Is 24/7 sobriety a good goal for repeat driving under the influence (DUI) offenders?

Abstract

This editorial considers whether a goal of constant sobriety is appropriate for drivers found guilty of repeat episodes of driving under the influence (DUI). The authors first briefly review the impact of DUI, including the numbers of arrests and the methods used to deter repeat offenses, such as suspending or revoking licenses, impounding cars or requiring breath alcohol ignition interlock devices. The authors then describe the approach adopted by South Dakota, a state in the northern plains of the United States. Its ‘24/7 Sobriety’ program attempts to prevent repeat DUI offenders from drinking through frequent testing. Rrepeat DUI arrestees to submit to twice-daily (7–9 a.m. and 7–9 p.m.) breath testing as a condition of bail; missed tests lead to issuance of an arrest warrant. The program has teeth; the punishment for a failed test is immediate and automatic incarceration. However, incarceration is so brief (24 hours), and compliance rates so high, that total sanctioning may actually have declined. South Dakota’s fundamental innovation is to require offenders to stop drinking, rather than stop driving. The authors then report that the statistics available suggest that the program has achieved remarkable success. Traffic fatalities involving alcohol impairment dropped from 71 in 2004 to 34 in 2008; some have suggested that there are favorable effects on other alcohol-associated crimes (e.g. domestic violence). The authors note that the 24/7 Sobriety program has not been evaluated scientifically, so the only firm conclusion to be drawn now is that such an evaluation is needed. They also briefly consider the administrative impact (positive and negative) of implementing this approach to recidivism in DUI.