E-mail Story
Print Friendly Front Page 
opinion guest_columns
Sunday, August 16, 2009
DWI Talks, Panels Ineffective
By Dr. William R. Miller
Addiction scientist
Why do we keep on doing what doesn't work — or worse? New Mexico continues to have one of the nation's highest rates of DWI fatalities. Some of the world's best science about what does and doesn't work in preventing and treating alcohol problems has been done right here in New Mexico. You would think that we would be using what we already know to protect the public.
In New Mexico the sentence for all convicted DWI first offenders (who often turn out to be multiple offenders) normally includes fines, probation, community service and the required installation of an ignition interlock device — all very sensible consequences for the offense. I also support the governor's proposal for mandatory jail time on first offense. Just being arrested, handcuffed, photographed, fingerprinted and jailed for the first time is a shock that in itself is a wake-up call likely to deter further offenses.
Unless, that is, we do something else to undo the deterrent effect. First offenders in New Mexico are also required to pay for and complete (1) a DWI "school" and (2) a Victim Impact Panel sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Let's examine each of these separately.
If there is one thing that we know for sure is ineffective in changing problem drinking, it is lectures and films.
Alcohol problems (and DWI) are clearly not a knowledge deficit, any more than people smoke because they are unaware that it causes cancer. Dozens of studies show that educational lectures at best have no effect on problem drinking.
A psychologist friend was hired by a California county to evaluate its DWI school, similar to the one we offer here. He persuaded the courts to randomly assign offenders to go or not go to DWI school, in addition to the usual legal penalties. Those who attended the school had a significantly higher rate of repeat offense.
When I asked my friend why he thought this had happened, he said, "I think that being arrested for the first time is a shock and deterrent, unless you put the offender in a room full of 200 other interesting people who have all done the same thing, which convinces them that what they did is not all that unusual. I think it desensitizes them."
The county, by the way, put the study in a drawer, and continued to require the same DWI school.
The Victim Impact Panel (VIP) sounds like a sensible idea. Bring a large group of offenders together in an auditorium and make them listen to heart-rending true stories about how people's lives have been devastated by drunken drivers. There is no stated theory behind the VIP, but presumably it is meant to educate, and make offenders feel bad, ashamed and guilty about what they have done.
Two of the best studies on the ineffectiveness of the VIP in deterring DWI recidivism were done in Albuquerque. One very large study found no benefit at all. A better-designed study again randomly assigned offenders to attend or not attend the VIP in addition to other legal sanctions. The VIP had no effect on first offenders, but for those past their first offense, attending the VIP doubled the chances of their doing it again.
Those who attended did, incidentally, come away feeling ashamed, humiliated and guilty. It's just that making people feel bad about themselves does not inspire them to behave any better. And despite both studies done right here, we continue to require offenders to attend the VIP.
So why do we keep on doing this? Why do we use the force of law to require offenders to pay for and attend what clearly doesn't work? Perhaps it just makes us feel better, like we've done our moral duty to educate and shame offenders. But if what we really want is to reduce DWI recidivism and make our streets safer, what we're doing makes no sense at all.
Dr. Miller is a University of New Mexico emeritus distinguished professor of psychology and psychiatry.
You also can send comments via our comment form
|
|
