Deterring DUI Behavior in the First Place

Abstract

Dugosh, Festinger, and Marlowe’s (2013, this issue) study is an important pilot study aimed at the development of a brief screening device that contains objective items to predict recidivism. We must continue to develop criteria that will help us distinguish between driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenders who are at significant risk of repeating the offense in contrast to those offenders who learn their lesson from the first offense and never repeat the offense, no matter what sanction they experience. The identification of offenders with a high risk of repeating the offense will help prosecution and adjudication officials assign appropriate sanctions for the offense and implement appropriate monitoring of the offenders to prevent recidivism. Studies have shown that approximately one third of all offenders arrested for DUI are repeat offenders (Fell, 1995; Fell, Tippetts, and Voas, 2010) and that drivers with a DUI offense are at approximately four times the risk of being alcohol positive in a fatal crash (Fell, 1992). If we can accurately identify those firsttime DUI offenders at high risk of repeating, then countermeasures can be implemented to prevent the recidivism. This approach will improve public safety. Although identifying high-risk offenders is certainly important, it must be recognized that, as Dugosh et al. (2013) note, the criminal justice system continues to apply remedial programs based primarily on prior offenses and the blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of arrest. This process occurs despite the availability of screening tests with reasonable validity. The use of such assessment instruments was popularized 40 years ago by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) national Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) implemented in 35 communities in the United States between 1969 and 1975. Currently, however, using these instruments has been restrained, not by the lack of useful test instruments but by the lack of court personnel resources to administer them (Voas and Fisher, 2001). As an example, it has been difficult to persuade adjudication