Failure of defendants to appear at hearings is another serious
problem in prosecuting hardcore drunk driving cases, yet typically, only
nominal penalties apply.
Failure to appear reduces the court’s ability to determine guilt and to
devise sanctions for an offender who is found guilty. Failure-to-appear
cases cannot plead guilty. When a defendant fails to appear, an arrest warrant
is often issued, but the defendant may cross state lines and never be found.
Offenders who live near state lines and commit crimes in a neighboring state
may be tracked only if the two states have a linked, computerized system
of warrants.
A 2002 survey of prosecutors revealed 22 percent of defendants in drunk
driving cases fail to appear during some point in their case, and the percentage
is even higher in border states and jurisdictions with large immigrant populations,
where some offenders may not have legal status in the United States.
Sixty-five percent of prosecutors and a majority of judges surveyed believe
failure to appear is more common among hardcore repeat offenders than among
non-hardcore. Prosecutors suggest defendants who fail to appear be held
in custody until trial or released on bail to ensure appearance. Judges
have also supported these solutions, along with transportation and cost-sharing
agreements to encourage jurisdictions to make it cost efficient to hold
defendants on bench warrants (Robertson and Simpson 2002).
Some judges have proposed innovative solutions such as telephone reminders.
Judge David Admire in King County, Washington, sends defendants a telephone
reminder prior to their scheduled court appearances. Failure-to-appear rates
have dropped from 42 percent to 18 percent (Robertson and Simpson 2002).
Ultimately, penalties must be increased for failure to appear at court.
Studies recommend penalties for failure to appear reflect the severity of
the crime (Robertson and Simpson 2002; Jones, Lacey, and Wiliszowski 1998).
|
The Todd Program: Customized Sanctions
Reduce Recidivism in Rockdale County, Georgia
Judge William Todd’s program in the State Court of Rockdale County,
Georgia, combines traditional and alternative sanctions that are individually
tailored to the drunk driving offender’s needs. The program works
to ensure consistency by keeping detailed records of the facts of
each drunk driving case, including the sentence handed down. These
records provide the court with a valuable resource when encountering
cases similar to previous cases handled by the court.
The program carefully includes a pre-sentence investigation done by
Judge Todd, who draws upon a database his court created and maintains.
Judge Todd considers specifics of a case (i.e. the past record, BAC,
presence of other drugs, crash/injuries) in determining jail time.
In sentencing, Judge Todd uses rehabilitative measures such as counseling,
victim impact panels, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and essays.
For those offenders sentenced to probation, Judge Todd works to monitor
compliance with probation conditions by employing restrictive measures
such as work release, house arrest, frequent meetings with a parole
officer, random alcohol and drug testing, alcohol treatment, ignition
interlock devices and the seizure of license plates. He backs up his
program with swift punishments for parole violations, including arrest
warrants, weekly hearings and stricter probation modifications. Conversely,
compliance is rewarded with gradual easing of restrictions.
Judge Todd’s program was evaluated for the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA). The study compared Judge Todd’s court
with another local court where only the minimum sentence was imposed.
The study found recidivism in Judge Todd’s program was far lower (about
one-half) than the other local program using minimum sentences. The
study also concluded the Todd Program could be implemented in other
courts interested in developing a program to reduce recidivism among
drunk driving offenders (Jones and Lacey 1998). |
|
