Certain punishment is the second crucial component to combating hardcore drunk driving. In conjunction with swift identification, certain punishment is necessary not only to penalize the hardcore drunk driver but to deter repeat behavior. Public pressure to deal severely with the problem has resulted in stricter legislation and tougher law enforcement. Among the byproducts:

• Over the years, more than 2,000 laws have been passed to punish convicted drunk driving offenders.
• Many courts are inundated with DWI cases. Approximately 1.5 million people are arrested for drunk driving in America each year, a number that presents a tremendous challenge to the judicial community as the cases move through the system.
• DWI offenses are the most frequently adjudicated misdemeanor in the lower courts. For example, in Minnesota, almost 40 percent of the criminal calendar is DWI-related (Robertson and Simpson 2002).

In addition to their frequency, drunk driving cases are among the most complicated criminal cases in terms of legal and evidentiary issues. Successful prosecution is frequently complicated by new legislation, changing case law and sophisticated defense techniques.

What is the best sentencing strategy to prevent or discourage the hardcore from driving drunk? While drunk drivers vary greatly in terms of their response to specific deterrence efforts, judicial policies increasing the swiftness of adjudication and the certainty of punishment of convicted offenders are greater deterrents than policies increasing the severity of punishment (NHTSA 1996). But those two words — sure and swift — rarely apply to judicial proceedings for drunk drivers. Often there are significant delays between the offense and the trial or disposition of DWI cases. And plea-bargaining and pre-trial diversion programs can result in a conviction on a reduced charge, which in turn, avoids a drunk driving conviction on the driver's record. Sentencing guidelines often are ignored and licensing sanctions reduced (Voas 1995).

Many drunk driving laws allow the judge considerable discretion in sentencing. Sometimes these laws are enforced to the fullest extent, but for a variety of reasons unique to each locality, many times they are not. Some key judicial problems identified by judges include sentence monitoring, evidentiary problems, caseload, motions and continuances, failure to appear, records, sentencing disparity, mandatory minimum sentences and juries (Robertson and Simpson, June 2002).

When hardcore drunk drivers receive a lenient sentence, the deterrent effect of the laws is considerably weakened.