Creating Impaired Driver General Deterrence
Eight Case Studies of Sustained,
High-Visibility, Impaired-Driving Enforcement

THE THEORY OF GENERAL DETERRENCE

All of the programs described in this document can be characterized as involving sustained, high-visibility, special enforcement. Also, each program is supported by a publicity and education campaign that is intended to create a general deterrence effect.

The following figure illustrates the theory of general deterrence as it is applied in special enforcement programs that are intended to influence drinking and driving behavior. The figure illustrates the sequence of real and hypothetical events, beginning with special police enforcement activity and publicity about the special enforcement. Next, according to the model, the publicity increases public awareness about the special enforcement, which, in turn, generates the public perception that the risks of detection and arrest have been elevated. If the perceived risk becomes sufficiently high, individuals will choose to refrain from driving motor vehicles after drinking alcohol, according to the general deterrence model.

The general deterrence model as applied in impaired-driving enforcement programs.

It is evident from this discussion that central to the theory of general deterrence are assumptions about how individuals' perceptions of risks and rewards motivate their choices to engage in prohibited behaviors. In essence, general deterrence is a theory of perceptions, not necessarily of realities. Because individuals’ perceptions are influenced by many factors, primarily personal experience, some individuals will perceive the risk of arrest to increase with special enforcement, while others will not. Yet other individuals might perceive the risk of arrest to increase, but for them the threshold of risk acceptance is beyond the level created by the general deterrence program (e.g., due to entrenched patterns, habits, or social support). The perceptions of a final category of individuals might remain unchanged because they just did not receive the message about the special enforcement. On the positive side for traffic safety, because perceptions are involved, it is possible to emphasize the risk in an attempt to deter (i.e., change) the driving behavior of individuals. For this reason, highly visible enforcement methods and publicity about the enforcement contribute to the general deterrence effect by elevating public awareness of the program.

All general deterrence programs share the objective of increasing the perceived risk of detection or arrest. Jacobs (1989) has discussed the barriers to DWI general deterrence programs. Those barriers include:

• Awareness. If one is unaware of the risks involved in a deviant act, it is unlikely that perceptions or behavior will be altered.
  
  
• Comparative Risk. Most drinking drivers are aware that driving performance is impaired by alcohol and the probability of crashing is increased when impaired. Thus, the risk of arrest needs to be greater than the perceived risk of crashing in order to affect a change in behavior.
  
  
• Impaired Decision-Making. The immediate decision to drive after drinking is usually made after the driver is impaired and not thinking clearly about risks and probabilities of crashing or being arrested.
  
  
• Infrequent Behavior. For some, driving while impaired is an infrequent or aberrational act, performed in response to situational conditions or stressors. Public policy and special enforcement are unlikely to eliminate individuals’ infrequent or aberrational behavior.
  
  
• Chronic Behavior. Conversely, for some individuals driving while impaired is habitual, even a way of life. General deterrence approaches might increase the perceived risk of arrest but are unlikely to deter these chronic offenders from driving while impaired by alcohol, but it is certainly worth trying.

General deterrence approaches have been applied to the drinking driver problem for decades. For example, the statutory formula of first offense-misdemeanor and second offense-felony has been a common application of general deterrence in the United States since the 1930s (King and Tipperman, 1975). But, the systematic development and implementation of general deterrence programs aimed at drinking drivers did not begin until the early 1970s, following the establishment of NHTSA. In the words of Professor Jacobs,

In recent years most jurisdictions around the country have sought to increase the probability of apprehension by setting up special anti-drunk driving squads, initiating roadblocks, or simply making drunk driving arrests a higher priority. They have acted to increase the certainty of conviction by restricting plea bargaining and opportunities for pretrial diversion. In these efforts they have been aided by the citizens anti-drunk driving groups, which have undertaken “court watch” programs, letter writing (to judges) campaigns, and the public condemnation of what they regard as unduly lenient sentences (1989: 107).