Incarceration

Studies on the effects of incarceration have produced mixed results, and its effectiveness is the subject of intense debate. Increasingly, the public is demanding longer periods of incarceration for hardcore drunk drivers, despite research showing long-term incarceration alone does not lower the rate of recidivism among repeat offenders. Jail sentences often result in a high cost to the judicial and correctional systems, where overcrowding is a national concern.

Regardless of incarceration’s effect as a deterrent, studies imply jail sentences may serve notice that drunk driving will not be tolerated and, in that respect, play an important role in shaping public attitudes toward drinking and driving (Davies 1996).

The U.S. Department of Justice found 89 percent of DWI offenders in the nation’s justice system in 1987 were on probation rather than being incarcerated. Of the eleven percent of offenders who were incarcerated, 8 percent were in jail and 3 percent in state prison. DWI offenders serving time in jail had an average sentence of 11 months (Maruschak 1999).

A major obstacle to longer jail sentences is the pervasive problem of jail overcrowding. As one judge put it, "The amount of jail time was, frankly, a matter of how much space we had in jail."

When confinement is necessary, researchers recommend counseling and treatment to deal with addiction and lifestyle changes as deemed necessary by a thorough assessment of the offender. Incarceration alone, although feared, does not teach alternative behavior for individuals with alcohol-related problems. A research study in California found first-time offenders sentenced to jail had almost double the number of DWI reconvictions as offenders assigned to treatment and license restriction (DeYoung 1997).

As an alternative to traditional correctional institutions, there is a growing number of detention facilities dedicated to multiple DWI offenders. They provide confinement in conjunction with supervised alcohol treatment services. Detention usually ranges from two weeks to 90 days. An example of an alternative to incarceration is Chicago’s Haymarket House, which is a Rehabilitative Confinement Program (RCP) combining detention, community service, treatment and payment of fines or monetary sanctions. Offenders in the Chicago area are sentenced to these RCPs in week-long increments, with a maximum period of 28 days. The RCPs are housing facilities with fully supervised detention capacity; offenders are monitored at all times. Offenders also participate in the Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP) as a form of community service. For more about alternatives to incarceration, see the Dedicated Detention Facilities section.

Where Is Incarceration Used as a Hardcore Drunk Driving Sanction?

Most states have adopted some form of mandatory jail sentences for drunk driving. According to the National Hardcore Drunk Driver Project Survey, 24 states, the District of Columbia and one territory have mandatory terms of imprisonment for first-time drunk drivers, and 48 states, the District of Columbia and four territories impose mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders.

How Effective Is Incarceration in Reducing Hardcore Drunk Driving?

In general, studies suggest that as a specific deterrent, jail terms are no more effective than other sanctions in reducing DWI recidivism among either first-time or repeat offenders. Lengthy sentences are not associated with lower recidivism among repeat offenders.

Researchers Michael Weinrath and John Gartrell (2001) examined the relationship between length of incarceration and recidivism and found offenders receiving sentences of four months or less had the greatest likelihood of a repeat DWI. They also found the deterrent value of longer sentences peaks between four and six months. Based on this research, the authors recommended increasing or decreasing jail sentences to a length of six months.

However, a 2001 Wisconsin study found long-term incarceration alone is not effective in changing the attitude or behavior of repeat offenders and widespread long-term incarcerations would be cost-prohibitive (Brooker 2001).

Some studies have found extensive public awareness of the risk of incarceration can have a short-term effect as a deterrent aimed at the behavior of the general driving public. Additionally, a few studies suggest incarceration for two days has some beneficial effect on first-time offenders, although its effect on hardcore drunk drivers is not known.

How Much Does Incarceration Cost?

The daily rate varies according to the jurisdiction. In King County, Washington, the legislature voted to mandate DWI prisoners pay the cost of incarceration, about $53 a day, if the offender can afford it. Nevada projected the cost of keeping an inmate in prison for fiscal year 1998 was $16,084. Alaska has a statutory provision requiring offenders to reimburse up to $1,000 of their incarceration expenses. In Maricopa County, Arizona, it costs $36.79 per day per individual to keep an offender in jail (Jones and Lacey 2001). The cost of incarceration in Ohio is estimated at $20,267 per inmate per year.

Where to Go for More Information on Incarceration

Davies, B.T. 1996. Evaluation of Administrative License Revocation as a DWI Countermeasure. College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute and Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Maruschak, L.M. 1999. DWI Offenders Under Correctional Supervision. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Brooker, R.G. July 2001. Evaluation of Alternatives to Incarceration for Repeat Drunken Driving. Phase 1: Database Search. Milwaukee, WI: The Dieringer Research Group.