SCOPE OF CRIME CONTROL AND AN ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN TRAFFIC CRIMINALITY (FROM PAPERS ON CRIME CONTROL 1977-1978,BY INKERI ANTTILA - SEE NCJ-58108)

• NCJ Number: 58110
• Author(s): I ANTTILA
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 17 pages
• Corporate Author: Research Institute of Legal Policy
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: Finland
• Note: PLENARY SESSION INTRODUCTION AT THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM, INTERNATIONAL PENAL AND PENITENTIARY FOUNDATON, ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS, JUNE 13-17, 1977

Annotation

PROBLEMS IN DEFINING THE SCOPE OF TRAFFIC CRIMINALITY ARE DISCUSSED, APPROACHES TO TRAFFIC CRIME CONTROL ARE SURVEYED, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING TRAFFIC SAFETY ARE OFFERED.

Abstract

AMONG PROBLEMS IN TRAFFIC CRIME CONTROL ARE THOSE PERTAINING TO THE APPROPRIATE ORIENTATION FOR DEALING WITH NEGLIGENT OFFENSES, THE DANGERS OF OVERCRIMINALIZATION, THE EMERGENCE OF NEW TYPES OF OFFENSES FOR WHICH OLD PENALTIES ARE INAPPROPRIATE, AND THE BURDEN IMPOSED ON THE COURTS BY LARGE TRAFFIC CASELOADS. IN ADDITION TO THE TRADITIONAL FINE, MEASURES AIMED AT CONTROLLING TRAFFIC OFFENSES INCLUDE DEPRIVATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSES, CONFISCATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DRIVER SCHOOLS, TREATMENT FOR DRUNKEN DRIVERS, EFFORTS TO INCREASE THE RISK OF APPREHENSION, AND CAMPAIGNS TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC ATTITUDE THAT TRAFFIC OFFENSES ARE NOT MORALLY WRONG. SOME COUNTRIES HAVE ADDRESSED THE TRAFFIC CASELOAD PROBLEM BY GRANTING THE POLICE GREATER AUTHORITY IN SETTLING TRAFFIC MATTERS, BY ESTABLISHING SPECIAL TRAFFIC COURTS OR TRAFFIC PROSECUTION OFFICES, OR BY EXPERIMENTING WITH OTHER MEANS DESIGNED TO ALLEVIATE THE COURTS' CASELOAD BURDEN. THE FOLLOWING STEPS APPEAR TO HOLD PROMISE FOR DEALING EFFECTIVELY WITH TRAFFIC CRIME AND ENHANCING TRAFFIC SAFETY: (1) REGULATING BOTH THE SCOPE OF CRIMINALIZATION AND THE LEVEL OF PUNISHMENT SEVERITY SO THAT OFFENSES THAT CAUSE DANGER ARE EQUATED WITH THOSE THAT ACTUALLY CAUSE DAMAGE, (2) EMPHASIZING THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN TRAFFIC CRIMINALITY LEGISLATION (ESPECIALLY THE SCOPE OF THE CONCEPT OF STRICT LIABILITY), (3) ENHANCING THE GENERAL DETERRENT EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS BY INCREASING THE RISK OF APPREHENSION (ESPECIALLY DRIVERS' SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION OF THEIR OWN RISK), (4) LIMITING THE DRIVING PRIVILEGES OF ACCIDENT-PRONE PEOPLE (IF SUCH PEOPLE CAN BE SINGLED OUT), (5) NOT LIMITING PENAL SANCTIONS TO ROAD USERS (E.G., PENALIZING PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNSAFE ROAD CONDITIONS), AND (6) CONSIDERING NONPENAL APPROACHES (E.G., BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW MODELS, MANDATORY SAFETY DEVICES FOR CARS, BETTER PUBLIC TRANSPORT). TO THE EXTENT THAT SPEED IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE PUBLIC WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO RECONSIDER ITS PREOCCUPATION WITH SAVING TIME. (LKM)