge reinstated and be further prosecuted for violating probation.

Scholars have examined which types of sanctions are more likely to reduce recidivism and have found that punitive approaches such as conviction or jail do not significantly deter future incidents of DWI (Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Wheeler & Hissong, 1988; Yu, 2000). Consistent with deterrence theory (Beccaria, 1764/1963), swift license sanctions such as suspension and revocation have been shown to reduce DWI recidivism (Ross, 1991; Yu, 1994; but see Yu, 2000), and less punitive, treatment-based sanctions can also reduce recidivism among drivers with an alcohol disorder (Taxman & Piquero, 1998) and those with a prior offense (Pratt, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2000; Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Yu, 2000; but see Bouffard, Richardson, & Franklin, 2010; MacDonald, Morral, Raymond, & Eibner, 2007). Yet, two questions remain largely unexplored – whether DWI offenders have differential recidivism rates based on how their case is processed through the criminal justice and administrative systems and whether the disposition sequence of their sanctions affects recidivism.

Current Research

In processing and sentencing DWI offenders, Maryland, like other states, distinguishes among drivers in terms of their number of prior alcohol-related traffic violations (priors). Offenders with no history of prior violations are termed “first offenders”. Throughout the United States, first offenders are often viewed by the state legislative and judicial branches of government as social drinkers who have only driven alcohol-impaired once (and been caught). This belief is contrary to published empirical estimates that a driver can drive alcohol-impaired 200 to 2,000 times before being arrested even once for DWI (Anda, Remington, & Williamson, 1986; Beitel, Sharp, & Glauz, 1975; Borkenstein, 1974; Hingson, 1995; Voas & Hause, 1987). Moreover, some arrested and/or convicted drivers manage to have their records completely expunged under certain conditions, and many state MVA offices routinely purge driving records after a set number of years. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the typical so-called first offender will have had an extensive history of alcohol-impaired driving by the time his or her violation is recorded in MVA’s record system.

The perceived leniency with which state legislative and judicial systems handle so-called first offenders, the low probability of arrest for alcohol-impaired driving, and the practice of expunging and/or purging driver records warrants a closer look at the sanctions DWI offenders receive, the sequence of these administrative, criminal, and probationary sanctions, and the impact this “disposition sequence” may have on reducing future alcohol-impaired driving. This study examines recidivism among first-time DWI offenders in Maryland who have been processed by the criminal and/or administrative systems, and compares their recidivism to first offenses among drivers who had no previous alcohol-related traffic violations.

Methods

To gain a better understanding of the effects of disposition sequence and a prior alcohol-related violation on subsequent drinking and driving behavior, we considered all possible combinations of administrative, criminal, and/or diversion (PBJ) sanctions through which a DWI offense can be channeled. A disposition sequence is the chronological occurrence of administrative, judicial, and/or diversion sanctions. Depending on how an offender is apprehended and processed through the administrative and criminal systems, there are eight possible disposition sequences in Maryland (Table 1).

Table 1.

Disposition sequences for DWI offenses in Maryland

Disposition sequence Definition
APS failure Breath alcohol test ≥ .08/.10, not convicted
APS failure, conviction Breath alcohol test ≥ .08/.10, convicted
APS failure, conviction, PBJ Breath alcohol test ≥ .08/.10, convicted, received PBJ
APS refusal Refused breath alcohol test, not convicted
APS refusal, conviction Refused breath alcohol test, convicted
APS refusal, conviction, PBJ Refused breath alcohol test, convicted, received PBJ
DWI conviction Breath alcohol test not administered, convicted
DWI conviction, PBJ Breath alcohol test not administered, convicted, received PBJ
Open in a new tab

Note. The administrative per se (APS) alcohol level in Maryland was reduced from .10g/dL to .08g/dL on October 1, 2001

All data were provided by the Maryland MVA after confidentiality was guaranteed. The focal time period for new violations was the six-year period from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2004. The number of drivers in Maryland increased during this time period from about 3.3 million drivers in 1999 to about 4.0 million drivers in 2004. Drivers who had moved from the state were excluded. Records were also removed if the license had expired at least 6 months before December 31, 2004.

Drivers were categorized as first offenders if they had a single DWI violation between 19734 and 1999 or as non-offenders if they did not have any recorded DWI during this time period. For many first offenders, multiple APS, conviction, and PBJ records were found for the same date of a DWI, and these duplicates were removed from the database. We then consolidated all dispositions associated with the same violation date into one of the eight mutually exclusive disposition sequences. Drivers without a DWI were placed in the control group. More than 100 million driver records from 1973 to 2004 were screened for evidence of DWI violations, and about 22 million driver records for the study period 1999–2004 were extracted.

The current research is based on a May 21, 2006 extract from the Maryland driver record database. It can take 18 months or more for cases to work their way through the administrative and judicial systems and reach a final adjudication (Rauch, Zador, Ahlin, Duncan, & Joyce, 2005). The advantage of limiting violations to those that occurred prior to 2005 instead of extending the study period to match available data is that virtually all offenses would have been processed, adjudicated, and reached a final disposition by the date of the extract.

Analytic Strategy

We used proportional hazards models (Kalbfleisch & Prentice, 1980; SAS Institute, 1996) to estimate the probability that drivers in the study pool remained free of a subsequent DWI during the study period. We measured each driver’s survival time in days from January 1, 1999 until the driver’s second violation (for first offenders) or first violation (for drivers in the control group). Survival was measured without replacement; drivers with a violation during the study period were censored at the date of that violation. Drivers without a violation during the study period were censored at the end of the study period or date of death, whichever came first. Analyses were stratified on driver age.

Predictor variables in the model included gender (male) and the number of days since the initial date of the driver’s inclusion in the risk set. As noted earlier, we identified eight mutually exclusive disposition sequences, and for each first offender, we determined the one that was applicable. The disposition sequence was then entered into the proportional hazards models as a set of eight covariates of which the covariate associated with the actual disposition was set to the value of 1, and the remaining seven set to 0. For drivers with no-priors, all eight covariates were set to 0.

Results

Table 2 displays by year the count of drivers with one prior DWI by the disposition sequence of that prior violation.5 Among the 194,671 Maryland drivers in 2004 who had one prior, 63,723 (33 percent) had initially failed an administrative per se (APS) breath alcohol test, 37,764 (19 percent) had refused an APS breath alcohol test, and 93,184 (48 percent) had been convicted with no prior APS involvement. As the final disposition, 11,217 (6 percent) and 10,283 (5 percent) drivers, respectively, failed or refused the breath alcohol test but were handled only through APS procedures and were not convicted, 62,351 (32 percent) were convicted without PBJ, and 110,820 (57 percent) drivers were convicted but received PBJ.

Table 2.

Number of drivers with one prior DWI by disposition sequence by year

Disposition sequence Year
Initial Final 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 All
APS failure APS failure 7,367 8,057 8,810 9,594 10,377 11,217 55,422
Conviction 5,711 5,969 6,223 6,608 6,963 7,335 38,809
PBJ 28,361 31,492 34,469 37,835 41,281 45,171 218,609
All 41,439 45,518 49,502 54,037 58,621 63,723 312,840
APS refusal APS refusal 7,758 8,216 8,742 9,280 9,751 10,283 54,030
Conviction 10,571 10,673 10,778 10,919 11,051 11,191 65,183
PBJ 12,011 12,806 13,633 14,435 15,318 16,290 84,493
All 30,340 31,695 33,153 34,634 36,120 37,764 203,706
Conviction Conviction 42,582 42,851 43,086 43,263 43,492 43,825 259,099
PBJ 45,405 46,375 47,408 48,133 48,734 49,359 285,414
All 87,987 89,226 90,494 91,396 92,226 93,184 544,513
All APS failure 7,367 8,057 8,810 9,594 10,377 11,217 55,422
APS refusal 7,758 8,216 8,742 9,280 9,751 10,283 54,030
Conviction 58,864 59,493 60,087 60,790 61,506 62,351 363,091
PBJ 85,777 90,673 95,510 100,403 105,333 110,820 588,516
All 159,766 166,439 173,149 180,067 186,967 194,671 1,061,059
Open in a new tab

Note. Disposition sequence displayed is for the prior DWI offense. The “All” column represents the sum of the number of drivers at risk for a new DWI in each of the six years.

Table 3 displays by year the number of new DWIs by drivers with one prior violation, classified by the disposition sequence of that previous violation. Among the 4,306 arrests of drivers having their second offense in 2004 that resulted in a disposition, 2,126 had previously failed an APS breath alcohol test, 844 had previously refused an APS breath alcohol test, and 1,336 had been convicted with no previous APS involvement. As the final disposition of their previous violation, 360 (8 percent) had only been treated administratively, without a conviction, for failing the APS breath alcohol test, 219 (5 percent) had only been treated administratively for refusing the breath test, 954 (22 percent) had previously been convicted without a PBJ, and 2,773 (64 percent) had previously been convicted with a PBJ.6

Table 3.

Number of new DWIs for drivers with one prior DWI by disposition sequence by year

Disposition sequence Year
Initial Final 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 All
APS failure APS failure 301 299 307 327 350 360 1,944
Conviction 321 291 276 278 277 291 1,734
PBJ 1,204 1,267 1,193 1,304 1,393 1,475 7,836
All 1,826 1,857 1,776 1,909 2,020 2,126 11,514
APS refusal APS refusal 199 171 187 227 196 219 1,199
Conviction 227 212 188 172 172 188 1,159
PBJ 375 385 381 356 371 437 2,305
All 801 768 756 755 739 844 4,663
Conviction Conviction 777 742 654 615 510 475 3,773
PBJ 1,075 1,074 954 966 898 861 5,828
All 1,852 1,816 1,608 1,581 1,408 1,336 9,601
All APS failure 301 299 307 327 350 360 1,944
APS refusal 199 171 187 227 196 219 1,199
Conviction 1,325 1,245 1,118 1,065 959 954 6,666
PBJ 2,654 2,726 2,528 2,626 2,662 2,773 15,969
All 4,479 4,441 4,140 4,245 4,167 4,306 25,778
Open in a new tab

Note. Disposition sequence displayed is for the prior DWI offense

In Table 4, we compare for each year the recidivism rates of those drivers who had one DWI classified by the initial and final disposition of that previous violation. The annual recidivism rate, which averaged .024 violations per driver during the period 1999–2004, varied over time and by the initial and final disposition of the earlier violation. The recidivism rate decreased over time from .028 in 1999 to .022 in 2004, and this downward trend was true for each of the VDCs. No adjustments for age and gender were made for the rates appearing in Table 4.

Table 4.

Rate of recidivism by year for drivers with one prior DWI by initial and final disposition of the first offense

Disposition sequence Year
Initial Final 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 All
APS failure APS failure .041 .037 .035 .034 .034 .032 .035
Conviction .056 .049 .044 .042 .040 .040 .045
PBJ .042 .040 .035 .034 .034 .033 .036
All .044 .041 .036 .035 .034 .033 .037
APS refusal APS refusal .026 .021 .021 .024 .020 .021 .022
Conviction .021 .020 .017 .016 .016 .017 .018
PBJ .031 .030 .028 .025 .024 .027 .027
All .026 .024 .023 .022 .020 .022 .023
Conviction Conviction .018 .017 .015 .014 .012 .011 .015
PBJ .024 .023 .020 .020 .018 .017 .020
All .021 .020 .018 .017 .015 .014 .018
All APS failure .041 .037 .035 .034 .034 .032 .035
APS refusal .026 .021 .021 .024 .020 .021 .022
Conviction .023 .021 .019 .018 .016 .015 .018
PBJ .031 .030 .026 .026 .025 .025 .027
All .028 .027 .024 .024 .022 .022 .024
Open in a new tab

In 2004, the most recent year, the recidivism rate for DWIs varied in terms of the driver’s final disposition of his or her previous violation as follows. The recidivism rate was .032 among drivers who initially failed an APS breath alcohol test but were not convicted, .021 among drivers who refused the breath alcohol test but were not convicted, .015 among drivers who were convicted and did not receive a diversion program (PBJ), and .025 among drivers who were convicted but did receive a PBJ as the final disposition.

These results appear to indicate that conviction without PBJ is a strong deterrent against future recidivism. However, the picture is more complicated because the final violation dispositions and their effects on recidivism also depend on the initial step of the disposition sequence. Among drivers who initially failed the APS breath alcohol test, those who were convicted without PBJ had the highest of all recidivism rates for 2004 (.040), compared to those who had not been convicted (.032) and those who were convicted with PBJ (.033). Among drivers who initially refused the breath test, those convicted without a PBJ had a recidivism rate of .017 violations per driver in 2004 compared to those who were not convicted (.021) and those convicted with a subsequent PBJ (.027). Among drivers with no APS involvement, those convicted without PBJ had the lowest of all the recidivism rates for 2004 (.011), and those convicted with a subsequent PBJ had a somewhat higher rate (.017).

Table 5 displays the estimated hazard ratios for recidivism among drivers with one prior DWI relative to drivers with no prior DWI, classified by the disposition sequence of the first offense. These hazard ratios ranged from 6.52 for breath test failure without conviction or PBJ to 9.89 for breath test refusal plus conviction without PBJ. Even the lowest 95% CI for any of the eight estimates was 6.07. Therefore, having even one prior DWI substantially and significantly increased the risk of a subsequent DWI regardless of how the previous violation was processed and disposed of -- administratively, judicially, or through a diversion program (i.e., PBJ).

Table 5.

Estimated hazard ratios of DWI recidivism for first offenders, relative to drivers with no prior DWI, by disposition sequence of the first offense

Disposition sequence Hazard ratios 95% CI
APS failure 6.52 [6.07, 6.99]
APS failure and conviction 8.52 [7.95, 9.14]
APS failure, conviction, and PBJ 8.73 [8.44, 9.04]
APS refusal 7.06 [6.49, 7.67]
APS refusal and conviction 9.89 [9.15, 10.69]
APS refusal, conviction, and PBJ 9.69 [9.14, 10.26]
Conviction 7.64 [7.24, 8.07]
Conviction and PBJ 7.92 [7.58, 8.29]
Open in a new tab

Note. CI=confidence interval

Figure 1 displays by year the probability of remaining free of a subsequent DWI for drivers with no such prior violation and for drivers with one such prior, differentiated by the disposition sequence of that previous offense. Compared to drivers with no priors, those with one prior have much steeper closely clustered declines in survival probabilities over the 6-year period, regardless of the disposition sequence of their previous violation. At the end of six years, the violation-free survival rates varied from approximately 78 percent for drivers whose prior violation resulted in a final disposition of breath test failure without conviction to approximately 67 percent for those whose prior violation resulted in a disposition of breath test refusal with conviction. Meanwhile, drivers with no prior DWI showed a survival rate of 96 percent at the end of six years. These survival curves were estimated for 35 year-old male drivers. However, the overall pattern of the survival probability curves is similar for other age groups, and for female drivers (figures not shown).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Survival analysis by year for drivers with no or one prior DWI violation by disposition sequence of that prior violation

Figure 2 displays for each year the relative risk of a new DWI among drivers with one such violation, compared to similar risks among drivers who had no priors, distinguished by the disposition sequence of the first violation. These results support the patterns identified in Table 5 and Figure 1 in showing that first offenders whose dispositions of that first violation involved breath test refusal with conviction had the highest relative risk of recidivism during the study period, whereas those whose disposition involved a breath test failure without conviction had the lowest relative risk. Over time, risk of a new DWI offense decreased for all disposition sequences (see Kurlychek, Brame, & Bushway, 2006).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Risk of a new DWI by year among drivers with one prior violation relative to drivers with no prior DWI, by disposition sequence of the prior violation

Discussion

Our findings indicate that prior DWI behavior is a useful predictor of future DWI behavior. This is consistent with extant criminological research which demonstrates the predictive utility of past offenses when determining future risk of offending (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Nagin & Paternoster, 1991; Paternoster, Dean, Piquero, Mazerolle, & Brame, 1997; Robins, 1966; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). What is novel about our findings is that all offenders with a prior DWI arrest are at a relatively high risk of recidivating, regardless of the type of sanction (administrative, conviction, or PBJ), or combination of sanctions, they receive. This suggests that the deterrent effects of both lenient sanctions (i.e., administrative, PBJ) and harsher sanctions (i.e., conviction) are low.

Theoretically, DWI offenders are sanctioned in terms of their likelihood of recidivism as perceived by those in authority. Offenders whose violations are disposed of without binding convictions (e.g., through APS failure or APS refusal alone or through PBJ) are traditionally believed to pose less risk for recidivism and future criminal involvement (see also Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Yu, 2000). Accordingly, they are frequently sentenced to rehabilitative sanctions such as probation (Yu, 2000). However, the results of this study suggest that regardless of how first-time DWI offenders are sanctioned, as groups they are at substantial risk of recidivating.

Limitations and Future Directions

Given these findings, what can be done to reduce recidivism among this population? Various reasons proposed to explain the high rates of recidivism among DWI offenders also suggest mechanisms for reducing this behavior. A frequent explanation is that these drivers are problem drinkers who either abuse or are dependent on alcohol and are in need of treatment (Taxman & Piquero, 1998), in conjunction with sanctions, before they can be expected to refrain from driving while impaired by alcohol (Yu, Evans, & Clark, 2006). Perrine (1990) contends that most first offenders are problem drinkers who are similar to multiple offenders but have not yet been caught for a second DWI.

Because a sizable proportion of first-time offenders may meet criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence (Cavaiola, Strohmetz, Wolf, & Lavender, 2003; Fine, Scoles, & Mulligan, 1975; Kramer, 1986; Lapham, C’de Baca, McMillan, & Lapidus, 2006; Perrine, 1990), one potential mechanism for reducing recidivism among first DWI offenders is to assess problem drinking behaviors by using effective screening scales and/or clinical evaluations (see Chang, Gregory, & Lapham, 2002). The results of these evaluations can then guide the length and intensity of sanctions and treatment based on offender needs and risk (see Andrews & Bonta, 2003; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration & National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2006).

Evidence-based technological sanctions such as ignition interlocks could supplement current sentencing practices and treatment as a means of reducing recidivism among DWI offenders. Ignition interlocks prevent a driver from operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol, thereby limiting a driver’s ability to commit the offense. Research indicates that ignition interlock license restrictions reduce recidivism among multiple DWI offenders (Beck, Rauch, Baker, & Williams, 1999; Rauch, Ahlin, Zador, Howard, & Duncan, 2011), and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is currently investigating the utility of statutes and laws mandating ignition interlocks for first-time DWI offenders.

Research shows that alcohol abuse and dependence problems may increase the risk of recidivism (Yu, 2000; Yu & Williford, 1993). Unfortunately, we did not have access to data on alcohol abuse and dependence among the first offenders in our study. Nor do we know whether sanctions for their initial arrest included alcohol-focused treatment, which has been shown to reduce recidivism among DWI offenders by 7 to 9 percent averaged across all offender and treatment types (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration & National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2006; Wells-Parker, Bangert-Drowns, McMillen, & Williams, 1995). Greater or lesser involvement in treatment may explain some of the differences in recidivism among the drivers in the eight disposition sequences. However, our sample of first offenders were at relatively high risk of recidivism both independently and compared to drivers who had no recorded arrest for DWI at baseline, regardless of how the violations of the first offenders were disposed of by Maryland’s administrative, judicial, and diversion systems.

Another limitation of our study is that we examined only official indices of alcohol-impaired driving and recidivism that do not take into account DWI events that go undetected by law enforcement. As noted, empirical studies indicate that a driver may drive alcohol-impaired many times before being arrested even once. Even if the Judge has access to the offender’s complete official history of alcohol-impaired driving, it is clear that criminal and administrative records do not adequately account for all instances of DWI and that such behavior is underestimated. This prevented our ability to determine whether the DWI offenders who did not have another DWI had in fact desisted (see Bushway, Piquero, Broidy, Cauffman, & Mazerolle, 2001).

Self-reported alcohol-impaired driving by the offender could provide the historical information necessary to make a more informed decision about the type of sanction that should be imposed. However, analyses using self-reports of alcohol-impaired driving can be less reliable than conviction data (Yu, 2000). Perhaps, a combination of official data and self-reports could provide a more complete history of criminal behavior (see Yu & Williford, 1993).

Conclusion

Close to 3 million people have died and approximately 100 million have been injured on roadways in the United States over the past 100 years, and a significant proportion of these fatalities and injuries involved alcohol (Sleet, Dinh-Zarr, & Dellinger, 2007). Results from this study showed that first-time DWI offenders have a high risk of recidivism, regardless of how they are processed through the criminal justice and administrative systems. Yet, appreciating that first offenders are at high risk of having a subsequent DWI is only a first step toward reducing that risk. Current procedures for handling offenders and the sanctions imposed for violating alcohol-impaired driving laws certainly deter some offenders from recidivating, but a significant problem remains.

A broad, all-inclusive definition of DWI may be more appropriate than focusing mainly on DWI convictions. Furthermore, additional strategies such as treatment and evidence-based technologies should be explored as a supplement to the weak deterrent effect of traditional administrative, judicial, and probation sentencing systems used for first-time DWI offenders. Assuming that the primary objective is to reduce recidivism, deterrence as a means to increase self-control may not be an appropriate goal for either first or multiple offenders. It has been suggested that “the focus of sentencing should shift from deterrence to incapacitation or separation of the offender from the vehicle” and that combinations of sanctions are more effective than any single sanction (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration & National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2006, p. i; see also Jones & Lacey, 2000). Therefore, rehabilitation through treatment and incapacitating a driver’s ability to drive after drinking through the use of an ignition interlock may be more realistic approaches to reducing recidivism among first-time DWI offenders.

As a condition of relicensure in Maryland, drivers may be required to enroll in treatment or alcohol-education programs or to participate in the ignition interlock license restriction program. However, the dataset provided by the MVA did not include data on these types of requirements for the drivers examined in this study. Nor did it include information on the specific penalties imposed such as fines, jail, and community service.

To more fully understand how dispositions of prior DWI violations impact rates of recidivism and violation-free survival, it will be necessary to identify and analyze the full range of sanctions and penalties imposed and their interactions. Such research would help unravel the effects of the specific VDCs we have identified and the remedies recommended by proponents of traffic safety.

Footnotes

1

FBI data cover approximately 97 percent of the population.

2

The abbreviation DWI is used throughout this article to denote any instance of alcohol-impaired driving (e.g., driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of alcohol per se, or driving while impaired by alcohol).

3

A total of 4,270,917 adults were on probation in 2008 and offense type was known for 2,263,614 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009).

4

Conviction counts in the database before 1973 were small, possibly due to administrative and/or procedural reasons; so disregarding alcohol-related violations prior to 1973 (26 or more years before the start of the study period) was unlikely to affect any of the estimates.

5

Drivers appearing in the count for 1999 also appear in the count for subsequent years; they are not mutually exclusive. The count for 1999 represents the number of drivers with one prior DWI between 1973 and 1999 by disposition sequence, and new first offenders are added to one of the eight disposition sequences each year.

6

Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Anda RF, Remington PL, Williamson DF. A sobering perspective on a lower blood alcohol limit, letter to the Editor. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1986;256:3213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beccaria C. On crimes and punishments. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1764/1963. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beck KH, Rauch WJ, Baker EA, Williams AF. Effects of ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses: A randomized trial in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health. 1999;89:1696–1700. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.11.1696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beitel GA, Sharp MC, Glauz WD. Probability of arrest while driving under the influence of alcohol. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1975;36:109–116. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1975.36.109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Borkenstein RF. Problems of enforcement, adjudication, and sanctioning. Paper presented at the Sixth International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety; Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 1974. Sep, [Google Scholar]
  7. Bouffard JA, Richardson KA, Franklin T. Drug courts for DWI offenders? The effectiveness of two hybrid drug courts on DWI offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2010;38:25–33. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Characteristics of adults on probation, 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Probation and parole in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bushway SD, Piquero AR, Broidy LM, Cauffman E, Mazerolle P. An empirical framework for studying desistance as a process. Criminology. 2001;39:491–516. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cavaiola AA, Strohmetz DB, Wolf JM, Lavender NJ. Comparison of DWI offenders with non-DWI individuals on the MMPI-2 and the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test. Addictive Behaviors. 2003;28:971–977. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4603(01)00291-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang I, Gregory C, Lapham SC. Review of screening instruments and procedures for evaluating DWI offenders. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  13. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States - 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fine EW, Scoles P, Mulligan M. Alcohol abuse in first offenders arrested for driving while intoxicated. In: Israelstam S, Lambert S, editors. Alcohol, drugs, and traffic safety. Toronto, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation; 1975. p. 939. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gottfredson M, Hirschi T. A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hingson R. Environmental strategies to reduce chronic driving while intoxicated. Transportation Research Circular. 1995;437:25–32. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jones RK, Lacey JH. State of knowledge of alcohol impaired driving: Research on repeat DWI offenders (DOT HS 809 027) Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kramer AL. Sentencing the drunk driver: A call for change. In: Valle SK, editor. Drunk driving in America: Strategies and approaches to treatment. New York, NY: Haworth Press; 1986. pp. 25–36. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kurlychek MC, Brame R, Bushway SD. Scarlet letters and recidivism: Does an old criminal record predict future offending? Criminology and Public Policy. 2006;5:483–504. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lapham SC, C’de Baca J, McMillan GP, Lapidus J. Psychiatric disorders in a sample of repeat impaired-driving offenders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2006;67:707–713. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. MacDonald JM, Morral A, Raymond B, Eibner C. The efficacy of the Rio Hondo DUI court: A 2-year field experiment. Evaluation Review. 2007;31:4–23. doi: 10.1177/0193841X06287189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. McArthur DL, Kraus JF. The specific deterrence of administrative per se laws in reducing drunk driving recidivism. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1999;16:68–75. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00119-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Nagin DS, Paternoster R. On the relationship of past to future delinquency. Criminology. 1991;29:163–189. [Google Scholar]
  25. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Countermeasures that work: A highway safety countermeasure guide for state highway safety offices. 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  26. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, & National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A guide to sentencing DWI offenders. 2. Washington, DC: Authors; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  27. Paternoster R, Dean CW, Piquero AR, Mazerolle P, Brame R. Generality, continuity, and change in offending careers. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 1997;13:231–266. [Google Scholar]
  28. Perrine MWB. Who are the drinking drivers? The spectrum of drinking drivers revisited. Alcohol Health and Research World. 1990;14:26–35. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pratt TC, Holsinger AM, Latessa EJ. Treating the chronic DUI offender: “Turning point” ten years later. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2000;28:271–281. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rauch WJ, Ahlin EM, Zador PL, Howard JM, Duncan GD. Effects of administrative ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2011 doi: 10.1007/s11292-010-9118-0. Advance online publication. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rauch WJ, Zador PL, Ahlin EM, Duncan D, Joyce J. DWI offenders appearing in Maryland district court: Offender demographics and case characteristics [Abstract] Alcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2005;29:163A. [Google Scholar]
  32. Robins L. Deviant children grown up. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1966. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ross HL. Administrative license revocation for drunk drivers: Options and choices in three states. Washington, D.C: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sampson RJ, Laub JH. Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  35. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements through release 6.11. Cary, NC: Author; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sleet DA, Dinh-Zarr TB, Dellinger AM. Traffic safety in the context of public health and medicine. Washington, D.C: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  37. Taxman FS, Piquero AR. On preventing drunk driving recidivism: An examination of rehabilitation and punishment approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1998;26:129–143. [Google Scholar]
  38. Voas RB, Hause JM. Deterring the drinking driver: The Stockton experience. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 1987;19:81–90. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(87)90027-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Wagenaar AC, Maldonado-Molina MM. Effects of drivers’ license suspension policies on alcohol-related crash involvement: Long-term follow-up in forty-six states. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2007;31:1399–1406. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00441.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Wells-Parker E, Bangert-Drowns R, McMillen R, Williams M. Final results from a meta-analysis of remedial interventions with drink/drive offenders. Addiction. 1995;90:907–926. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1995.9079074.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wheeler G, Hissong RV. Effects of criminal sanctions on drunk drivers: Beyond incarceration. Crime and Delinquency. 1988;34:29–42. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wilson JQ, Herrnstein R. Crime and human nature. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wolfgang ME, Figlio RM, Sellin T. Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1972. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yu J. Punishment celerity and severity. Testing a specific deterrence model of drunk driving recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1994;22:355–366. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yu J. Punishment and alcohol problems. Recidivism among drinking-driving offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2000;28:261–270. [Google Scholar]
  46. Yu J, Evans PC, Clark LP. Alcohol addiction and perceived sanction risks: Deterring drinking drivers. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2006;34:165–174. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yu J, Williford WR. Problem drinking and high-risk driving: An analysis of official and self-reported drinking and driving in New York State. Addiction. 1993;88:219–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb00805.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Zwicker TJ, Hedlund J, Northrup VS. Breath test refusals in DWI enforcement: An interim report. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES