|
Plea-bargaining agreements by prosecutors and defense attorneys
can reduce DWI offenders’ sentences to those of non-alcoholrelated offenses
such as reckless driving and failure to keep to the right. Such unlimited
plea-bargaining can have significant negative consequences. First, it undermines
the penalties of the initial charge and any specific deterrent value the
arrest might have had. Second, it exempts the defendant from participating
in alcohol education, screening for alcohol dependence, and, if appropriate,
referral for treatment. And third, it deprives law enforcement officials
of a standard method of identifying recidivists.
Placing limits on plea-bargaining can lead to more accurate identification
of repeat offenders and more appropriate sanctions being imposed. According
to a 2002 survey, prosecutors support the idea of restricted plea-bargaining,
such as removing the opportunity to plead down to a non-alcohol offense
and discontinuing plea-bargaining in high BAC cases. Prosecutors also support
stating the reasons for a plea agreement on the record (Robertson and Simpson
2002).
In Pitkin County, Colorado, DWI cases, by statute, may not be reduced to
a non-alcohol related offense unless the District Attorney states in open
court that he/she does not have a prima facie case (Jones et al. 1999).
Florida does not allow high BAC offenders to plead guilty to a lesser charge
(McCartt 2001). Ten states — Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York and Wyoming — have enacted plea-bargaining
restrictions, and other states do not permit plea negotiations in specific
circumstances, such as cases involving serious injury or death or high BAC
offenders (Robertson and Simpson 2002).
Plea-bargaining is common in other jurisdictions, with a preliminary analysis
showing about half of the high BAC offenders in Washington State were pleading
guilty to a lesser charge and avoiding enhanced penalties. A 2002 survey
of prosecutors found approximately 67 percent of offenders pleading guilty
do so with a negotiated plea agreement in place (Robertson and Simpson 2002).
Widespread plea-bargaining significantly weakens the coordinated system
to combat hardcore drunk drivers by allowing them to avoid classification
as such (McCartt 2001).
A meta-analysis of 52 studies on plea-bargaining restrictions combined with
other policies found an 11 percent reduction in crashes and injuries, suggesting
plea-bargaining restrictions are a vital part of an effective strategy for
reducing drunk driving (Wagenaar et al. 2000).
However, in Wisconsin, the possibility of receiving a lighter sentence is
the motivating factor for offenders participating in the Milwaukee County
Pre-trial Intoxicated Driver Intervention Project. The voluntary program
available for second and subsequent offenders, is a pre-trial intervention
program and continues until conviction, which could last six to nine months.
The offender is encouraged to participate in hopes of receiving a reduced
jail sentence. For more information, see intensive
supervision probation in the Sanctions section. |
