Researchers have assessed the effect of longer prison sentences by conducting aggregate-level studies of general deterrence. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the specific deterrent effects of longer custody sentences on individual offenders. The authors evaluated the effect of sentence length on drunk driving recidivism by using official records in a retrospective research design. A sample of 514 incarcerated drunk drivers we are followed up for 24 to 45 months in Alberta, Canada. The study searched for possible sentencing thresholds, the optimum sentence length at which point deterrent effects are maximized, and used multivariate statistical analysis to control for possible confounding background variables. The authors observed that sentence length exerted consistent deterrent effects on repeat drunk driving, even for chronic offenders. Shorter sentences were less effective in discouraging drunk driving recidivism, while sentences longer than 6 months did not produce additional benefits.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argeriou, M.
, McCarty, D., & Blacker, E. (1985). Criminality among individuals arraigned for drinking and driving in Massachusetts. Journal of Studies in Alcohol, 46, 525-530.
2.
Beccaria, C.
(1963). On crimes and punishments. New York: Bobbs Merrill. (Original work published 1764)
3.
Bentham, J.
(1962). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Works 1. New York: Russel & Russell. (Original work published 1843)
4.
Block, M.
(1997). Supply side imprisonment policy. Two views on imprisonment policies (pp. 9-27). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
5.
Campbell, D.
, & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Skokie, Ill: Rand-McNally.
6.
DeJong, C.
(1997). Survival analysis and specific deterrence: Integrating theoretical and empirical models of recidivism. Criminology, 4, 561-575.
7.
DeYoung, D.
(1997). An evaluation of the effectiveness of alcohol treatment, driver license actions and jail terms in reducing drunk driving recidivism in California. Addiction, 92, 989-997.
8.
Donovan, D.
, Marlatt, G., & Saltzburg, P. (1983). Drinking behavior, personality factors and high-risk driving: A review and theoretical formulation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44, 395-428.
9.
Gibbs, J.
(1975). Crime, punishment and deterrence. New York. Elsevier.
10.
Gottfredson, M.
, & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
Greenberg, D.
(1979). Delinquency and the age structure in society. In S. L. Messinger, & E. Bittner (Eds.), Criminology review yearbook (pp. 586-620). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Hagan, J.
, & Bulmiller, K. (1983). Making sense of sentencing: Race and sentencing outcomes. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, M. Tonry, & S. Martin (Eds.), Research on sentencing: The search for reform (pp. 1-54). Washington, DC: National Academy Justice Press.
13.
Homel, R.
(1981). Penalties and the drunk driver: A study of one thousand offenders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 14, 225-241.
14.
Jones, R.
, Joksch, H., Lacey, J., & Schmidt, H. (1988). Field evaluation of jail sanctions for DWI. (Final Report). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
15.
Kramer, J.
, & Steffensmeir, D. (1993). Race and imprisonment decisions. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 357-376.
16.
Kramer, J.
, & Ulmer, J. (1996). Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines. Justice Quarterly, 13, 82-105.
17.
Lab, S.
(1997). Crime prevention: Approaches, practices, and evaluations. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
18.
Mann, R. E.
, Vingilis, E., Gavin, D., Adlaf, E., & Anglin, L. (1991). Sentence severity and the drinking driver: Relationships with traffic safety outcome. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23, 483-491.
19.
McKnight, J.
, & Voas, R. (1991). The effect of license suspension upon DWI recidivism. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 7, 43-54.
20.
Nichols, J.
, & Ross, H. L. (1990). The effectiveness of legal sanctions in dealing with drunk drivers. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 6, 33-60.
21.
Paternoster, R.
(1987). The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4, 173-217.
22.
Peck, R. C.
(1991). Deterrent effects of DUI sanctions. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 7, 13-41.
23.
Sadler, D.
, Perrine, M., & Peck, R. (1991). The long-term traffic safety impact of a pilot alcohol abuse treatment as an alternative to license sanctions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23, 203-224.
24.
Shover, N.
(1996). Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Tittle, C.
, & Logan, C. (1973). Sanctions and deviance: Evidence and remaining questions. Law and Society Review, 7, 371-392
26.
Weinrath, M.
(1994). Evaluation: The Alsike Correctional Camp impaired drivers program. Report prepared for People Against Impaired Driving and Alberta Justice Department.
27.
Williams, K.
, & Hawkins, G. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical review. Law and Society Review, 20, 545-572.
28.
Wilson, R.
, & Jonah, B. (1985). Identifying impaired drivers among the general driving population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46, 531-537.
29.
Wright, R.
(1994). In defense of prisons. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
30.
Zimring, F.
, & Hawkins, G. (1997). Lethal violence and the overreach of American imprisonment. Two views on imprisonment policies (pp. 1-8). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
