DUI Offenders Research Articles

Curbing the DUI offender’s self-efficacy to drink and drive: A laboratory study

BackgroundPeople arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) are at high risk to reoffend. One reason for this high rate of recidivism among DUI offenders is that these individuals systematically underestimate the degree to which alcohol impairs their ability to drive. This study compared perceived and objective driving ability following alcohol and performance feedback in drivers with and without a history of DUI. MethodAdult drivers with (n=20) and without (n=20) a history of DUI arrest attended two dose challenge sessions where they received 0.64g/kg alcohol or placebo, completed a simulated driving task, and provided measures of subjective impairment. They attended a third retesting session where they received feedback that they were impaired by alcohol. They received 0.64g/kg alcohol and their objective and perceived driving ability was retested. ResultsBoth groups showed significant impairment of driving performance following 0.64g/kg alcohol compared to placebo. DUI offenders rated themselves as less impaired than controls. After performance feedback, self-reported impairment during the alcohol retest increased for DUI offenders but not for controls. There was no effect of performance feedback on objective driving ability. ConclusionsThese results support the notion that under alcohol DUI offenders characteristically perceive themselves as better able to drive than non-offenders. These perceptions can be tempered by performance feedback. To the extent that perceived ability to drive safely after drinking contributes to DUI and its recidivism, feedback geared towards lowering this self-efficacy could reduce willingness to engage in this behavior.

Decreased re-conviction rates of DUI offenders with intensive supervision and home confinement

ABSTRACTBackground: In some jurisdictions, persons who are convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) are allowed to serve some portion of their prison sentence under home confinement as part of Intensive Supervision Programs (ISPs) which include pre-release psycho-education and close post-release supervision. Objectives: Test the hypothesis that persons convicted of DUI offenses who have spent some portion of their sentence under home confinement, as compared to a historical comparison group, will exhibit a relatively low re-conviction rate. Methods: Using administrative data for 1,410 repeat DUI offenders (302 members of the historical comparison group, 948 ISP members, and 160 persons who appear in both groups at different points in time), with a follow-up period of up to 3 years and 10 months, a marginal Cox model was employed to compare conviction rates of persons who experienced intensive supervision and home confinement with historical comparison group members. Results: Persons with ISP + home confinement experience a re-conviction rate that is less than half that observed in the comparison group. Age, ethnicity (white vs. non-white), and gender are also significant predictors of re-conviction. Conclusion: Home confinement, in conjunction with psycho-education and other program elements, is one means of reducing the costs of incarceration. The results of this study suggest that, in addition to cost savings, states may realize a public safety benefit in the form of a reduction in DUI offense rates.

Mandating Treatment Based on Interlock Performance: Evidence for Effectiveness

Vehicle alcohol ignition interlocks reduce alcohol-impaired driving recidivism while installed, but recidivism reduction does not continue after removal. It has been suggested that integrating alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment with interlock programs might extend the effectiveness of interlocks in reducing recidivism beyond their removal. This study evaluated the first implementation of a Florida policy mandating AUD treatment for driving under the influence (DUI) offenders on interlocks. Treatment was required when the offender accumulated 3 violations (defined as 2 "lockouts" within 4hours; a lockout occurs when the device prevents a drinking driver from starting the vehicle). Cox regression was used to compare alcohol-impaired driving recidivism during the 48months following the interlock removal between 2 groups: (i) 640 multiple DUI offenders who received AUD treatment while interlocks were installed; and (ii) 806 matched offenders not mandated to treatment while interlocks were installed. The ignition interlock plus treatment group experienced 32% lower recidivism, 95%confidence interval [9, 49], following the removal of the interlock during the 12 to 48months in which they were compared with the nontreatment group. We estimated that this decline in recidivism would have prevented 41 rearrests, 13 crashes, and almost 9 injuries in crashes involving the 640 treated offenders over the period following interlock removal. This study provides strong support for the inclusion of AUD treatment for offenders in interlock programs based on the number of times they are "locked out." The offenders required to attend treatment demonstrated a one-third lower DUI recidivism following their time on the interlock compared to similar untreated offenders.

Age-Associated Alcohol and Driver Risk Differences in Older Adult DUI Offenders.

The aim of the study was to characterize age-group differences on the Driver Risk Inventory-II (DRI-II) in a group of driving under the influence (DUI) offenders. Data from 11,066 DUI cases from the state of Nebraska were used. The sample was grouped by age (18-20, 21-39, 40-59, and 60-84) and compared on the subscales of the DRI-II. Older adult DUI finders accounted for 2.90% (95% confidence interval [CI] = [2.60, 3.23]) of all DUI cases. Older adult DUI offenders not only demonstrated significantly greater Alcohol Risk scores than younger age groups but also had significantly lower Driver Risk scores than younger age groups. The results of this study demonstrate age-related differences in alcohol and driving risk among DUI offenders. This study provides a starting point from which investigators and clinicians can further address the issue of alcohol use and driving in older adults.

DUI recidivism by intervention adherence: a multiple risk factor approach

ABSTRACTBackground: Multi-component impaired driving interventions can reduce driving under the influence (DUI) recidivism rates; however, outcomes are better for those who complete the interventions and are adherent with program expectations. Research is needed to examine the differences between DUI offenders who are adherent vs. non-adherent to intervention efforts. Objective: The current study utilized a multi-risk factor model to predict recidivism among first-time DUI offenders enrolled in an intervention program. Differences between offenders who were adherent (including program completion) vs. non-adherent with the intervention were examined. Method: Using data from the Mississippi Alcohol Safety Education Program (MASEP) and state administrative records, the current study examined both recidivism rates and rates of intervention completion for all individuals enrolled in the program. The sample was predominantly White (58.8%) and male (80.2%). Results: Individuals who were adherent with the intervention were significantly less likely to recidivate within 3 years. Prior traffic or other criminal violations positively predicted recidivism rates. The likelihood of recidivism varied, with males, African Americans, and younger individuals with less education at greater risk of recidivism. Adherence with the intervention was more common for African American and older participants. Conclusion: The MASEP participants who were adherent with the intervention were significantly less likely to recidivate than those who were non-adherent. However, variance in the multi-component intervention completion rates suggests that the program resonates better with specific population subsets. We argue for researchers and policymakers to further explore how specific population subsets react to varying intervention programs to maximize efforts to reduce impaired driving.

The Impact of the Proposed Changes for the DSM-5 on Diagnoses of First-time DUI/DWI Offenders

Driving while impaired (DWI) is a frequently committed crime with enormous individual and social costs. The type of disposition and/or treatment appropriate for an individual offender is often determined, in part, by diagnostic criteria based on the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistics Manual. The DSM-5 significantly modified these criteria by eliminating legal problems as a criterion and dropping the categories of abuse and dependence. A brief substance abuse focused interview was conducted with 658 consecutive first-time DUI offenders who were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Most were white, well-educated males. Contingency analyses were utilized to compare the current with the new diagnostic criteria based on algorithms for both diagnostic formulations. The major change observed when moving from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 criteria was that, approximately 54% of first-time DUI/DWI offenders would no longer meet diagnostic criteria based on the DSM-5. Of the nearly 17% who met dependence criteria, the majority were in the severe designation of the DSM-5.

PREVALENCE OF UNSOLVED DRINKING PROBLEMS FOR DUI DRIVERS REFERRED FOR MEDICAL EVALUATION IN SWITZERLAND

Estimate the proportion of heavy DUI offenders who do not initiate a treatment for their drinking problem before referring to an official medical expertise to recover their driver’s license. Evaluate the proportion of offenders with drinking problems who became abstinent during 6 months within two years after their offense and their characteristics.Between January 2010 and December 2012, data were collected from 1316 consecutive drivers who were referred to an expertise in a legal medicine Swiss institute to recover their driver’s license after driving under the influence of alcohol. 153 offenders were included in the analysis after excluding patients under the influence of other recreational drugs and patients unfit to drive for other medical reasons. Heavy DUI were defined as first time drunk driving offenders with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥2.50 g/kg, or second-time drunk driving offenders within five years with BAC ≥1.60 g/kg in five years, or third-time drunk driving offenders within ten years with BAC ≥0.80 g/kg. 28 subjects of 153 (18%) were considered fit to drive. The rest of the drivers (125, 82%) were considered unfit to drive (drinking problem 77, dissociation alone 48). The majority of offenders (46,4 %) had driving under the influence of alcohol 2 times in the last five years with BAC ≥ 1.60 g/Kg, 65 (42.5%) had BAC ≥ 2.5 and the rest had 3 or more drunk driving offenses. The criteria used for medical and/or psychological assessment are appropriate.

Risk of alcohol abuse in urban versus rural DUI offenders

Background: Research concerning driving under the influence (DUI) offenses in rural populations is scarce and has often been carried out in the context of substance abuse and illicit drug use. Although previous studies have suggested that rural individuals are more likely to abstain from alcohol use, recent trends suggest that alcohol and substance abuse problems in rural areas are occurring at rates similar to urban areas. It is possible that urban and rural DUI offenders may differ on psychological and behavioral characteristics associated with heavy alcohol consumption. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine alcohol use differences between urban and rural DUI offenders. Methods: Data from 11 066 DUI offenders in a Midwestern state were used for this study. The Alcohol subscale of the Driver Risk Inventory II was used to assess the risk of problem alcohol use. Results: Higher levels of alcohol risk were associated with rural DUI offenders after adjusting for several demographic variables and blood-alcohol content level at time of arrest [Medium Risk OR = 1.43, 95% CI: (1.20, 1.71); Problem Risk OR = 1.43, 95% CI: (1.19, 1.72); Severe Risk OR = 1.38, 95% CI: (1.14, 1.67)]. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that rural DUI offenders have a significantly greater risk of heavy alcohol use when compared to urban DUI offenders. Practical implications of these results suggest that evaluators and assessors should be aware of an increased likelihood of alcohol problems in rural DUI individuals relative to those in urban areas.

A Prospective Study of Psychiatric Comorbidity and Recidivism Among Repeat DUI Offenders.

Psychiatric comorbidity has emerged as a key element distinguishing DUI offenders from others, and, in some cases, distinguishing repeat offenders from first-time offenders. This paper utilizes a prospective design to determine whether the comorbid disorders identified among repeat DUI offenders can predict recidivism. Seven hundred forty-three repeat DUI offenders were recruited from a two-week inpatient treatment program at which they received a standardized mental health assessment and followed across five years post-treatment to track DUI offense, motor vehicle-related offenses, and general criminal offenses. Psychiatric comorbidity, though it did not predict DUI recidivism specifically, predicted criminal re-offense more generally. In addition, there was a specific relationship between lifetime attention deficit disorder and repeated motor vehicle-related offenses. These findings suggest that for many repeat offenders, DUI is one outlet in a constellation of criminal behavior, and that psychiatric comorbidity increases vulnerability for criminal re-offense.

Supplemental Material for A Prospective Study of Psychiatric Comorbidity and Recidivism Among Repeat DUI Offenders

Supplemental Material for A Prospective Study of Psychiatric Comorbidity and Recidivism Among Repeat DUI Offenders

Using Behavioral Triage in Court-Supervised Treatment of DUI Offenders

In 2008, San Joaquin County, California, implemented a system change where all repeat Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenders in the largest judicial district (mainly the City of Stockton) are required to participate in a DUI Monitoring Court program. The program follows a behavioral triage system where offenders are placed into one of two tracks. Track 1 (monitoring) is a less intensive system where participants are required to come to court infrequently to report on progress in completing the terms of their probation, including Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) requirements, to qualify to get their license returned. Track 2 is for participants who demonstrate through their behavior (i.e., behavioral triage) that they are unable to comply with Track 1 requirements and who are assessed as needing drug and alcohol treatment. Track 2 follows a drug court model. All repeat DUI offenders convicted after 2008 (i.e., program participants) and a comparison group of all repeat DUI offenders convicted in the 2 years prior to program implementation were tracked for 18 months from the time of their DUI conviction. DMV data were used to examine new DUI convictions and traffic accidents for both groups. The results showed that program participants had significantly fewer new DUI convictions, accidents related to drug and alcohol consumption, and accidents resulting in injury. Participants were also significantly more likely to comply with court, probation, and DMV requirements, and to regain their driver's licenses. The model implemented by the San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court showed substantial promise for increasing public safety by reducing drunk driving and traffic accidents.

DUI Offenders’ Experience With an Ignition Interlock Program: Comparing Those Who Have and Have Not Adapted From Their Primary Drinking Location

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare driving under the influence (DUI) offenders on an alcohol ignition interlock program who had or had not changed their primary drinking context from a bar/restaurant where they might be required to drive after drinking before the interlock was installed to drinking at home where driving would not be likely to be required following interlock installation.Methods: A total of 171 DUI offenders who were on an ignition interlock program completed a web-based survey. All of these offenders reported that they drank primarily in a bar/restaurant before the interlock was installed. These offenders were classified into 2 groups: adapters who said they currently drink at home and nonadapters who said they still drink in a bar/restaurant. Measures were made of their reported drinking, driving patterns, perceptions of the likely outcomes of being on the interlock, perceived effectiveness of various prevention strategies, and demographic characteristics. Chi-square and t-test analyses were used to compare these 2 groups.Results: Adapters and nonadapters did not differ with regard to any of the demographic characteristics, whether they were a first-time DUI offender, the length of time in the interlock program, number of lockouts (being blocked from starting their cars) they had experienced, miles driven per week, or current driving patterns since being on the interlock program. Adapters were more likely to report changing their drinking plans and habits. Currently they reported fewer drinks per occasion than nonadapters. They were more likely to report reducing the amount they drink, solo drinking or only drinking with a spouse/significant other, and changing their drinking plans and habits. They were also more likely to say that the interlock reminded them to limit their drinking after it is removed and that it might have longer term benefits in preventing future DUIs. They were also more receptive to interventions that might help them separate their drinking from their driving.Conclusions: Interlock clients who report that they have altered their drinking context and a willingness to receive programs that help them separate their drinking from their driving may be more receptive to and benefit from ignition interlock programs.

Driving under the influence as a turning point? A register-based study on financial and social consequences among first-time male offenders.

To examine gradual change in debt problems, divorce and income among men in Finland before and after a first conviction for driving under the influence (DUI). A register-based longitudinal study conducted in Finland between 1999 and 2013. A nationally representative sample of 70,659 Finnish males born between 1918 and 1983, and a subsample of males (n = 1782) who had their first DUI conviction during 2005-2012. Descriptive statistics showing the socio-demographic and economic determinants of DUI. The main analysis was based on a longitudinal, within-individual setting. The impact of DUI on debt problems, divorce and income was analysed using random effects regression models. DUI offenders were more likely to be younger and to have lower education and income than the non-DUI group. Criminal convictions were also more common among DUI offenders. Debt problems, divorce and loss of income were more likely after the DUI incident than before. The already increasing level of debt problems accelerated after the incident and divorce rates increased after the DUI incident, whereas the decrease in income was gradual over the whole observation period. Among men in Finland, DUI offences are more common among vulnerable social groups. The first drunk-driving conviction among men in Finland constitutes a significant life event that appears to increase the likelihood of financial problems and divorce.

Cognitive and behavioral preoccupation with alcohol in recidivist DUI offenders.

A high proportion of individuals convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) are repeat offenders. Efforts have sought to identify specific factors underlying DUI recidivism. Of particular interest is the role that alcohol-related cognitions might play in the development and escalation of alcohol use. The present study investigated the degree to which preoccupation with, and attentional bias to, alcohol are heightened among repeat DUI offenders. Three groups of participants (recidivist DUI offenders, first-time offenders, and controls; n = 20 per group) performed a visual probe task to measure attentional bias and completed questionnaires regarding their cognitive and emotional preoccupation with alcohol and drinking habits. Recidivist offenders displayed a significantly heightened alcohol attentional bias and reported greater preoccupation with alcohol compared with both first-time offenders and controls. By contrast, none of the groups differed with regard to the self-reported quantity and frequency of their consumption. Factors reflecting preoccupation with alcohol have utility for differentiating recidivist offenders from both first-time offenders and nonoffenders. These findings highlight the value of moving beyond self-reported assessments of drinking patterns toward assessing specific cognitive and behavioral characteristics that can improve our understanding, assessment, and treatment of the problem of DUI recidivism.

Recidivism Risk of Repeat Intoxicated Drivers Monitored with Alcohol Biomarkers

This feasibility study analyzed the effects of alcohol biomarker testing in reducing the rearrest rates and/or lengthening the time between rearrests in repeat intoxicated drivers in Waukesha County. Participants were 250 repeat offenders who underwent monitoring with biomarker testing after being arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol between 2006 and 2009. In 2012, their traffic records were reviewed to determine any subsequent drunk driving arrests since their assessments in 2006 to 2009. Regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between the length of biomarker monitoring (LOM) and the time to recidivism (TTR). LOM was defined as the time between the offender's first test at enrollment in this study (baseline Early Detection of Alcohol Consumption [EDAC]) and the last test at the end of monitoring. TTR was defined as the length of time from baseline EDAC until the driver's next subsequent DUI offense. The results showed that 32 of the 250 drivers enrolled in this pilot were rearrested during the study period for an overall recidivism rate of 12.8%. The rearrested drivers were mostly men (88%), young adults (34 years), employed (84%), and predominantly single or divorced (86%). Their drinking profile at baseline showed that 93% claimed at least one month of abstinence before their first sample was collected yet almost one half (48%) of them tested positive for biomarkers. Regression analysis showed a positive and significant correlation between LOM and TTR (r = 0.41; p < 0.05; coefficient for LOM = 1.28; N = 23) indicating that for every additional day of biomarker monitoring the time to re-arrest increased by more than one day. This feasibility study provides preliminary evidence suggesting that repeat DUI offenders monitored with alcohol biomarkers take longer to get rearrested with a subsequent DUI than those not monitored with biomarkers.

P-20 * PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF PATTERN OF ALCOHOL METABOLISM AMONG DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OFFENDERS: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ALCOHOL METABOLISM, ALCOHOL USE BEHAVIOUR AND OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL VARIABLES

This study reports on the potential utility of a saliva test to identify different patterns of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) offenders' alcohol metabolism. The pattern of alcohol metabolism, i.e., biogenetic disposition pertinent to alcohol intake is a significant issue, because only about half of Japanese people metabolise alcohol as people of non-Asian origin do. The remaining Japanese people exhibit different biochemical reactions after consuming alcohol, ranging from complete or partial alcohol intolerance to enhanced/prolonged alcohol intoxication. A sample of convicted DUI offenders was interviewed (N = 64). Together with results from a saliva test that classifies the participants' alcohol metabolism into five types, we collected information on alcohol intake, screening for alcohol use disorder, alcohol biomarkers, and psychosocial variables. RESULTS showed that (1) a significantly higher proportion of offenders was classified as being biogenetically susceptible to alcohol dependence as compared to the general Japanese population, and that (2) no significant associations were observed between alcohol metabolism typology and alcohol intake, alcohol use disorders and psychosocial variables, except for one biomarker and the past frequency of DUI. Although alcohol metabolism is only a part of various determinants leading to DUI behaviour, remedial intervention that utilises the saliva test may help DUI offenders to set forth a personalised, concrete coping strategy to stay away from the negative consequences of alcohol use including DUI. Language: en

Typology of driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenders revisited: Inclusion of DUI-specific attitudes

ObjectivesMuch work remains to improve rehabilitative interventions for driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenders. There is heterogeneity of patterns of alcohol use, personality, and driving behaviour within DUI offenders, but little is known about how their appraisal of DUI differs. This study investigated within-offender variability in DUI-specific attitudinal variables. MethodConvicted male DUI offenders (N=219) living in greater Tokyo were interviewed. Cluster analysis was undertaken using age, psychological distress, personality trait, alcohol use, and attitudes towards DUI. Discriminant function analysis explored the relative explanatory power of the grouping variables. ResultMany offenders reported current excessive alcohol consumption. About 26–36% of the participants were potentially alcohol-dependent based on screening instruments/biomarkers. Cluster analysis identified five subgroups. The biggest subgroup considered their DUI a singular mistake and reported strong self-efficacy for avoiding further DUI (clusters 1 and 2). A small subgroup manifested alcohol dependence, psychological distress, higher impulsivity, and lower self-efficacy for avoiding DUI (cluster 3). Another subgroup exhibited a tendency to rationalise DUI, higher likelihood of future DUI, and lower self-efficacy for avoiding DUI (cluster 4). Most participants in another small subgroup abstained from alcohol use temporarily after their convictions (cluster 5). ConclusionThe majority of DUI offenders regarded their DUI conviction as an exceptional mishap, while they continued consuming hazardous amounts of alcohol. DUI-specific attitudinal variables, including DUI rationalisation and self-efficacy for avoiding future DUI incidents, constituted a distinct aspect of the problem, suggesting the need to address this issue in addition to the underlying alcohol use problem.

Types of crimes committed by repeat DUI offenders

This study investigates whether repeat driving under the influence (DUI) offenders have more extensive histories of violent, property, and drug crimes than first-time drunk drivers. It also offers an exploratory investigation into the extent of their criminal specialization. Negative binomial regression was performed on arrest and criminal history data from a systematic random sample of 429 DUI arrestees. Analyses controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, and employment found that being a repeat DUI offender increased the total number of violent and property convictions (regardless of severity) and petty misdemeanor/violation property convictions. The results suggest DUI recidivists are generalists rather than specialists and that impaired driving is best viewed as just one manifestation of a host of deviant behaviors. They also illustrate the challenges of rehabilitating and deterring DUI recidivists and the potential differences between first-time and repeat DUI offenders. The findings should not be interpreted as support of enforcement or deterrent DUI policies that focus on repeat offenders, as limited resources are most efficiently directed at the general population of impaired drivers.

Alcohol effects on simulated driving performance and self-perceptions of impairment in DUI offenders.

Drivers with a history of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol self-report heightened impulsivity and display reckless driving behaviors as indicated by increased rates of vehicle crashes, moving violations, and traffic tickets. Such poor behavioral self-regulation could also increase sensitivity to the disruptive effects of alcohol on driving performance. The present study examined the degree to which DUI drivers display an increased sensitivity to the acute impairing effects of alcohol on simulated driving performance and overestimate their driving fitness following alcohol consumption. Adult drivers with a history of DUI and a demographically matched group of drivers with no history of DUI (controls) were tested following a 0.65 g/kg alcohol and a placebo. Results indicated that alcohol impaired several measures of driving performance, and there was no difference between DUI offenders and controls in these impairments. However, following alcohol, DUI drivers self-reported a greater ability and willingness to drive compared with controls. These findings indicate that drivers with a history of DUI might perceive themselves as more fit to drive after drinking, which could play an important role in their decisions to drink and drive.

Predicting DUI Decisions in Different Legal Environments: Investigating Deterrence With a Conjoint Experiment

Objective: Driving under the influence (DUI) enforcement practices and sanctions contribute differentially to the certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment, which are the key components of general deterrence theory. This study used a conjoint experiment to understand the decision-making process of potential DUI offenders and tested how variation in enforcement and legal punishment affects drinking and driving decisions. It sought to verify and quantify the unique deterrent effects of certainty, severity, and swiftness and to predict the rates of drinking and driving in different legal environments. Methods: One hundred twenty-one college seniors and graduate students at the University of Maryland participated in the Web-based conjoint experiment. They were randomly assigned to 4 blocks, each of which included 9 hypothetical scenarios composed of different levels of DUI enforcement and penalties. Respondents were asked to state their likelihood of drinking and driving under each scenario, as well as their estimated chance of being caught by the police for DUI. Results: Intensified enforcement, harsh jail penalty, and immediate long license suspension were found to be the strongest deterrents to drinking and driving. Alternative ways to get home were also important in reducing people's willingness to drive. These factors accounted for most of the attribute effect on the DUI decision, whereas delayed punishment due to judicial processing, fine penalty, and legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit had negligible effects. For the personal characteristics, college seniors and those who had previously driven after drinking were more likely to choose to drink and drive, whereas those who expect a jail penalty for a DUI offense were less likely to drive. Conclusions: Our research confirmed and quantified certainty of punishment as the greatest deterrent to DUI, but it also indicated the equally important effect of a severe jail penalty. It provides evidence on the feasibility of using a conjoint experiment in future studies to understand the general driver population and, with the help of a simulation tool, to predict DUI decisions in different legal environments. Such predictions can be used to better inform policy decisions on developing targeted general deterrence programs in different communities.