Driving While Impaired. The Writer

¶ … Driving While Impaired. The writer examines the issues of DWI as well as the impact law enforcement has had on the reduction of DWI. The writer also argues that DWI is more of a social issue than a legal issue and that education must be combined with law enforcement to make a difference. There were eight sources used to complete this paper.

COMBINING SOCIETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO STOP DRUNK DRIVING

Drunk driving has been a legal and social issue in America for many years. Each year states enact stricter laws with regards to the problem of drinking and driving but the news continues to broadcast deaths, accidents and other problems that are directly related to the problem.

Every few minutes one person is killed in a drunk driving caused accident and another 15 are injured (Mejeur, 2003).

Impaired drivers killed more than 17,000 and injured more than 258,000 people in the United States in 2002, and the problem is getting worse (Mejeur, 2003)."

For several years the nation enjoyed a marked reduction in traffic deaths that were caused by drunk drivers but since 1999 the numbers have been on the rise again. One in four families have currently been negatively impacted by the actions of a drunk driver (Mejeur, 2003).

Various laws have been enacted throughout the nation in the effort to reduce the number of drunk driving accidents and fatalities but it seems that the laws alone are not effectively curbing the problem.

The laws are usually founded in a fatality from which the family of the deceased works to turn the death into a positive measure for society. One example of this occurrence is a New Jersey Law called John's law. John Elliot had graduated from the Naval Academy and was on his way home to celebrate his mother's birthday when a drunk driver killed him (Mejeur, 2003). The driver had already been arrested once that evening for drunk driving and when his friend picked him up from jail he dropped him off at his car. He went to another bar, drank some more and upon leaving he killed Elliot in a traffic accident. John's law requires law enforcement officers in the state of New Jersey to impound any car that a drunk driver is stopped in and not release it for a minimum of 12 hours so that the driver in question has time to become sober before getting behind the wheel again (Mejeur, 2003). In addition the law mandates that when someone shows up to pick up a friend or family member charged with drunk driving the police officers are required to tell that person if they allow the suspect to get behind the wheel while still impaired and that driver causes an accident the person who picked him or her up can be held criminally and civilly liable as well.

John's law is one of many examples when societal responsibility meets legislation and works together to reduce the incidence of driving while impaired. If America is ever going to reduce the fatalities and injuries caused by drunk driving it will have to realize that it is a social as well as a legal issue and combine educational programs with punitive actions to stop drivers from drinking and driving (Mejeur, 2003).

New Jersey as well as eight other states have enacted laws that allow them to hold drunk drivers until their blood alcohol levels are below the state's legal limit. While this helps prevent an immediate accident from occurring the root of the problem is still there and should be handled from a societal standpoint.

Drunk driving laws have never been stricter. Almost every state has already adopted basic drunk driving laws:.08 BAC, administrative license revocation, implied consent, open container, repeat offender and zero tolerance for underage drunk driving. Many have gone further, creating high BAC offenses, enhancing penalties for those who drive drunk with kids in the car or requiring ignition interlocks. But how those laws are implemented through arrest, prosecution, adjudication and punishment is what makes the difference (Mejeur, 2003). "

Every state in the nation has adopted laws that require people pulled over with suspicions of drunk driving to submit to a blood alcohol test. If they reuse the test they automatically lose their license for a year, if they submit and are found to have a limit over the legal limit they are convicted of drunk driving.

In theory, it's a good law. In practice, it's not working so well (Mejeur, 2003)."

Research has shown that a third of those pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving refuse the BAC because to fail it means loss of license, a drunk driving conviction, higher insurance rates, possible loss of employment, and jail time, whereas refusing the BAC simply means the loss of license.

Why wouldn't a person refuse?

The estimated amount of alcohol that it takes to get a person drink also involves weight and gender considerations.

The chart below indicates how many drinks in how much time it takes a person to be above the legally allowed limits.

Blood Alcohol Concentration Estimate - for Men

DrinksA

Body Weight In Pounds

InfluenceB

100 120-140 160-180 200-220-240 1.04.03.02.02.02.02.02.02 Possibly 2.08.06.05.05.04.04.03.03 3.11.09.08.07.06.06.05.05 Impaired 4.15.12.11.09.08.08.07.06 5.19.16.13.12.11.09.09.09 DUI 6.23.19.16.14.13.11.10.09 7.26.22.19.16.15.13.12.11 8.30.25.21.19.17.15.14.13 9.34.28.24.21.19.17.15.14-10.38.31.27.23.21.19.17.16 A One drink is 1.25 oz. Of 80 proof liquor, 12 oz. beer, or 5 oz. Of wine

Subtract.01 for each hour of drinking http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/alcohol.htm

Eleven states have enacted punishments for refusing the BAC test that equal the punishments to a conviction of drunk driving thereby removing the reason for refusal.

The system also breaks down at the trial and sentencing phases. If offenders don't show up for trial, a warrant is issued for failure to appear. But people on warrants are seldom tracked down. Unless a drunk driver is involved in another crime, he can avoid prosecution almost indefinitely. Offenders avoid trial, conviction, punishment and treatment because the system is simply too complex and overloaded to find them. And many offenders know that (Mejeur, 2003)."

Statistically a third of all defendants convicted of drunk driving have been arrested and convicted of the same charge in the past. Approximately 36 states do require those convicted of driving while impaired to go through alcohol abuse treatment but many of the offenders fail to complete the programs.

FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS

Law enforcement officers are charged with asking suspects to perform field sobriety tests in the field. This too can create an problem with prosecution as people refuse or the defense attorney insists that the officer was not objective in his administration or scoring of the tests (Newaz, 2006).

The tests are often challenged in court because of their subjective nature which causes law enforcement officers to become discouraged in the pursuit of drunk driving charges.

PROBLEMS

There are also many problems within the legal system when it comes to drunk driving enforcement including?

Excessive paperwork

Excessive caseload

Test refusal

Inadequate access to records

Incomplete evidence

Failure to appear

Trial delays

Disparity in sentences (Mejeur, 2003)."

SOLUTIONS

Several states have begun to implement programs that recognize the part society plays in the problem. They have drug courts in which the offender is in a program monitored by the court system. The drug court program is based in social acceptance and support by court personnel. Those in the program are expected to attend mental health therapy, AA meetings, pass drug tests and take part in any other activities that the judge requires.

Many of those sanctions are similar to the sentences handed out by regular courts; the difference lies in the close supervision, regular contact, random testing, life skills support and job placement services provided by the specialized courts. Those who wash out of the programs face additional punishment -- often jail time -- if all terms of the sentence are not fulfilled (Mejeur, 2003)."

In a specialize four part report complied by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse one of the elements examined the drunk driving process from law enforcement to sentencing to determine where there were weaknesses.

Part of the recommendation is already being implemented in drunk driving courts in that police officers, district attorneys and others are becoming involved in the drunk driving court process giving them a better understanding of addiction and its process.

Some of the more successful programs across the nation include the requirement of the offender to have:

Regular contact with a probation officer.

Frequent court appearances before the drunk driving court judge.

Subsidized treatment.

Individual and group counseling. This could be for substance abuse but may also be used for additional issues that help feed into the alcohol abuse.

Random drug and alcohol tests. This serves as an incentive not to drink.

Education assistance. This may include GED testing or help entering a college program.

Employment skills training. Many do not have skills because they have spent their time drinking. Job skills can help them gain confidence in their abilities (Mejeur, 2003)."

In determining the importance of combining social and legal consequences in the fight against driving while impaired it is important to look at victim impact statements as a deterrent. One recent study examined victim impact statements and their ability to reduce repeat offenses of drunk driving (Rojek, 1999).

The study looked at those who had been arrested and convicted of drunk driving in which an accident occurred. It examined those who had been rearrested after being in attendance for a victim impact statement program and compared them to those who had been rearrested but had never been exposed to a victim impact statement program.

The study concluded that those who had been exposed to a victim impact statement with regard to their offense had a lower rearrest rate than those who had not heard victim impact statements.

The study examined the results of those who did not receive victim impact statements and found that legal punishment was often the only consequence of driving while under the influence (Rojek, 1999).

By contrast, VIPs address the emotional component of the DUI offender's cognitive perspective by exposing him/her to the pain or suffering caused by drunk driving. The dramatic presentations of panel members (usually three to five persons) who had been victimized by a drunken driver have been shown to influence behavioral intentions and, in some cases, drunk driving behavior (Rojek, 1999)."

INTERNATIONAL

In looking at the impact of drinking and driving in America it is important to compare it to other nations.