Effectiveness of the DUI Court

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Rise of DWI/DUI Courts in the U.S.
Improving the Effectiveness DWI Courts
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Alcohol-related road carnage is a globally acknowledged problem. Despite the efforts made by many countries to curb it, the scourge has persisted. In the U.S., alcohol impairment contributed to 31% of the fatal road crashes that were reported in 2010 (Rosenblatt et al., 2012). This aspect makes it one of the leading causes of accident-related deaths in the country. To make matters worse, the problem of drunken driving mostly affects the youth, who form the biggest portion of the U.S. population. The grave nature of this problem is the reason behind the numerous measures that have been taken to combat it. Unfortunately, like in other countries across the world, the measures yielded insignificant results for a long time. The emergence of the DWI courts, therefore, came as a relief to the U.S. These courts are based on the drug-court model. They operate a post-conviction treatment program that assists offenders to overcome an alcohol addiction, which is the main cause of drunken driving (Wallace, 2011). Although the existing evidence seems to suggest that these courts make a difference, the magnitude of this difference remains a point of contention. This paper explores the rise of these courts, examines their effectiveness, and proposes possible measures that can improve their efficacy in the state of Missouri.

The Rise of DWI/DUI Courts in the U.S.

In the last one decade, the relative success of drug courts has led to the establishment of a growing number of driving while impaired (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI) courts across the U.S. Rosenblatt et al. (2012) submit that, by the end of 2011, there were 598 such courts across the U.S. This number is comprised of 192 designated DUI courts and 406 hybrid courts, which handle DUI cases alongside other criminal cases (Rosenblatt et al., 2012). Considering that there were only 176 DWI courts across the U.S. in 2004, it becomes apparent that the proliferation of these courts is unprecedented (Wallace, 2008). Rough calculations show that, at this rate, about 85 new DWI courts were established annually between 2004 and 2011. Arguably, between 2011 and 2014, the number of these courts has been growing.

The manner in which these courts have proliferated across the U.S. over the last few years seems to suggest that they have proved to be effective in abating the problem of drunken driving. However, a growing number of studies indicate that this notion may not be true (Wallace, 2008). Apparently, a substantial number of people recidivate after graduating from DWI programs. This development has raised a critical question about the effectiveness of DWI courts. Typically, there are proponents and opponents of the DWI courts. This division necessitates an objective review of these courts to arrive at a nonpartisan conclusion on whether the programs are effective as they are, or they need some adjustment to enhance their effectiveness.

An important first step towards conducting such a review is to understand the idea behind the rise and popularity of DWI courts. The chief reason behind the establishment of DWI courts is the prevalence of road crashes occasioned by drunken driving. According to Rosenblatt et al. (2012), in the year 2010, 32,885 road fatalities were reported in the U.S. Out of this number, 10,228 fatalities occurred due to alcohol impairment. Sadly, these figures are not unique to the year 2010. The U.S. has had a history of prevalent alcohol-related road crashes for a long time. As a result, several measures have been taken to curb the menace. The rise of DWI courts is a case in point.

Rosenblatt et al. (2012) define a DWI court as a specialized court that places the treatment of alcohol addiction among convicts under the strict supervision of a judge. In other words, when an individual is convicted of drunken driving, the court sees to it that the individual enrolls in an alcohol treatment program and strictly supervises the treatment process. The main goal of DWI courts is to catalyze behavior change among offenders (Wallace, 2011). They achieve the behavior change by instilling a culture of accountability that leads to the elimination of the drinking problem after some time. The logic behind the placement of emphasis on the treatment of offenders is that by helping them to overcome an alcohol addiction, the probability of driving while intoxicated is greatly lowered. As a result, both the offenders and the public are protected from possible alcohol-related road crashes, making American roads become safer for their users (Rosenblatt et al., 2012).

According to a study conducted by the National Drug Court Institute in Wisconsin, 29% of 118 third-time offenders recidivated over a 24-month follow-up period (Rosenblatt et al., 2012). In comparison, about 45% of a similar number of third-time offenders, who had previously served jail terms recidivated over the same follow-up period (Rosenblatt et al., 2012). According to this study, only a moderate difference exists between the recidivism rates of the two groups. Elsewhere, a study conducted by the University of New Mexico to assess the effectiveness of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court’s DWI/Drug program showed a 10.6% recidivism rate among graduates since the initiation of the program. In other words, out of 341 graduates who had gone through the program since its inception, only 36 had been rearrested (Rosenblatt et al., 2012). Several other studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of DWI courts. Their results range from moderate to high levels of success. Some researchers also argue that DWI courts do not deserve the applause that has gone their way since they do not bring any significant change.

However, Wallace (2008) notes that hardly any of the studies that purport to evaluate the effectiveness of DWI courts can stand a rigorous assessment of whether or not they meet the necessary scientific criteria. Therefore, the inconsistencies that exist in the results given by these studies show that some of them base their findings on unreliable measurement tools and procedures. For instance, Wallace (2008) observes that the majority of these studies use a follow-up period of only one year to determine the rates of recidivism, yet such a period is too short. This lack of consistency in the literature that evaluates the effectiveness of DWI court programs suggests that if a rigorous analysis of the efficacy of these courts is done, there is a likelihood of obtaining moderate results. Nonetheless, even with the moderate results, the DWI courts have shown that they can be an effective tool for combating impaired driving on American roads. Hence, there is a need to seek ways of improving them so that their full potential can be tapped.

Improving the Effectiveness DWI Courts

Rosenblatt et al. (2012) advise that DWI courts can be extremely effective if their treatment programs are structured to become participant-specific. This flexibility can only be achieved if adjustments are made to how the DWI court programs are run. To actualize these adjustments, there is a need for the leadership to adopt a transformational leadership approach that ensures that everyone who plays a part in the DWI programs works towards achieving the best results. Developing a culture of exceptional performance in every case can be a jumpstart towards improving the effectiveness of the DWI courts. It is, thus, important to examine the current programs and identify their weaknesses before proposing a workable improvement program for the DWI court programs in the state of Missouri.

An overview of DWI courts in Missouri and other states

The state of Missouri, like other states in the U.S., is rapidly turning to DWI courts to combat alcohol-related road carnage. An interesting point to note is that Missouri is one of the states that have publicly sought to legalize the drawing of blood samples from suspected impaired drivers without warrants. This desire shows that the state is out to tighten its campaign against impaired driving. However, such a move raises an important question about the effectiveness of the DWI courts in the state.

A look at the operation of DWI courts in Missouri does not show any uniqueness. They operate like similar courts in other states across the U.S. with only slight variations. For example, the threshold for DWI arrests in Missouri is a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.02% for those aged below 21 years, 0.08% for those aged above 21 years, and 0.04% for drivers of commercial vehicles (Stim, 2014). This statute is consistent with the statutes of other states across the U.S. because Rosenblatt et al. (2012) note that all the 50 states that constitute the U.S. have restrictive laws against impaired driving. The average countrywide BAC is 0.08%. In addition, the penalties for impaired driving in Missouri vary depending on the number of times an offender has been arrested. First-time offenders are treated with leniency, but the penalties are stiffer for second and third-time offenders (Stim, 2014). Other states across the U.S. also use a similar system for determining the penalties for DWI offenders.

The process that follows the arrest of a DWI offender in Missouri is also a replica of a similar process in other states across the U.S. When an offender is arrested, an assessment is conducted to diagnose their condition (Rosenblatt et al., 2012). This assessment helps to determine the treatment that is suitable for the offender. In critical cases such as those involving third-time offenders, the treatment process includes the use of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) to help restrict drunken driving among offenders during the treatment process (Rosenblatt et al., 2012). Further, bracelets, which help in monitoring the drinking behavior of offenders during the treatment process, may also be used. The treatment process includes treatment for alcohol addiction in designated health facilities and regular probation appearances, which take place under the strict supervision of the presiding judge (Rosenblatt et al., 2012). This description outlines the typical treatment process a DWI offender goes through in Missouri and other states across the U.S. Therefore, to achieve better results, a different approach to this process is necessary.

Necessary adjustments to the DWI court program

Anyone who is seeking to make meaningful adjustments aimed at improving the effectiveness of the DWI program needs to conduct a thorough assessment of the needs of the target community first. In the case of Missouri, the number of annual DWI arrests is extrapolated to be 30,000. With this number of annual arrests, there is a need for adequate courts because alcohol impairment cases need prompt handling due to their delicate nature. Further, in the past, there has been concern about the distance that some DWI offenders have to travel to attend court sessions, treatment, or meetings with probation officers because most of them are victims of driving license suspension (Rosenblatt et al., 2012).

The attitude of those involved also features as an important factor because despite there being some punitive measures against suspected impaired drivers who refuse to take the necessary tests, they still refuse to take the tests. The state of Missouri recently witnessed a controversial case in which an offender refused to take a breath test, forcing the arresting officer to take him to the hospital where his blood sample was obtained and tested without a warrant. Despite the test revealing that his BAC was way above 0.08%, the court ruled that obtaining the offender’s blood sample without a warrant was illegal thereby throwing out the case. Incidents of this nature can be avoided if those involved in the program adopt the right attitude.

In addition, in the example above, the officer consciously chose to take the driver to the hospital without a warrant. There are two possible scenarios that could have motivated such a decision. Firstly, based on the officer’s judgment, there might have been possibilities of the process taking too long thus jeopardizing evidence since alcohol dissipates quickly from the blood. Secondly, it can be argued that the distance from the point of arrest to the location where the warrant could be obtained was long enough to cause the evidence to dissipate. Whether any of these two scenarios motivated the officer’s decision is subject to debate, but the third and most likely scenario is that the officer did not approach the issue with the right attitude. These scenarios serve to highlight some of the factors that undermine the effectiveness of DWI courts across the U.S. Therefore, any attempt to heighten the effectiveness of these courts has to put them into consideration.

Develop an adequate infrastructural framework

With 30,000 arrestees every year, the state of Missouri needs to have an infrastructural framework that can handle these cases promptly. If every district across the state can have at least one DWI court, the workload on the existing courts will be lowered thus improving the efficiency of their operations. It is, thus, encouraging to note that the state is doing well since it is in the process of establishing new DWI courts. For instance, the recently instituted DWI court in Platte County is a good example. However, with two districts, the county needs at least one DWI court for each district. This investment is resource-intensive, but it is a worthwhile undertaking. The most obvious challenge that is likely to undermine any attempt to actualize this adjustment is the scarcity of funds due to the current tight budget situation. However, using the Platte County DWI court as an example, the good feedback given by the first graduates of the program can be used to seek the support of the private sector and the rest of the community. Safer roads and peaceful surroundings work to the advantage of everyone, hence, if all interest groups are made to understand that they too stand to benefit from DWI court programs it can be easy to enlist their support in raising the funds. In so doing, the required funds can be raised through private and public sector partnerships.

Establish warrant issuing facilities proximate to DWI checkpoints

Using the example of the case in which an offender went free just because the arresting officer did not seek a warrant before testing his BAC, it is apparent that either the officer was lazy or the warrant issuing facility was far off from the point of arrest. Assuming that the warrant issuing point was far from the point of arrest, there is a need to set up facilities that only focus on issuing such warrants whenever the need arises. This way, cases of people refusing to take a breath test will be inconsequential to the functionality of DWI programs. Such an adjustment, like the institution of more courts, is resource-intensive. However, if the goodwill of the Missouri community is enlisted, the adjustment is achievable.

A change of attitude for everyone involved

A change of attitude for everyone involved is necessary to make any undertaking successful. The most feasible example, again, is that involving drawing a blood sample without the necessary warrant. It is arguable that both the officer and the arrestee approached the issue with the wrong attitude. The arrestee might have succeeded in playing mischief and getting away with it, but it may only be a while before the law catches up with him once again. It may not occur to him that he has a problem that needs to be dealt with until he finds himself in a tougher situation. The three possible scenarios that could have motivated the officer’s decision to drive the arrestee to the hospital without a warrant had already been outlined in the paper. However, whichever the case, there is a need for an attitude change for him too.

The element of leadership comes in strongly on this issue of attitude change. Transformational leadership as was hinted at earlier in the paper can bring about a change of attitude. This claim is made of transformational leadership because it fosters transformation as its name suggests (Hall et al., 2013). Intriguingly, this is the chief idea behind the DWI program. The four aspects of this leadership style fit in perfectly with the idea of changing the lifestyles of the offenders.

Its first aspect charges the leadership with the responsibility of leading by example so that everyone else can emulate it (Hall et al., 2013). This aspect is commonly referred to as idealized influence. In the case of DWI programs, all the officials involved such as court officials, probation officers, judges, law enforcement officers who arrest offenders, and the physicians who carry out the BAC tests and treat the offenders ought to be role models. Acting as role models do not mean that they only avoid drunken driving. They are expected to exhibit the behavior that they desire from the graduates of DWI programs at all times. By doing so, they can gain the trust of offenders and eventually help them to make the necessary lifestyle change. The importance of this aspect in the process of behavior change is that one can only succeed in changing the behavior of people by gaining their trust.

The second aspect of transformational leadership is inspirational motivation (Hall et al., 2013). This aspect requires those practicing transformational leadership to motivate the people they work with to move collectively towards the desired goals. In applying this aspect to DWI programs, court officials and offenders need to work together towards achieving the desired goals. This aspect eliminates the idea of coercion because it has been established that coercion only leads to rebellion. The officials that handle offenders should strive to ensure that they inspire change in the offenders rather than force it.

The third aspect of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation, requires those who practice this leadership style to foster creativity and innovation among the people who work with them (Hall et al., 2013). This aspect is in agreement with the idea that each offender is unique and needs to be handled differently for best results to be achieved. Tailor-made treatment programs that cater to the specific needs of each offender have proved to yield better results compared to generalized treatment. In this sense, offenders can contribute towards generating treatment activities that can occasion the best behavior change in them within the shortest possible time.

The final aspect of transformational leadership involves individual consideration, which is closely related to the idea of intellectual stimulation (Hall et al., 2013). This aspect makes it plain that each offender is unique and needs to be considered individually. It, therefore, calls upon those who handle DWI offenders to try and understand them prior to engaging them in any activity. These aspects all combine together to yield the right attitude that needs to be fostered among DWI program officials and offenders in Missouri to improve its effectiveness. Although concerns may arise that this treatment seems to glorify DWI offenders as was the case when behavior change programs were incorporated into the operations of American correctional facilities, such concerns can be addressed by highlighting the achievements of the DWI programs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the DWI court approach has proved to be a more effective technique for combating alcohol-related road carnage than traditional methods. This assertion implies that even if these programs are left as they currently are, there will still be a notable reduction in drunken driving. However, they cannot be left as they are because this impaired driving menace has bedeviled the U.S. for such a long time that if there is a better way of dealing with it has been found, it should be used. The concerns that have been raised about the effectiveness of DWI courts may be reasonable, but enough evidence seems to show that these programs are a worthwhile undertaking. Therefore, measures such as adequate and well-equipped DWI courts as well as a positive attitude motivated by transformational leadership can go a long way in improving them. Improving the program will be an important step towards enhancing the efficacy of DWI courts.

References

Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2013). Transformational leadership: The transformation of managers and associates.Web.

Rosenblatt, A., McDaniel, E., Gibson, M., Balluffi-Fry, S., Labella, C., Leiter, S., & Parsons, S. (2012). DUI Courts. Burlington, VT: The University of Vermont.

Stim, R. (2014). Missouri DUI laws, penalties, & fines. Web.

Wallace, D. J. (2008). Do DWI courts work? Web.

Wallace, D. J. (2011). Promise of DWI court: What does it mean and why should prosecutors care? Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice, 2(1), 101-128.

Click Here To Order Now!