Program Profile: Imprisonment for Individuals Who Committed a Drunk Driving Offense (New South Wales, Australia)

This involves prison time for individuals who have committed drunk-driving offenses to reduce their risk of recidivism upon their release. The program is rated Ineffective. There was no statistically significant difference between individuals in the treatment group (who received prison time) and the comparison group (who received a suspended imprisonment sentence) on reoffending with a driving-while-under-the-influence-of-alcohol offense within 6 months’, 24 months’, or 5 years’ time.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Population

Driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is a major cause of fatal road incidents in Australia (WHO 2018). A range of interventions are used to reduce the rate of recidivism among those convicted of DUI, including license disqualification (Siskind 1996; Watson et al. 2017), fines (Weatherburn and Moffatt 2011), and ignition interlock devices (Roth, Voas, and Marques 2007). Another approach is sentencing individuals convicted of a DUI to prison time. The goal of imprisonment for individuals who commit DUI offenses is to reduce their reoffending after release.

Program Components

In New South Wales, the sentencing of individuals convicted of an offense involves three steps. First, the judicial officer decides whether a sentence of imprisonment is warranted. Second, if it is determined that the prison sentence is warranted, the court then decides the length of the sentence. Finally, if the court decides that a maximum sentence of not more than 2 years is appropriate, it then decides whether to suspend the sentence or impose a full-time prison sentence on the convicted individual. Those individuals who receive a suspended sentence, though, could receive an immediate imprisonment if they commit another offense during their term; they would serve time for the original offense plus whatever additional term may be required for the new offense.

Prison is not a common sentence for individuals convicted of a DUI in New South Wales; only about 1 percent of persons convicted of a DUI receive a prison sentence in any given year (New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2018). In 2018, 182 individuals in New South Wales were sentenced to prison for a DUI offense and consequently spent an average of 6 months (120 days) in custody.

Program Theory

A few concepts explain how imprisonment may reduce recidivism for DUI offenses. One philosophy of punishment that may apply is incapacitation, where a reduction in the crime occurs while an individual is in custody and unable to commit another DUI offense (Rahman and Weatherburn 2020). Another concept is deterrence theory, which posits that crime can be prevented if individuals believe the costs of committing a crime outweigh the benefits (Zimring and Hawkins 1973). General deterrence refers to the effect of potential prison time on all individuals who may commit a DUI offense, and specific deterrence refers to the effects of legal punishment on those individuals who experienced the punishment (Stafford and Warr 1993). With specific deterrence, individuals who have served time in prison for a DUI offense may be deterred from reoffending following their release to avoid further imprisonment (Rahman and Weatherburn 2020).

Study

Rahman and Weatherburn (2020) conducted a quasi-experimental design to assess the effect of imprisoning individuals convicted of a driving-under-the-influence-of-alcohol (DUI) offense on their DUI recidivism within 6 months, 24 months, and 5 years? time.

The sample included individuals who appeared in New South Wales criminal courts for DUI offenses from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2018. The data source was the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Reoffending Database. Cases were selected if they involved an adult who had been convicted with a principal offense of ?exceeding the prescribed content of alcohol? (DUI) where their blood?alcohol concentration was medium or high; the principal penalty was imprisonment or a suspended sentence; and the individual was not charged with any indictable offense. This resulted in a dataset of 9,384 individuals appearing in New South Wales criminal courts from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2018. There were 3,946 individuals who received a sentence of imprisonment (the treatment group) and 7,336 individuals who received a suspended sentence of imprisonment (the comparison group).

The treatment group mostly were male (94 percent), were 35 years or older (66.3 percent), and were non-Indigenous (57.9 percent). Some resided in major cities (41 percent) and were from highly socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (31.3 percent). Of the treatment group, 91.5 percent had legal representation, 35.6 percent had three or more concurrent offenses, 67.7 percent had a high DUI range (blood?alcohol concentration) at index, 57.5 percent had four or more previous court appearances, and 60.1 percent did not have a previous imprisonment. The comparison group mostly were male (85.0 percent), were 35 years or older (64.2 percent), were non-Indigenous (57.2 percent), resided in major cities (50.6 percent), and some were from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (30.4 percent). Of the comparison group, 87.9 percent had legal representation, 56.9 percent had one concurrent offense, 69.2 percent had a high DUI range at index, 34.5 percent had four or more previous court appearances, and 86.6 percent did not have a previous imprisonment. There were statistically significant differences between the groups on age, gender, race, remoteness of residence, socioeconomic status, legal representation, number of concurrent offenses, DUI blood?alcohol range, number of prior court appearances, and prior penalties (e.g., fines). These variables were used as controls in the analysis.

Reoffending was measured in consideration of both elapsed time and free time. Elapsed time was the time between case finalization and of the date of death, reconviction, or the end of the observation period (June 30, 2018) and did not exclude time spent in custody. To conduct the elapsed-time analysis, three dummy variables were created capturing any DUI reoffending from case finalization within 6 months, within 24 months, and within 5 years. Free time reoffending was examined using the custody data from the Reoffending Database and was defined as the number of days from disposal to the earlier of either the individual?s date of death or the end of the observation period of the data (June 30, 2018), excluding all further custodial episodes. Indicator variables were constructed to carry out a free-time analysis for whether a person reoffended with a DUI offense within 6 months, 24 months, and 5 years of free time.

The random allocation of cases to judicial officers was exploited in an instrumental variable analysis to account for observed and unobserved differences between individuals with a DUI offense who were given a suspended prison sentence and individuals with a DUI offense who were imprisoned. Unresidualized and residualized measures of judge severity were measured by their propensity to imprison individuals with a DUI offense. The analysis was undertaken using a two-stage?least-squares linear probability approach to examine differences between the groups in reoffending within 6 months, 24 months, and 5 years. Subgroup analysis was conducted with individuals with their first DUI offense, and with individuals with a prior DUI conviction.

Rahman and Weatherburn (2020) conducted a subgroup analysis with individuals with their first driving-while-under-the-influence-of-alcohol (DUI) offense and found that individuals in the treatment group with their first offense who were sentenced to imprisonment had a statistically significant reduction in the likelihood of DUI reoffending within 24 months’ time, compared with individuals in the comparison group with their first offense who were given a suspended prison sentence. There were no statistically significant differences between individuals with their first DUI offenses in the treatment and comparison groups on DUI reoffending within 6 months or within 5 years. There were no statistically significant differences between individuals in the treatment group with prior DUI convictions and individuals in the comparison group with prior DUI convictions on DUI reoffending within 6 months’, 24 months’, or 5 years’ time.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2018. Criminal Courts Statistics 2017. Parramatta, Australia.

Roth, Richard, Robert B. Voas, and Paul R. Marques. 2007. “Interlocks for First Offenders: Effective?” Traffic Injury Prevention 8:346–52.

Siskind, Victor. 1996. “Does License Disqualification Reduce Reoffence Rates?” Accident Analysis and Prevention 284:519–24.

Stafford, Mark C., and Mark Warr. 1993. “A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30(2):123-234.

Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. 2020. Report on Government Services 2020, Productivity Commission, Canberra. Canberra, Australia.

Watson, Angela, James Freeman, Kelly Imberger, Ashleigh J. Filtness, Hollie Wilson, David Healy, and Antonietta Cavallo. 2017. “The Effects of Licence Disqualification on Drink-Drivers: Is It the Same for Everyone?” Accident Analysis and Prevention 107:40–47.

Weatherburn, Don, and Steve Moffatt. 2011. “The Specific Deterrent Effect of Higher Fines On Drink-Driving Offenders.” British Journal of Criminology 515:789–803.

(WHO) World Health Organization. 2018. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018. Geneva, Switzerland.

Zimring, Franklin E., and Gordon J. Hawkins. 1973. Deterrence—The Legal Threat in Crime. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.