If I Had a Hammer, I Would Not Use it to Control Drunk Driving

Abstract

T he classic song "The hammer song" by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays (1949b) includes lyrics that tell us how the musicians proposed using a hammer. The rendition by Peter, Paul, and Mary ("If I had a hammer," Seeger and Hays, 1949a) who sung about hammering all over the land all day long is particularly well known. Of course, they were not really going to use the hammer the way they suggested; instead, the hammer was a metaphor for peace and civility. The way that criminal justice professionals use tools, however, is not metaphoric and has real implications for the lives of offenders, criminal justice professionals, and community members. It is within this framework that one can realize the importance of Dugosh, Festinger, and Marlowe's (2013, this issue) study.Criminologists have paid relatively little attention to explaining chronic drunk driving. Therefore, Dugosh et al. (2013) are to be commended for their contribution to the criminological literature with their study of the differences between one-time and recidivist drivingunder-the-influence (DUI) offenders. The current consensus explaining DUI recidivism relies on substance abuse and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) on arrest. Dugosh et al. point to the need for the community corrections field to have a short predictive instrument to classify DUI offenders. They argue that BAC, although correlated with DUI recidivism, "alone should . . . not be used as a sole determinant for increasing the severity of a DUI offender's case disposition." Furthermore, Dugosh et al. cite the overly clinical orientation,

Are Buzzed Drivers Really the Problem: A Quasi-Experimental Multilevel Assessment of the Involvement of Drivers With Low Blood Alcohol Levels in Fatal Crashes

“…Theoretically, there are issues with the consensus about the wrongfulness of driving after drinking two or three beers and the rational thought that occurs at higher levels of intoxication. There is a substantial evidence that deterrence-based policies are ineffective at reducing the propensity to drink and drive (see, for example, DeMichele & Payne, 2013; Fell & Voas, 2006; Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2014; Taxman & Piquero, 1998). Although proponents point to drops in crashes in some other countries who have enacted the .05 BAC level, the .08 change also worked in those countries despite questionable effects in the United States (Eisenberg, 2003; D.…”

“…Although this policy shift is unlikely to have a noteworthy effect on crashes, it will likely lead to a large increase in arrests for DUI. Society often aims to punish those who engage in crime, despite evidence of ineffectiveness, rather than explore other options that offer a more productive response to DUI behavior (DeMichele & Payne, 2013). However, Beccaria (1764/2003) argued that attempts to use deterrence to regulate virtues and vices such as this would create crime rather than prevent it.…”

“…There is a noteworthy amount of criminological research that argues that deterrence-based polices are ineffective at controlling crime and drunk driving (DeMichele & Payne, 2013; Pratt et al, 2006; Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Yu, 2000). In addition, recidivist drunk drivers are not heavily influenced by deterrence-based policies, such as DUI enforcement, statutes, or punishments (J.…”

“…Second, many argue that deterrence-based polices are ineffective at controlling drunk driving (DeMichele & Payne, 2013;Freeman & Watson, 2006;Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2014;Taxman & Piquero, 1998;Yu, 2000). Deterrence theory, which many DUI policies are founded upon, assumes consensus lawmaking in that everyone agrees that drunk driving is wrong (Beccaria, 1764(Beccaria, /2003.…”

“…Furthermore, criminological research into “buzzed driving” is nonexistent; however, as the proposed policy change will affect the criminal justice system, it should be addressed. Although some might advocate for policies based on deterrence, others in the field of criminology tend to be less enthusiastic about the effectiveness of deterrence policies in general and in relation to DUI enforcement (see, for example, DeMichele & Payne, 2013; Fell & Voas, 2006; Pratt, Cullen, Blevins, Daigle, & Madensen, 2006; Taxman & Piquero, 1998). This conflict may result from criminologists and traffic safety scholar’s lack of consideration of each other’s research (DeMichele, Lowe, & Payne, 2014).…”