- Repeat driving-while-impaired (DWI) offenders pose a significant public health threat.
- One judicial option is to mandate that offenders attend a victim impact panel (VIP).
- VIPs include individuals who were seriously injured or whose loved ones were killed in a DWI crash.
- VIPs are designed to influence DWI offenders on an emotional level in order to change their attitudes about drunk driving, and reduce the likelihood of re-offense.
- A recent study of the referral patterns and efficacy of VIPs found a minimal impact on repeat DWI offenders.
Repeat drunk-driving offenders pose a significant public health threat. To counter this problem as early as possible, a variety of programs have been implemented for first-time offenders. These include education programs on the effects of alcohol, substance-abuse treatment, and stronger legal sanctions. One judicial option is to mandate that offenders attend a victim impact panel (VIP), composed of individuals who were seriously injured or whose loved ones were killed in a driving while impaired (DWI) crash. A study in the September issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research examined the referral patterns and effectiveness of VIPs in New Mexico. Researchers found that female judges and judges that regularly adjudicated DWI cases more often referred offenders to a VIP; researchers also found that attending a VIP had an effect ranging from none at all to as much as a 20 percent decrease in re-arrest rates.
Janet C'de Baca, research scientist at the Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest and first author of the study, explained that studies have shown than persons convicted of DWI offenses are at a high risk of re-offending. Indeed, approximately 20 to 28 percent of first-time offenders repeat their offense. These repeat offenders are also more likely to be involved in hit-and-run collisions involving pedestrian fatalities, have high blood alcohol concentrations (.15% and above), and be involved in a fatal crash. Some studies have estimated that 25 to 75 percent of DWI offenders with a suspended license nonetheless continue to drive. Furthermore, an estimated 35 to 40 percent of all fatally injured drinking drivers have had a prior arrest for DWI.
New Mexico has one of the highest rates of DWI and alcohol-related deaths in the nation, according to William R. Miller, Distinguished Professor of psychology and psychiatry and director of research at the Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions at The University of New Mexico. "Although rates of DWI-related deaths have been declining over the past ten years," he said, "this remains one of the leading causes of premature death. Part of the problem is that while most people condemn 'drunk' driving, many aspects of our culture accept drinking and driving. For many drinkers, 'drunk' is defined as 'more than I have had to drink.' Consequently, people continue to drink and drive, assuming that they are not 'too drunk to drive,' even though it takes relatively little alcohol to impair driving ability."
"Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) initiated VIPs in 1982," explained C'de Baca. "The panels had earlier been co-founded by a judge in Washington state and the parents of a young man killed by a drunk driver. A MADD official in New Mexico, who was working with victims of drunk drivers, was very aware of how victims were rarely a part of the court process, and were typically not invited to participate or to tell their story. She knew that this created a sense of powerlessness and frustration in these victims. She heard about VIPs, brought the idea back to New Mexico, and the panels were established here in 1989."
VIP members speak to a group of DWI offenders that does not include their own offender. The goal is to influence DWI offenders on an emotional level to change their attitudes about drunk driving, thus reducing the likelihood of re-offense. C'de Baca said that VIPs can "raise empathy, allowing the offender to put themselves in the place of people harmed by drunk drivers." She said they also help put a "human face" on drinking and driving. "VIPs can change the focus of offenders from feeling sorry for themselves for having been caught, to the actual human consequences of their offense," she said.
Miller disagreed with the effectiveness of what he considered the premise of VIPs: the belief that DWI offenses can be prevented by "shaming" or "shocking" people through confrontation with the devastating suffering caused by alcohol-related crashes. "Unfortunately," he said, "confrontation is a rather ineffective way to address alcohol abuse, and can even backfire." Research on confrontational approaches to treatment, he added, indicates they have either no beneficial effect or may result in worse outcomes than if nothing at all had been done.
"While most people acknowledge that driving while intoxicated is a serious problem in our society," observed Miller, "far too little attention has been given to what works and what doesn't work in preventing it. DWI offenders are routinely mandated by the courts into programs for which there is little or no evidence of efficacy. The widely used DWI schools, for example, appear to have little positive impact on the probability of re-offense."
Miller said this presents a problem on several levels. "First of all, if the force of the state, through the courts, is to be used to coerce an offender to accept a treatment or prevention program, there ought to be reasonably sound evidence that the program is, in fact, likely to be beneficial and reduce the probability of recidivism. Second, society is not protected if the programs into which offenders are referred are actually ineffective, or worse, increase the likelihood of recidivism. Third, without careful research on the effectiveness of DWI programs, we get no better at combating the problem, but instead perpetuate the unproven theories and practices of the past." Miller believes that VIPs, although they seemed like a good idea at onset, were widely adopted before being properly tested.
C'de Baca explained some of the study's findings. "Because females in our society are more likely to be socialized to attend to feelings," she said, "female judges may have been more likely to see value in how the raw emotion expressed in a VIP might impact an offender." Furthermore, she added, "judges who regularly adjudicated DWI offenders were sure to be more aware of the options available in terms of sentencing where protem judges may not be, and may also have had anecdotal information supporting the efficacy of VIPs."
Yet, C'de Baca noted that courts throughout the country routinely mandate convicted drunk drivers to different programs with expectations that this will reduce repeat offending. "It is important to evaluate whether these programs are effective in reducing recidivism," she said, " and are they differentially effective for different populations? Are we getting the best bang for our buck?"
Miller said that the burden of proof is on a program, to demonstrate that it has a beneficial effect. "Many people are understandably angry at the continuing carnage caused by people who drink and drive," he said. "That anger leads to a public outcry to 'do something.' Yet, in our passion and urgency, we must be careful not to rush into methods that are ineffective. Before we use the schools or the courts to expose large numbers of people to a program intended to prevent problems, we ought to make very sure that the program does, in fact, prevent those problems."
Co-authors of the Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research paper included: S.C. Lapham, S. Paine, and B.J. Skipper of the Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.