ardcore drunk drivers represent a distinct problem in the arena of traffic safety and criminal justice. They typically fall into one of two categories: 1) those who are disposed to conform to the law but have a severe drinking problem; or 2) those who are basically not inclined to conform and for whom alcohol abuse is just one of an array of antisocial behaviors.

Either way, because hardcore drunk drivers exhibit deep-seated, persistent behavior patterns, we cannot rely simply on the same approaches that work for low-risk offenders. Instead, we must use a combination of responses that are appropriate to the complex nature of the hardcore offender's underlying problems. These responses must aim to identify, punish and treat the hardcore offender, so that he or she will no longer drink and drive.

"Effective intervention strategies
must be identified to reduce the tragic consequences of this persistent, seemingly intractable, behavior."

Judge Robert A. Mulligan, Chief Justice of the Superior Court in Boston

Swift identification is important: 1) to detect hardcore offenders as early as possible in the progression of their drinking-and-driving career; and 2) once arrested, to identify them as hardcore drunk drivers and take immediate action to prevent their return to driving until fundamental behavior change has occurred

Certain punishment also has twofold significance: 1) speed and certainty of penalties have been shown to have a greater deterrent value than severity; and 2) sanctions that inhibit the offender's ability to drive, punish the offense and support rehabilitation must be imposed consistently and in concert to influence hardcore behavior.

Effective treatment is key to reducing recidivism because, regardless of penalties imposed, sooner or later the offender will begin driving again. The only way to safeguard against an offender's return to drunk driving is treatment that produces changes in behavior and lifestyle.

A Coordinated Effort

In most states, drunk-driving legislation has been enacted in a piecemeal fashion, often in answer to a specific concern of the moment. This lack of coordination in drunk driving laws and programs - compounded by incomplete record keeping - plays an important role in the failure of many current efforts to deter hardcore drunk driving. For low-risk offenders, being caught once, receiving fines and penalties and attending alcohol education are sufficient to dissuade them from future drunk driving. But those consequences have little impact on the hardcore, and hardcore offenders know how to work our flawed system to avoid identification, punishment and treatment.

A successful strategy requires weaving together programs, policies, procedures and laws to create a coordinated system that addresses every aspect of the hardcore dilemma. In part, states need to examine their current statutes to coordinate existing laws, close loopholes and enact legislative authority to create a comprehensive system to:

Leadership and Commitment

No one agency or governing body can accomplish all this alone. A combination of commitment, cooperation and leadership on the part of all affected organizations is needed to bring together the perspectives and organizational know-how to develop a smooth-running system. It is therefore essential that a representative group be carefully chosen and empowered to be the architects and overseers of a new or redesigned system. Whether the call for such a group comes from the executive, legislative or judicial branch, it is important that it be accountable to a top-level authority and that its recommendations have the acceptance and support of all three branches.

While the goal of this effort should be focused on reducing the incidence of hardcore drunk driving, the creation of a strong, interlocking system demands that a number of related issues also be taken into account. In dealing with hardcore drunk drivers, two issues in particular are of high importance - driving while suspended for DWI and plea-bargaining a DWI to non-alcohol related offense. Driving while suspended is often part of the chronic behavior pattern of hardcore drunk drivers and must be addressed as such. Similarly, reducing a DWI to a non-alcohol related offense cheats the system of the ability to recognize a repeat offender in the future, and it often cheats the offender of receiving the potentially life-saving help that would otherwise be mandated.

The state of Michigan recently conducted a sweeping review of its drunk driving laws and procedures. Led by a broad-based task force commissioned by the governor, in 1998 the Michigan legislature passed a package of bills amending fifty sections of law dealing with repeat offenders. Coordinated through the Office of the Secretary of State, the new system restricts repeat offender access to vehicles, assures uniform licensing actions, strengthens laws against driving while suspended or revoked, exacts tougher penalties and provides mandatory assessment and treatment. Additionally, a special inter-agency committee on information management was charged with overseeing the efficient capture and delivery of information over electronic networks throughout the system.

Tying It AllTogether - Special Charges and the Actions That Follow

Special criminal charges of Aggravated DWI and Hardcore DWI can form the critical link between the objectives of deterring hardcore drunk driving and the practical application of effective tactics. Special charges create a channel from the offense to remedial steps that can break the drinking-driving cycle. A tiered system of charges recognizes the increased problems caused by driving with a high blood alcohol content and allows for more severe sanctions and more intensive treatment to be applied to repeat offenders. The structure of such a system could be:

Special charges help shape an integrated system that:

Among other benefits, special charges:

While most states require higher penalties for repeat offenders, few employ a system that includes mandatory identification, assessment and treatment, as the Hardcore DWI charge would require.

The Cost Dilemma

One of the most daunting aspects of developing a system to deal with hardcore drunk drivers is finding funds to support necessary programs. While some monies are available through highway safety grants and recent federal legislation, TEA-21, offers additional incentive grants especially relating to repeat offenders, many state agencies struggle to pay for the most basic programs.

By passing legislation requiring that fines received from drunk driving arrests are dedicated to anti-drunk driving programs, the State of New York has empowered local communities to support programs appropriate to the needs of the locality. At the same time, it has funded an effective, statewide anti-DWI law enforcement program. In New York, this funding source amounts to about $30 million a year. In Suffolk County alone, it provided $3.2 million for anti-drunk driving programs in 1997 and funded a model dedicated detention facility.

Generally, throughout the nation, there is a desire to shift more of the financial burden from taxpayers to offenders. This is especially true for treatment, and some programs assess the offender on a sliding fee scale based on ability to pay. However, several forum participants pointed out that judges often are reluctant to force offenders to pay for treatment because of the financial hardship to the offender's family, who already bear the burden of the hardcore offender's alcohol problems.

A participant at the Ohio forum offered a typical scenario:

A difficult situation? Yes, but not impossible. As Dr. Steve Valle of the Willow Street Medical Center said at the Massachusetts forum: