How Judges Respond to Drunk Drivers

• NCJ Number: 203326
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 87 Issue: 2 Dated: September-October 2003 Pages: 54-58
• Author(s): M. Lynn Breer; Abby Schwartz; Barbara A. Schillo; Deborah Savage
• Date Published: September 2003
• Length: 5 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article reports on the findings of a 1998 survey of Michigan judges and probation officers that was designed to determine their beliefs and behaviors in handling chronic drunk-driving offenders.

Abstract

A total of 653 surveys were mailed in October 1998 to the entire population of district and circuit court judges (n=458) and senior or chief probation officers (n=195). Of the surveys mailed, 427 were completed and returned. Respondents were geographically distributed across the State for both district and circuit courts. Judges and probation officers reported sentencing repeat drunk-driving offenders to license suspension (91.9 percent), probation (88.8 percent), fines (85.2 percent), outpatient counseling (83.3 percent), support groups (78.3 percent), mandatory jail (78.1 percent), and monitoring by testing for alcohol (77.1 percent). Respondents also reported sentencing repeat offenders to more intensive treatment and sanctions, such as inpatient treatment, residential treatment, outpatient counseling, support groups, intensive supervision probation, testing for alcohol, and electronic tethers than first-time offenders, who were more likely to be sentenced to education and victim impact panels. A number of specific program components were perceived to be effective by at least 40 percent of the respondents. These were monitoring by testing for alcohol, intensive supervision probation, support groups, mandatory jail, and residential treatment. Sentence components most likely to be perceived by respondents as ineffective were suspended sentences and community service. Almost half of the judges and probation officers reported that recidivism was an important determinant of a program's effectiveness. The survey findings suggest that judges and probation officers sometimes do not have all the information they need in order to make effective sentencing and case-management decisions. This article recommends providing information to judges and probation officers about the characteristics of chronic offenders as well as high-risk first-time offenders; identifying effective interventions; and educating judges and probation officers about effective interventions.