The dilemma of re-licensing DWI offenders: The offenders’ point of view

Accident Analysis and Prevention 87 (2016) 43–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

The dilemma of re-licensing DWI offenders: The offenders’ point of view Louise Nadeau a , Ward Vanlaar b , Juliette Jarvis c , Thomas G. Brown c,d,e,∗ a

Department de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Research Centre of the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Verdun, Québec, Canada d Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada e Foster Addiction Rehabilitation Centre, St. Philippe de Laprairie, Québec, Canada b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 14 April 2015 Received in revised form 11 September 2015 Accepted 23 October 2015 Keywords: Driving while impaired Driving under the influence Assessment Alcohol Risk Recidivism

a b s t r a c t In many jurisdictions, drivers convicted for the first-time of driving while impaired by alcohol undertake a risk assessment that will determine the severity of sanctions and the remedial measures they must follow as requisites for re-licensing. There is uncertainty inherent in the assessment of risk for recidivism, however, many offenders feel unfairly assessed and discommoded by the decision-making process and its consequences. The objective of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perspectives of offenders regarding re-licensing decision making and sanctioning. Specifically, in focus groups first-time offenders and recidivists were probed as to whether they favoured erring on the side of road safety in decision making, with its consequent greater risk of false positive assessments, or erring on the side of maintaining driving privileges, with its consequent greater risk of false negative assessments. In general, participants preferred a higher probability of false negative vs. false positive assessments. Most cited the consequences of sanctions and remedial measures as too severe to impose them on potentially low-risk drivers, as the assessment and monitoring protocols’ limitations could lead to non-equitable treatment. At the same time, recidivists evoked a greater preference for a higher probability of false positive assessments compared to first-time offenders, as they believed that recidivism was more likely to follow a first conviction than did first-time offenders. This information can be useful for a more comprehensive and societally coherent exercise of DWI prevention policies. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This study concerns a dilemma encountered by the authorities charged with evaluating driving while impaired (DWI) offenders for re-licensing; namely, how to deal with the uncertainty inherent in the assessment of risk for recidivism following a first DWI conviction (i.e., recidivism). DWI offending accounts for 35–40% of all fatally injured drivers in Canada and the US (Vanlaar et al., 2012; Voas et al., 2012), however, it is recidivists who pose a particular threat to road safety (Fell, 2014; Simpson et al., 2004). As a group, recidivists are more likely than non-DWI drivers and first-time offenders to be involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes and hit-and-run collisions with pedestrian fatalities, and to have high blood alcohol

∗ Corresponding author at: Douglas Hospital Research Centre, Verdun, Québec, Canada. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.G. Brown). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.10.029 0001-4575/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

concentrations when driving (Fell, 2014). The risk of recidivism in DWI offenders is six to 20 times higher than that of non-offenders (Zador et al., 2011), and occurs in 25–50% of first-time DWI offenders (Lapham et al., 2000). As such, interrupting the too common transition from first-time DWI offence to recidivism status is a key target of prevention strategies (Brown and Ouimet, 2012). A central strategy for preventing DWI is deterrence (Williams et al., 2007; Nochajski and Stasiewicz, 2006). In most jurisdictions globally, deterrent counter-measures include visible and active enforcement, punishing fines, driver’s license suspension or revocation, and vehicle impoundment. These deterrents are typically meted out with graduated severity with each successive offence. In Québec where the present research was conducted, a first offence (i.e., with no previous offence during the previous 10 years) incurs an immediate 90-day license suspension, a $1000 fine and a one to two year license revocation followed by mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device for a period of one year. A second offence (i.e., occurring within 10 years of the initial offence), in addition to the above penalties, triggers a 30-day prison sentence,

44

L. Nadeau et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 87 (2016) 43–49

three- to five-year license revocation, and then mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device for a two-year to lifetime period. A third offence (i.e., again within a 10-year period from the preceding offence) extends the prison sentence to 120 days, license revocation to five years, and installation of an ignition interlock device for life. Overall costs for participation in countermeasures in Quebec range from $1750 to $5700 CDN for a first and second offence respectively, while a third offence incurs additional lifetime costs for the servicing of the interlock device, all over and above legal fees, elevated insurance costs, and other expenses and inconveniences of having a criminal record (e.g., difficulties in travelling to the US). In addition to deterrence, prevention programmes also include intensive risk assessment and obligatory participation in remedial interventions. These programmes are particularly opportune after a first time offence, when the transition to more dangerous recidivism status can be prevented. Assessment targets appraisal of relative severity and identification of specific risk factors for recidivism as a basis for individualizing intervention approaches (e.g., alcoholism treatment, information and behavioural change programmes, etc.). In Quebec, this involves a highly standardized assessment protocol using computer-assisted administration of objective self-reported questionnaires and psychometric instruments that measure demographic, substance misuse severity, risky personality and attitudinal features, and behavioural and legal history, all of which have been associated with DWI recidivism risk in the scientific literature (e.g., Lapham, 2010; Cavaiola et al., 2007; C’De Baca et al., 2001). Nevertheless, the capacity for predicting, with clinically meaningful accuracy, which first-time DWI drivers are at “high risk” for recidivism and require more intensive intervention procedures prior to re-licensing to reduce their risk, is limited (LaBrie et al., 2007; C’De Baca et al., 2001). Reliance on self-reported information of dubious veracity in the DWI assessment context (Chang and Lapham, 1996), and inconsistent relationships between indicators of alcohol misuse and DWI risk (Flowers et al., 2008; Dugosh et al., 2013; Couture et al., 2010), further complicate the decisionmaking process. Not surprisingly, therefore, research algorithms for predicting DWI reconviction have yielded modest performances of no better than 70% sensitivity and 50% specificity (C’De Baca et al., 2001). Limited sensitivity (i.e., a high rate of false negatives) entails failure to identify individuals at high risk, thereby jeopardizing public safety, and missing opportunities for applying selective prevention measures to those who require them (e.g., substance abuse treatment). On the other hand, limited specificity (i.e., a high rate of false positives) entails potential over-referral to interventions of offenders who do not require them, thereby risking service depletion and de-sensitization of low-risk drivers to their deterrent effects (Williams et al., 2007). In addition, these misjudged lowrisk drivers, especially those of lower socioeconomic status and who live in areas poorly served by transportation alternatives, may suffer significant yet unwarranted social and economic burden. A society and their vehicle licensing agencies concerned both with public safety and individual rights (i.e., driving privileges) are faced with a decision making challenge when results of risk assessment procedures are equivocal (Leshowitz and Meyers, 1996). They may lean towards either: (i) protection of the public by arbitrarily lowering the threshold for judging an offender as high risk for recidivism. This engenders fewer false negative assessments by mandating more ambiguous cases to more severe punishment and more intensive intervention, but at the cost of potentially over-sanctioning/over-treating some low-risk offenders (i.e., false positive assessments); or (ii) protection of individual driving privileges by raising the threshold for judging an offender as high risk for recidivism. This results in fewer false positive assessments by mandating more ambiguous cases to less severe punishment and

less intensive intervention, but at the cost of potentially letting some high-risk drivers avoid warranted legal and remedial measures that could reduce their future risk (Chaudhary et al., 2011). In other words, given the limited ability to determine high risk from a prevention viewpoint and the risks of decision making errors, the question becomes where a society sets its thresholds for designating DWI offenders as high risk: in the direction of optimizing public security, or in the direction of optimizing the welfare of the individual driver? While drink driving tends to be considered a serious social problem by the general public (Dowling et al., 2011), do offenders themselves evaluate costs and benefits based on their own experience? Perceptions concerning DWI policies have been examined quantitatively both in the general population and among DWI offenders. For example, in non-DWI and DWI cohorts (Freeman and Watson, 2009; Greenberg et al., 2005), perceived risk of punishment was not related to DWI behaviour, while non-legal deterrents (i.e., concerns for breaking the law and hurting self or others) were associated with less self-reported DWI behaviour. In fact, severity of sanctions was associated with unlicensed driving and delayed participation in preventative re-licensing programmes (Brown et al., 2008; Lenton et al., 2010). Comparative studies have shown discrepancies between the attitudes of DWI offenders and non-offenders regarding drink-driving and preventative sanctions. For instance, offenders were more likely to believe that they were capable of drinking and driving safely and that the risks associated with DWI were over-rated, and generally to hold less negative views towards DWI behaviour (Baum, 2000; Houston and Richardson, 2004; Macdonald and Dooley, 1993). Qualitative analysis of attitudes and beliefs regarding DWI behaviour is rare. In one study (Lapham and England-Kennedy, 2012), referral to mandated remedial programmes was perceived as an impediment by those offenders who felt poorly matched to their counsellors and their intervention style (i.e., negative or overly confrontational). Interestingly, more negative and varied emotional reactions to the events and consequences surrounding a DWI arrest were also associated with a longer latency period between DWI arrests. In another study in first-time offenders (Wilson, 2015), brief intervention for a first-time DWI offence was viewed favourably, especially when accompanied by transportation alternatives. In a study with “hard-core” incarcerated recidivists (Carlson et al., 2011), most offenders accepted individual responsibility for their DWI behaviour. Some, however, exhibited poor problem recognition and callous disregard for risks by bragging about drinking and driving. Qualitative studies contrasting the perceptions of first-time offenders and recidivists concerning mandated remedial programmes are more uncommon, but one investigation undertaken in New York state contrasted firsttime offenders with offenders on probation, many of whom were recidivists (Dowling et al., 2011). In this study, first-time offenders generally felt that punishments for repeat offending were not sufficiently severe, while offenders on probation favoured installation of an interlock device in addition to probation. Offenders on probation and some first-time offenders agreed that more severe sanctions would not deter some drivers, but agreement from both groups emerged about the need for mandated treatment for repeated offending. Overall, qualitative studies, while less frequently undertaken, afford unique insight into how offenders experience DWI prevention programmes. It is essential to know more about the perceptions regarding these measures from the point of view of their primary target – the drinking driver. Offenders are key agents in terms of prevention, as ultimately their decision to abide by the rules of the road and to dissociate drinking and driving is a determining factor in road safety and the success of any remedial interventions. In particular, perceptions about the severity

L. Nadeau et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 87 (2016) 43–49

and consequences of participation in mandated re-licensing programmes need to be explored, especially following a first offence when prevention efforts are opportune yet fraught with ambiguity and unintended consequences. Accordingly, the main purpose of this study was to compare the opinions of first-time and repeat offenders concerning the risks associated with DWI and their legal and administrative consequences. Data were derived from seven focus groups. The focus groups aimed specifically to elicit participants’ perceptions of the risks inherent in both excessive tolerance and excessive severity in decisions emerging from the assessment process (i.e., the risks of false negative and false positive assessments, respectively). The discussion of specific DWI scenarios and general decision-making policy served to determine the offenders’ preferred position on this continuum. 2. Methods 2.1. Recruitment and participants We selected participants to be able to constitute separate groups of first-time offenders and recidivists. Randomized names were selected from a databank of approximately 500 DWI first time and repeat offenders who had participated previously in traffic safety studies conducted by the Addiction Research Program at the Douglas Hospital Research Centre and had given their written consent to be re-contacted for participation in further studies. Every participant had been assessed according to the risk assessment protocol of Quebec’s licensing authority (i.e., the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec). All participants signed a Douglas Hospital Ethics Board Informed Consent, and were compensated with $50.00 CDN to complete the two-hour protocol. A lunchbox of food was also provided. 3. Procedures Focus groups were held in downtown Montréal, Quebec in a small building of Concordia University near a subway station, and were conducted in French. Hence, the analysis was also conducted with the French verbatim and all quotations cited here are free translations to English. All groups were led by a trained licensed psychologist and first author LN, with the assistance of either an author WV or assistant trained in the delivery of focus groups, who helped to maintain the flow of interactions, clarify content, and provide periodic synthesis. Each session followed a standardized procedure. Four vignettes about hypothetical DWI offenders were presented to participants (see Table 1 for vignettes). The vignettes were inspired in part by real cases seen by author TGB (a clinical psychologist who evaluates DWI offenders for the US Immigration visa waiver programme) and pre-tested and refined in pilot study with student participants. They described two female and two male DWI drivers with distinct personal circumstances and were specifically designed to be ambiguous with respect to the DWI recidivism risk they evoked. Participants were asked to express opinions about the level of DWI risk each posed and to issue either a “low risk” or “high risk” recommendation. At the end of the session, a general risk assessment question probed whether participants would most likely give any offender the “benefit of doubt” (i.e., low risk) if his/her actual risk was unknown. Based upon recommendations of Krueger and Lacey (2009), questions were asked using a semi-structured interview guide, starting with uncued questions and then proceeding to cued questions from general perceptions of risk to more specific consideration of preferences regarding risks inherent in DWI assessment decision making (i.e., false negative vs. false positive assessments).

Table 1 The four impaired driving vignettes presented to focus group participants. ALEX, THE CONSTRUCTION WORKER Alex is 40 years old and single. He works on large construction projects. He likes his job and doesn’t like being at home. Alex started drinking at the age of 18, 6–8 drinks with his friends, once or twice a week. At the age of 20, he got behind the wheel after drinking and hit another car, wherein the passenger suffered minor injuries. The police did not administer an alcohol test. Alex blamed the accident on excessive speed. Twenty years later, Alex was stopped for impaired driving after leaving a bar. He believed that someone at the bar must have alerted the police. His alcohol reading was 0.172%, a little over two times the legal limit, which is 0.08%. The police officer immediately suspended his driver’s license for 90 days and had his vehicle seized for 30 days. In accordance with the law, he loses his license for 3 years. At the end of the suspension period, Alex must undergo an assessment. He stated that he drinks 4–6 beers once or twice a month on weekends. According to him, his alcohol consumption has never been a problem. The examiner believes that Alex is no longer at risk and can take the steps to regain his license. The supervisor does not agree with that assessment and calls the examiner back to talk about it. MARIE, THE WIDOW Marie is 35 years old. She is a teacher at an elementary school. She is a widow with three children aged 8, 10 and 16. Her husband died of cancer 18 months ago; she lives in despair and is lonely. Since becoming a widow, Marie drinks 2 glasses of alcohol in the evenings to help her sleep. One Saturday afternoon, she took her children to her brother’s for a party. When it was time to leave, Marie went home alone, by car. Her children stayed over with their uncle. She is stopped at a police spot check. Her breath alcohol level reads 0.14% alcohol in the blood, the legal limit being 0.08%. Marie will have a suspended license for three months and will pay a fine. Further penalties are dependent on whether Marie is at risk of recidivism. GUY, THE AUTOMOBILE PARTS SALESMAN Guy is an office employee. He likes his job. Divorced since 5 years ago, no children, he lives with a roommate. When he was 30 years old, Guy was stopped after leaving a bar. His alcohol level was 0.16%. The legal limit is 0.08%. His driver’s license was suspended for 6 months and he paid a $2500 fine. At the age of 40, he is stopped at a police spot check. His alcohol level was 0.16%. The police officer immediately suspends Guy’s driver’s license for 90 days and seizes the vehicle for 30 days. According to the penalties provided by law, he loses his driver’s license for 3 years. After the 3-year suspension, the judge requested an assessment report on the risk of recidivism. The examiner determined that there was a risk of recidivism owing to his prior conviction and alcohol level. The judge determined that the examiner was mistaken because the first offence dated back 10 years. Louise, THE FREELANCE WORKER Louise is 30 years old and has lived common-law with her partner for 7 years. They do not have any children. She works as a graphic artist on a contract basis for a communications firm. She is without a contract for at least 3 months each year, although it varies a lot, which creates a lot of insecurity for her. She was stopped for impaired driving one afternoon. She had a minor accident with another vehicle and the other driver immediately called the police. The police officer did a routine alcohol test and found her blood alcohol reading to be .10%. Regulations dictate that anyone who is stopped must be assessed. The report contained the following findings: • Louise stated that she followed low-risk driving guidelines and had a maximum of 10 drinks/week. That day she had had 3 drinks, which was unusual for her, and she said that number was permissible under Canadian guidelines; • She had been treated for anxiety before meeting her partner 8 years ago and said that she considered herself to still be fragile; • Each year for the past 10 years, she had lost between 3 and 6 demerit points and now had only 3 points left on her record. The examiner determined that Louise was not at risk of recidivism and that her assessment was satisfactory. The supervisor disagreed; he felt that Louise should never have gotten behind the wheel because she distorted alcohol consumption guidelines to her advantage, and he determined that a comprehensive assessment would have to be conducted.

45

46

L. Nadeau et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 87 (2016) 43–49

Table 2 Focus group participants’ (N = 39; 27 first-time offenders; 12 recidivists) recommendations of low risk or high risk for each DWI vignette, using within-group percentages. The general risk assessment question asked whether participants would give an unknown offender the “benefit of the doubt” (i.e., a low-risk recommendation) given the uncertainty of his/her actual risk. Judgement

Low risk (%)

Vignette

First-time offenders

Recidivists

High risk (%) First-time offenders

Recidivists

First-time offenders

Recidivists

Case #1 Marie Case #2 Alex Case #3 Louise Case #4 Guy General risk assessment question

39.3 14.3 46.4 14.3 53.6

50.0 0.0 66.7 16.7 33.3

39.3 82.1 39.3 57.1 17.9

50.0 91.7 33.3 66.7 25.0

21.4 3.6 14.3 28.6 28.6

0.0 8.3 0.0 16.7 41.7

Qualitative analyses were performed (by JJ) according to guidelines of DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006). Focus groups’ verbatim were transcribed. Co-authors LN and JJ coded responses using a descriptive grid based on the questions posed during the sessions. Segments of text were then tagged through systematic line-by-line coding, and categorized according to the major themes identified in text segments with similar content. The data were analyzed vertically to compare attitudes and choices within groups and horizontally to compare the two group categories. Divergent and convergent points of views were examined to determine level of tolerance for risks from false negatives and false positives in the DWI assessment process from the focus group participants’ perspective. 4. Results 4.1. Sample description In total, four focus groups were conducted with 27 first-time offenders and three focus groups with 12 recidivists. All were Francophone and Caucasian. First-time offenders were 74.1% male, mean age (SD) of 38.4 years (11.0), 48.1% single, 25.9% with high school education or less, and 44.4% with a valid unrestricted driver’s license. Recidivists were 66.7% male, mean age (SD) of 39.9 (7.5), 58.3% single, 24.9% with high school education or less, and 25.0% with a valid unrestricted driver’s license. 4.2. General risk assessment Table 2 summarizes results by DWI offenders group concerning how each of the four DWI cases was judged (i.e., either “low risk” or “high risk”). Opinions were more divided concerning scenarios of women drivers, both with a partner or children and experiencing mental health issues, as a majority of focus group participants gave a low-risk recommendation in case of Louise, while there were as many low risk as high-risk recommendations for case of Marie. Conversely, a distinct majority issued high-risk recommendations in both cases involving single men with heavier drinking patterns. Regarding general risk assessment, most focus group participants clearly supported low-risk recommendations involving a higher probability of false negatives, whereas a minority chose high-risk recommendations with a higher probability of false positives. Although there was no evidence of a marked distinction between first-time offenders and repeat offenders, we noted that the latter tended to emit more high risk recommendations, which might be partly explained by their personal experience of recidivism. Analyses revealed different criteria and motives influencing focus group participants’ decisions. We first present the elements considered when assessing the level of risk, which are similar to the objective criteria used in DWI drivers’ assessment, and the reasons cited to issue a low risk or high risk recommendation, which appear to be based on a cost-benefit calculation of the decision. Finally, we

Undecided (%)

examine the opinions relative to the general question, relying on the rationale and pertinence of the sanction. 4.2.1. Individual case risk assessment All focus group participants used a number of criteria to determine the level of risk of individual drivers in the cases presented. These criteria included in part objective factors, as well as those based upon participants’ personal experience. Several elements indicative of a risky offender profile of individual cases were common across all focus groups. These included driver attitude towards the offence when perceived by focus group participants as indicating a lack of recognition and accountability. Minimization of one’s alcohol intake, lack of monitoring of one’s intake when driving, and the belief of not being impaired were also identified as risk factors. For example, a DWI focus group member who had previously been involved in an accident said about the case of Alex: “If he considers that alcohol has never been a problem for him, then this proves that he’s probably a repeat offender.” Thirteen of 40 focus group participants, making comparisons with their own experience, specifically reported that the awareness of the risk of injury or death had been an important factor that led them to take action in order not to reoffend. The absence of this type of reaction after an alcohol-related crash or an arrest was thus seen as a negative indicator. This is illustrated by one focus group participant relating Alex’s story to his experience: “In this case, I think the risk of recidivism is high because it doesn’t bother him. When you hurt someone, I think it’s even more. . . For me, just being arrested, it was already [. . .] I think there is a risk, because otherwise he would have stopped. It should have [stopped him].” These elements were considered in relation to other personal factors, including age, social responsibilities, and agency. In stories where the driver was middle-aged, single without dependents or attributed his arrest to external causes, focus group participants assessed that the probability of successful behaviour modification were low. Indications of prior DWI or traffic violations were also seen as signs of a defiant attitude, while, for some, the sentiment of impunity and the lack of social ties were felt to limit the sanctions’ deterrent effect. Other elements frequently cited in reference to each story are more ambiguous. Focus group participants almost always discussed drivers’ mental health and drinking habits, but depending on their beliefs about DWI’s underlying causes, they were seen as either a mitigating contextual element or a risk factor. For some, problems such as depression and anxiety could affect alcohol consumption and increase the chances of recidivism, as noted by several focus group participants regarding the story of Marie. For example, one participant reasoned: “If we look at this from a clinical point of view, this woman is at risk of recidivism, for sure. Because her psychological situation may, is very likely to deteriorate in the short and medium

L. Nadeau et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 87 (2016) 43–49

term. In any case, it depends if she takes charge, if she manages to get through this at some point. But for sure she’s at risk of recidivism.” Others considered that these conditions should not be part of the evaluation, putting emphasis on dissociation; that is, whether the individual would choose to drive after consuming alcohol again: “I don’t believe that depression is automatically a key and important element of whether you’ll be a recidivist or not. [. . .] It was a bad decision that day, she did it, ok, she is punished, all of these things. . . But it doesn’t make it so that she will start to drink more and take her car. . . and drink and no longer think, no longer be aware and be able to decide correctly [not to drive]. Because in the end, it’s not the drinking, it’s to do both together.” Similarly, the evaluation of drinking patterns were perceived either as an element linked to the driver’s behaviour or as a habit which could be separated from driving, and led to inconsistent risk assessments. The opposing views of two focus group participants regarding the stories of Alex and Guy illustrate these positions: “He’s not been drinking more than usual for a Saturday or Sunday. This means, he’s a guy who always drinks like this. He’s a repeat offender this guy, definitely for me.” “He started to drink young, for sure, he’s someone who will probably always drink in fact. Now, does this mean he will reoffend? This is where I’m stumped.1 ” Paradoxically, as 14 of 40 focus group participants reported that they had been themselves experiencing psychological problems at the time of their arrest, or connected substance abuse problems with their experiences of impaired driving, opinions were thus divided on the importance of these elements in relation to the risk of recidivism. 4.2.2. Perceptions about re-licensing recommendations and sanctions Regarding the re-licensing decisions made on the cases, different motives were mentioned for low-risk and high-risk recommendations. Considering the reasons to issue a high-risk recommendation, focus group participants estimated that in some cases the subsequent sanction was appropriate in view of the driver’s high-risk profile, or its associated positive individual or societal effects. The sanction was seen as a means to deter recidivism by imposing more serious consequences on high-risk drivers, as well as offering them the opportunity to modify their behaviour. One focus group participant illustrated this as follows: “Just with this guy’s story, it’s sure it’s a guy who’s used to drink, he drinks all the time, and often he must have driven with a high blood alcohol level, and he wasn’t caught. So, I think, this makes no sense, this guy must. . . They should remove his license for a while to make him think, to do something.” In addition, for drivers’ deemed low risk, the sanction represented a way to ensure compliance with the law through its general application. Several focus group participants suggested applying the same sentence to all first-time offenders: “You get caught once, well . . . that’s it. Immediately six months or whatever. If the person is not, if he/she is a citizen, he/she will understand right away and not do it again.” Conversely, in some cases the DWI sanctions and their repercussions were considered too severe to warrant a high-risk

1 This indicated that the link between drinking patterns and recidivism seemed problematic to him.

47

recommendation to the drivers. Based on their experience, focus group participants chose instead to “give offenders a chance”, especially when the level of risk was perceived as lower, related to mitigating circumstances, or when the gravity of the offence seemed lesser. The profile of DWI drivers with a lower blood alcohol level and undergoing personal or professional problems was differentiated from those reflecting an “irresponsible” attitude; the former was seen as not deserving severe sanctions. One focus group participant summarized his position regarding the story of Louise as follows: “So, between (low risk) and (high risk), I find that the step is very high and there are people like Louise. . . who I think don’t deserve to be completely (low risk), but don’t deserve to have a (high-risk) evaluation.” The reason most often cited was the high cost of participation in remedial measures. The amounts were described as imposing an additional burden on the driver, besides the license’s revocation, which could adversely impact their work and life situation, as well as that of their family. Particularly, in the stories involving mental health problems, some focus group participants felt that the measures would further aggravate the situation, as adequate support is not provided by the agency in charge of the process: “You go away with that, you know, because it’s not easy to go through what you’re going through, already you have a consequence, and after this consequence you can have another [consequence], because it creates other problematic situations, loss of a home or your work or whatever. You find yourself without a license, ok, if you have a sanction that’s ok, but the other problems that mean that you are stuck with all that, they don’t take the time to look at the cases (. . .), if you lose everything, they don’t consider how the person goes home after.” Some favoured professional help as a better alternative for risk management, or an educational approach for those whose offence seemed linked to a lack of understanding of the issue. Furthermore, a negative perception of the evaluation and monitoring protocols, seen as arbitrary and lacking in rigour to truly identify high risk for recidivism, induced concerns of imposing an unfair treatment and unwarranted consequences.

4.2.3. Tolerance vs. severity The same motives were cited regarding the general question of preferences regarding error in the risk assessment of the cases presented. Most focus group participants were in favour of a higher probability of false negative. For the latter, the sanction’s perceived severity was the principal element considered. The risk of condemning drivers at low risk of recidivism was seen as unacceptable because of the sentence’s high costs. While a high-risk recommendation would be justified by a risky driver profile or severe offence, a bias towards erring on the side of false negative to protect drivers from unfair treatment was emphasized by many focus group participants: “There are many more innocent people than people at risk. People at risk, there are some everywhere not being arrested [. . .]. It’s a slippery slope, it means that if you start convicting innocents, then afterwards everyone is guilty, it’s like, you put everyone in the same box.” Flexible or alternative measures, such as intervention and prevention, appeared therefore preferable for low-risk drivers, potentially mitigating the risks associated with false negatives. Inversely, for a minority of focus group participants, the precautionary principle prevailed; public safety rather than individual rights was the more appropriate objective, evaluated as less damageable

48

L. Nadeau et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 87 (2016) 43–49

than the risk of injury or death. Moreover, some estimated that these measures could act as effective strategies to increase future road safety by fostering change in drivers’ attitudes and behaviour. By the application of uniform sanctions, justified by the offence itself, more citizens would be inclined to comply with the law, while reducing possible false negative error in risk assessment. One focus group participant stressed the principle of legality in this way to deal with uncertainty in predicting future behaviour: “The decision . . . it must be strict. For everyone. Without, you know, destroying, but I mean, it must be strict for everyone, equal, and to say “he was always quiet, we’ll let him go”, no, we don’t know what can happen.” The distinction between the two positions showed a marked difference based upon group, with the majority of first-time offenders choosing a higher probability of false negatives, which was not the case in repeat offenders. As noted previously, the latter tended to choose a higher probability of false positives, a finding that could be linked to a higher perception of recidivism risk influenced by personal trajectories. Certain participants, including both first-time and repeat offenders, were unable to provide a clear opinion about some cases. This was particularly true with regard to the two female vignettes. During the discussion, participants provided explanatory factors, nearly excuses, for these cases’ DWI. Many participants thought that they needed psychotherapy to deal with their distress, while simultaneously acknowledging that they represented a risk on the road. When prompted to express their opinion, responses were vague, ambiguous, and the interviewer took the decision not to force a choice. They were coded as “undecided” and the distribution was comparable between groups.

5. Discussion This qualitative study gathered data on perceptions regarding risk assessment and sanctions of first-time and repeat offenders. The opinions voiced revealed a disparity between risk assessment and sanctioning. Participants showed acute perceptions of risk factors, based both on established objective criteria as well as their personal experience of DWI and risk assessment. In contrast, they often evaluated the costs and consequences associated to the sanctions and remedial measures following a high-risk recommendation as too costly to impose. Cases presented in stories seen as corresponding to an overt high-risk profile, involving a carefree attitude towards DWI and compliance with the law, received a high-risk recommendation from a distinct majority of respondents. On the other hand, cases deemed less attributable to these motivations but rather due to the driver’s personal situation, such as mental health issues or social responsibilities, or reflecting a less serious offence, such as when blood alcohol level was lower at the time of the arrest, led to a low-risk recommendation. In these cases, less punitive sanctions and more intensive remedial measures were considered to be better adapted for these drivers. Consequently, a majority of focus group participants chose tolerance over severity (i.e., a higher probability of false negative vs. false positive assessment) regarding DWI policy at large. Most cited the consequences of sanctions and remedial measures as too severe to impose them on potentially low-risk drivers, as the assessment and monitoring protocols’ limitations could lead to unfair treatment. Avoiding unfair treatment therefore prevailed over ensuring safety, contrary to a minority of participants who chose the precautionary principle over personal consequences, which was deemed less damaging than the risk of injury or death. For the latter, sanctions in and of themselves also constituted a deterrent, ensuring a uniform application of preventative measures that could reinforce

compliance and take into account the potential arbitrariness of risk assessment. We observed no marked difference between first-time and repeat offenders’ views, although the latter tended to favour the risk of false positive, possibly due to a higher perception of potential risk of recidivism based on their personal experiences. This was also apparent regarding the preference for either false negative or false positive error in assessment, for which a majority of first-time offenders chose a higher probability of false negative compared to repeat offenders. In sum, one’s personal circumstances and interpretation of DWI and remedial measures appeared to modulate decisions. Participants generally took into account the established risk factors used in the assessment of DWI drivers, and also emphasized dissociation between drinking and driving, a central aspect of many intervention programmes. In addition, consistent with other qualitative studies (Carlson et al., 2011; Lapham and England-Kennedy, 2012; Seilonen et al., 2012; Wilson, 2015), DWI drivers who presented their behaviour as a personal problem, and in whom a negative reaction to the consequences of their arrest and conviction appeared to provoke a re-appraisal of their behaviour, seemed more motivated to change. This finding runs in the direction of the importance of attitudes and beliefs as protective or risk factors from the offenders’ perspective (Lapham and England-Kennedy, 2012; Greenberg et al., 2005). Another important element influencing focus group participants’ decisions is their negative experience with the decisionmaking process in risk assessment and the resulting sanctions. A perception of the assessment’s arbitrariness and of the costs associated with a high-risk recommendation dissuaded many from chancing it in ambiguous cases. This is in line with data that suggest that offenders are prone to refuse or delay becoming re-licensed because of their negative perceptions about the costs involved and inappropriateness of the behavioural changes required (e.g., reducing drinking) (Brown et al., 2008). In contrast, offenders’ positive perception based on perceived fairness of the criminal and administrative sanctions imposed for DWI, as well as of the assessment process for determination of the level of risk, could therefore influence their attitudes towards repeated impaired driving and motivation for engagement in a change process (Sherman, 1993; Tyler, 1984). 5.1. Limitations This study was purposely contrived as a qualitative examination of offenders’ perspectives regarding the ambiguity inherent in the DWI evaluation and re-licensing process based upon their recidivism status, a relatively rare level of analysis in the DWI literature. At the same time, the study possesses some noteworthy limitations. The small sample size and the unequal proportion of first-time and repeat offenders restricted both statistical analysis of the significance of the differences observed between groups as well as certainty that saturation of opinions and viewpoints had been attained. Our sampling did not include non-convicted offenders, whose views may differ from those who have experienced the DWI evaluation process and re-licensing sanctions. Moreover, the sample had no non-White or First Nations drivers, two minority groups who may have possessed distinct perspectives and experiences about DWI prevention programmes (Torres et al., 2014). Finally, it is possible that the DWI offenders who agreed to participate in research represented a particular subset of all DWI offenders (i.e., those who were satisfied with their experiences vs. those who were disappointed with their experiences), which could have biased in their opinions. Current DWI policies and preventative programmes in place in Quebec are likely to have influenced the experiences and opinions of offenders to some degree. In particular, processes related to DWI

L. Nadeau et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 87 (2016) 43–49

arrest and conviction (e.g., use of random DWI checkpoints, probable cause conditions required for a DWI arrest, >0.08% blood alcohol concentration for a DWI conviction) and relicensing policies and sanctions (e.g., monetary costs, nature of intervention and driving restriction measures employed) differ between jurisdictions and can contribute to perceptions concerning the fairness of a DWI prevention strategy. Indeed, designation as a first-time or recidivist offender is also exceedingly arbitrary, since being arrested and convicted for DWI is in part dependent on environmental factors (e.g., jurisdictional per se BAC thresholds for DWI, enforcement practices and vigour, driver access to quality legal representation and plea bargaining, etc.). Hence, the generalizability of the findings may be limited for a jurisdiction with a significantly different approach to DWI prevention. Another potential limitation concerns the stories presented to the participants. Although they comprised a similar level of risk, they may reflect other biases; the men’s stories included more negatively rated elements than the women’s. The male stories described stereotyped male offenders with low empathy and social ties, while the latter involved more contextual elements that could be associated with etiological factors or excuses. The answers provided by the participants thus fit the stereotypes to a certain degree. Future research should present cases with more similar or comparable risk factors across gender. 6. Conclusion Measurement of offenders’ perceptions regarding sanctions following a DWI arrest and mandated re-licensing procedures is largely lacking in empirical investigations of DWI countermeasures. The present investigation provides a unique view of offenders’ perceptions regarding the balance between tolerance and severity in DWI prevention strategies. We found that offenders’ responses to the ambiguity inherent in DWI prevention measures were variable, and were to some degree based upon their own recidivism status. This finding suggests that offender perception in this regard is an individual difference that could contribute to their decision to abide by the laws and to dissociate drinking from driving. Nevertheless, this study should be considered as heuristic and requires replication using larger and more gender-balanced samples of non-offender controls, first-time offenders and recidivists drawn from multiple jurisdictions. If these preliminary findings are supported, then integrative, longitudinal investigation could further test hypotheses concerning the role of subjective perceptions of DWI prevention measures in the transition from first-time to recidivism status. The results from such a research approach would help inform development of more comprehensive and societally coherent DWI prevention policy. Acknowledgements Financial support for this study came from a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant (MOP-115063) awarded to the senior and corresponding author. References Baum, S., 2000. Drink driving as a social problem: comparing the attitudes and knowledge of drink driving offenders and the general community. Accid. Anal. Prev. 32, 689–694. Brown, T.G., Ouimet, M.C., 2012. Treatments for Alcohol-related Impaired Driving. In: Alcohol-Related Violence. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Brown, T.G., Ouimet, M.C., Nadeau, L., Lepage, M., Tremblay, J., Dongier, M., Kin, N.M., 2008. DUI offenders who delay relicensing: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Traffic Inj. Prev. 9, 109–118.

49

C’De Baca, J., Miller, W.R., Lapham, S., 2001. A multiple risk factor approach for predicting DWI recidivism. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 21, 207–215. Carlson, R.G., Sexton, R., Hammar, L., Reese, T.H., 2011. Driving themselves to drink: qualitative perspectives from “hardcore” DUI repeat offenders in Ohio. J. Ethn. Subst. Abuse 10, 363–379. Cavaiola, A.A., Strohmetz, D.B., Abreo, S.D., 2007. Characteristics of DUI recidivists: a 12-year follow-up study of first time DUI offenders. Addict. Behav. 32, 855–861. Chang, I., Lapham, S.C., 1996. Validity of self-reported criminal offences and traffic violations in screening of driving-while-intoxicated offenders. Alcohol Alcohol. 31, 583–590. Chaudhary, N.K., Tison, J., McCartt, A.T., Fields, M., 2011. Patterns of recidivism related to case dispositions of alcohol-impaired driving offenses. Traffic Inj. Prev. 12, 210–216. Couture, S., Brown, T.G., Tremblay, J., Ng Ying Kin, N.M., Ouimet, M.C., Nadeau, L., 2010. Are biomarkers of chronic alcohol misuse useful in the assessment of DWI recidivism status? Accid. Anal. Prev. 42, 307–312. DiCicco-Bloom, B., Crabtree, B.F., 2006. The qualitative research interview. Med. Educ. 40, 314–321. Dowling, A.M., MacDonald, R., Carpenter, K.H., 2011. Frequency of alcohol-impaired driving in New York State. Traffic Inj. Prev. 12, 120–127. Dugosh, K.L., Festinger, D.S., Marlowe, D.B., 2013. Moving beyond BAC in DUI. Criminol. Pub. Policy 12, 1–13. Fell, J.C., 2014. Update: repeat DWI offenders involvement in fatal crashes in 2010. Traffic Inj. Prev. 15, 431–433. Flowers, N.T., Naimi, T.S., Brewer, R.D., Elder, R.W., Shults, R.A., Jiles, R., 2008. Patterns of alcohol consumption and alcohol-impaired driving in the United States. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 32, 639–644. Freeman, J., Watson, B., 2009. Drink driving deterrents and self-reported offending behaviours among a sample of Queensland motorists. J. Saf. Res. 40, 113–120. Greenberg, M.D., Morral, A.R., Jain, A.K., 2005. Drink-driving and DUI recidivists’ attitudes and beliefs: a longitudinal analysis. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 66, 640–647. Houston, D.J., Richardson Jr., L.E., 2004. Drinking-and-driving in America: a test of behavioral assumptions underlying public policy. Polit. Res. Q. 57, 53–64. Krueger, R., Lacey, M., 2009. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 4th ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. LaBrie, R.A., Kidman, R.C., Albanese, M., Peller, A.J., Shaffer, H.J., 2007. Criminality and continued DUI offense: criminal typologies and recidivism among repeat offenders. Behav. Sci. Law 25, 603–614. Lapham, S., 2010. Does screening classification predict long-term outcomes of DWI offenders? Am. J. Health Behav. 34, 737–749. Lapham, S., England-Kennedy, E., 2012. Convicted driving-while-impaired offenders’ views on effectiveness of sanctions and treatment. Qualit. Health Res. 22, 17–30. Lapham, S.C., Skipper, B.J., Hunt, W.C., Chang, I., 2000. Do risk factors for re-arrest differ for female and male drunk-driving offenders? Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 24, 1647–1655. Lenton, S., Fetherston, J., Cercarelli, R., 2010. Recidivist drink drivers’ self-reported reasons for driving whilst unlicensed—a qualitative analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42, 637–644. Leshowitz, B., Meyers, J.M., 1996. Application of decision theory to DUI assessment. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 20, 1148–1152. Macdonald, S., Dooley, S., 1993. A case–control study of driving-while-impaired offenders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 33, 61–71. Nochajski, T.H., Stasiewicz, P.R., 2006. Relapse to driving under the influence (DUI): a review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 26, 179–195. Seilonen, M.L., Wahlström, J., Aaltonen, J., 2012. Agency displays in stories of drunk driving: subjectivity, authorship, and reflectivity. Counsel. Psychol. Q. 25, 347–360. Sherman, L.W., 1993. Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal sanction. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 30, 445–473. Simpson, H.M., Beirness, D.J., Robertson, R.D., Mayhew, D.R., Hedlund, J.H., 2004. Hard core drinking drivers. Traffic Inj. Prev. 5, 261–269. Torres, P., Romano, E., Voas, R.B., De La Rosa, M., Lacey, J.H., 2014. The relative risk of involvement in fatal crashes as a function of race/ethnicity and blood alcohol concentration. J. Saf. Res. 48, 95–101. Tyler, T.R., 1984. The role of perceived injustice in defendants’ evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law Soc. Rev. 18, 51–74. Vanlaar, W., Robertson, R., Marcoux, K., Mayhew, D., Brown, S., Boase, P., 2012. Trends in alcohol-impaired driving in Canada. Accid. Anal. Prev. 48, 297–302. Voas, R.B., Torres, P., Romano, E., Lacey, J.H., 2012. Alcohol-related risk of driver fatalities: an update using 2007 data. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 73, 341–350. Williams, A.F., McCartt, A.T., Ferguson, S.A., 2007. Hardcore drinking drivers and other contributors to the alcohol-impaired driving problem: need for a comprehensive approach. Accid. Anal. Prev. 8, 1–10. Wilson, H.J., (Thesis) 2015. Reducing Recidivism by First Time Drink Driving Offenders. Doctor of Philosophy, Queensland University of Technology. Zador, P.L., Howard, J.M., Rauch, W.J., Ahlin, E.M., Duncan, G.D., 2011. Latency periods between alcohol-related traffic violations: implications for recidivism. Accid. Anal. Prev. 12, 297–305.