Скачать презентацию New York Times Editorial November 25 2006 Скачать презентацию New York Times Editorial November 25 2006

55fdf59ab1df375bf0485ca32f1b2601.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 36

New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006. . “The initial (MADD) goal, which is New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006. . “The initial (MADD) goal, which is backed by associations of State highway officials and car manufacturers, is to have all states do what New Mexico has already done: require that all convicted drunken drivers, even first-time offenders, have devices installed in their cars that measure alcohol in the breath and immobilized the car if levels exceed set limits. ” Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 1

Reducing DWI With Interlocks The New Mexico Experience Richard Roth, Ph. D Research Consultant Reducing DWI With Interlocks The New Mexico Experience Richard Roth, Ph. D Research Consultant and Citizen Lobbyist Supported by PIRE, RWJ, and NM TSB Minnesota Interlock Symposium February 22, 2007 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 2

An Ignition Interlock is an Electronic Probation Officer • • • Dedicated Probation Officer An Ignition Interlock is an Electronic Probation Officer • • • Dedicated Probation Officer in Front Seat On duty 24 hours per day Tests and Records daily BAC’s Allows only Alcohol-Free Persons to Drive. Reports All Violations to the Court Costs Offender only $2. 30 per day. (1 less drink per day) Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 3

New Mexico Interlock Laws • 1999 Optional for 2 nd and 3 rd DWI. New Mexico Interlock Laws • 1999 Optional for 2 nd and 3 rd DWI. • 2002 Mandatory for all Aggravated and Subsequent DWI. Indigent Fund • 2003 Ignition Interlock License Act: …. an alternative to revocation. • 2005 Mandatory Interlocks for all DWIs: 1 yr for 1 st ; 2 for 2 nd ; 3 for 3 rd ; Lifetime for 4+ Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 4

Interlocks are Effective, Cost-Effective and Fair • Interlocks reduce DWI re-arrests by 40 -90% Interlocks are Effective, Cost-Effective and Fair • Interlocks reduce DWI re-arrests by 40 -90% • They reduce the economic impact of drunk driving by $3 to $7 for every $1 of cost. • Interlocks are perceived as a fair sanction by 85% of over 5000 offenders surveyed. • . . But they only work if… • you get them installed. Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 5

My Estimate In 2005 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium Estimate 5688 So Far 6 My Estimate In 2005 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium Estimate 5688 So Far 6

How does New Mexico compare with other states in interlock utilization? Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota How does New Mexico compare with other states in interlock utilization? Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 7

How many interlock licenses have been granted and is the rate changing? Roth 2/22/07 How many interlock licenses have been granted and is the rate changing? Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 8

Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 9 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 9

Do Interlocked Offenders have a Lower Re-Arrest Rate? • Court Mandated Installations of Interlocks. Do Interlocked Offenders have a Lower Re-Arrest Rate? • Court Mandated Installations of Interlocks. --Selected as installations within 90 days after conviction. N = 3089 • Voluntary Installations. -Selected as all others. N = 4961 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 10

Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 11 Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 11

Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders Comparison Groups(RED) Roth 2/22/07 Interlocked Groups(GREEN) Minnesota Interlock Symposium Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders Comparison Groups(RED) Roth 2/22/07 Interlocked Groups(GREEN) Minnesota Interlock Symposium 12

Effectiveness with Volunteers RED=Comparison Groups Roth 2/22/07 ie. Not court-mandated GREEN=Interlocked Groups Minnesota Interlock Effectiveness with Volunteers RED=Comparison Groups Roth 2/22/07 ie. Not court-mandated GREEN=Interlocked Groups Minnesota Interlock Symposium 13

No Priors Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 14 No Priors Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 14

Did the Mandatory Ignition Interlock Law Change the Statewide DWI Re-arrest Rate? • Overall Did the Mandatory Ignition Interlock Law Change the Statewide DWI Re-arrest Rate? • Overall NM DWI Re-arrests before and after mandatory interlocks and Licensing Act • DWI Re-arrests in the County that used the most interlocks/DWI Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 15

Statewide recidivism decreased. 8. 0% Before 6. 7% After A 16% Reduction Roth 2/22/07 Statewide recidivism decreased. 8. 0% Before 6. 7% After A 16% Reduction Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 16

Before After 8. 7% Before 6. 2% After A 29% Reduction Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Before After 8. 7% Before 6. 2% After A 29% Reduction Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 17

Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 18 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 18

Fewer Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes and Fatalities Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 19 Fewer Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes and Fatalities Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 19

Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 20 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 20

Survey of Interlocked Offenders N = 796 77% 69% Roth 2/22/07 81% 63% Minnesota Survey of Interlocked Offenders N = 796 77% 69% Roth 2/22/07 81% 63% Minnesota Interlock Symposium 21

January to September 2006 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 22 January to September 2006 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 22

Interlocks Installed Per Conviction in First 9 months of 2006 Caution: this figure includes Interlocks Installed Per Conviction in First 9 months of 2006 Caution: this figure includes installations by persons not convicted, and changes of provider. Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 23

Interlocks Installed per DWI Arrest by County in NM Jan-Sept 2006 Caution: Includes some Interlocks Installed per DWI Arrest by County in NM Jan-Sept 2006 Caution: Includes some changes of Provider. Room for Improvement Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 24

Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 25 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 25

Proposals to Close NM Loopholes 1. Add “or electronic monitoring” for No car. 2. Proposals to Close NM Loopholes 1. Add “or electronic monitoring” for No car. 2. Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked without an interlock. 3. Vehicle Immobilization or Interlock between arrest and adjudication. 4. Crime to contribute to circumvention. 5. Apply interlock sanction to juvenile offenders. 6. Mandate a period of alcohol-free DRIVING before getting unrestricted license. Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 26

MN • • • 4. 9 M 86% 4% 1. 2% 3. 6 M MN • • • 4. 9 M 86% 4% 1. 2% 3. 6 M 37, 002 0. 16% 30, 534 82% ~20, 700 ~56% 201 Roth 2/22/07 NM 2005 Comparison 1. 9 M 43% 10% 1. 2 M 18, 478 0. 16% 12, 765 69% 10, 834 59% 189 Population White, non Hispanic and Latino Native American Licensed Drivers DWI Arrests Average BAC DWI Convictions Conviction Rate “First Offenders” Percent First Offenders Alcohol Involved Fatalities Minnesota Interlock Symposium 27

What does this trend imply? 1. Bad News: More Drunk Driving? . . or What does this trend imply? 1. Bad News: More Drunk Driving? . . or 2. Good News: More Enforcement? Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 28

What do these trends imply? Good News: LESS DRUNK DRIVING DWI Or Safer Hiways…or What do these trends imply? Good News: LESS DRUNK DRIVING DWI Or Safer Hiways…or Safer Cars…. or More Seat Belt Use Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 29

Recommendations for MN • Get Interlocks into the vehicles of all those arrested for Recommendations for MN • Get Interlocks into the vehicles of all those arrested for DWI as soon as possible after arrest. • Keep interlocks installed until there is evidence of Alcohol-Free Driving for a significant period of time. Eg 1 year. • Motivate those who do not drive Alcohol. Free to take advantage of Treatment. Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 30

Administrative vs. Judicial Interlock Programs A Roundtable & Debate on Pros and Cons With Administrative vs. Judicial Interlock Programs A Roundtable & Debate on Pros and Cons With some revisions in YELLOW by Roth Presenters: Robert Voas, Ph. D. Richard Roth, Ph. D. Participants: Jim Mosher, J. D. Ian Marples, LL. B. Jim Frank, Ph. D. Robyn Robertson, M. A. Bill Rauch, D. A. International Ignition Interlock Symposium, October 22 -24, 2006 Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 31

Ideal Judicial Program 1. Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders Ideal Judicial Program 1. Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders 2. With electronic monitoring or periodic urine tests as the only alternatives 3. Minimum of one year duration 4. Compliance-Based-Removal: No recorded BAC>0. 05 for 6 months prior to Removal 5. Mandatory extra monitoring for the noncompliant. eg. UAs, Sobrieters, or SCRAM 6. Mandatory Treatment if indicated by #5. Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 32

JUDICIAL ADVANTAGES • It is mandatory (if electronic monitoring, periodic urine tests, or jail JUDICIAL ADVANTAGES • It is mandatory (if electronic monitoring, periodic urine tests, or jail are the only alternatives) • It eliminates self-selection • It gets more interlocks installed per DWI. Eg over 35% of those arrested in NM. . ___________________ DISADVANTAGES • Applies only to those convicted (65%-85%) • Judicial Implementation Varies by judge • Installation is not immediate after arrest. Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 33

Ideal Administrative Program Upon arrest DMV suspends under ALR but offers free interlock program Ideal Administrative Program Upon arrest DMV suspends under ALR but offers free interlock program Upon conviction court orders electronic house arrest, or other electronic monitoring unless offender has installed interlock and begins to pay for it. DWI fines raised to cover interlock costs Compliance based removal and referral to treatment. Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 34

ADMINISTRATIVE ADVANTAGES • • Centralized authority and criteria Prompt Installation after arrest Allows changed ADMINISTRATIVE ADVANTAGES • • Centralized authority and criteria Prompt Installation after arrest Allows changed offenders to drive legally Applicable to all arrested DWI offenders. DISADVANTAGES • • • Large self-selection component Avoided by those who need it most Doesn’t get many interlocks installed per DWI Doesn’t reduce over-all recidivism by much. Many more Administrative Appeal Hearings Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 35

Legislative Recommendations 1. Immobilization or Interlock between DWI arrest and adjudication. 2. Mandatory Interlock Legislative Recommendations 1. Immobilization or Interlock between DWI arrest and adjudication. 2. Mandatory Interlock for at least one year for all convicted offenders with electronic monitoring or urine testing as the only alternatives. 3. Compliance Based Removal. Requirement: No recorded BAC >. 05 by any driver for a year. 4. Interlock License as an Alternative to Revocation. 5. An Indigent Fund with objective standards. 6. Mandatory Period of Interlock before Unrestricted License Reinstatement. Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 36