DWI
An abbreviation for driving while intoxicated,
which is an offense committed by an individual
who operates a motor vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol or DRUGS AND NARCOTICS.
An abbreviation for died without issue, which
commonly appears in genealogical tables.
A showing of complete intoxication is not
necessary for a charge of driving while intoxicated.
State laws indicate levels of blood-alcohol
content at which an individual is deemed to be
under the influence of alcohol.
Laws against drunk driving vary slightly
from state to state. In the majority of states, a
person’s first DWI charge (also referred to as
Driving Under the Influence, or DUI, in some
states) results in an automatic suspension of the
violator’s license. The length of the suspension
in the various states ranges from 45 days to one
year. Forty-three states require offenders to
install ignition interlocks on their vehicles in
order to drive. These devices are capable of analyzing
a driver’s breath, and the ignition is
unlocked only if the driver has not been drinking.
In 29 states, violators may be required to
forfeit their vehicles that they have driven while
impaired.
States have made efforts to strengthen their
drunk driving laws since the 1980s. They have
imposed longer prison sentences, and many
have turned DWI into a felony-level crime for
repeat offenders. However, the more controversial
issue in this national debate has been the
effort to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration
(BAC) that is needed to charge a person
with DWI, from .10 percent to .08 percent. Proponents
have argued that such a reduction is
the most effective way to prevent drunk-driving
deaths. Opponents contend that the .08 percent
standard is too low and that it will ensnare drivers
who are not truly impaired. Although many
states had adopted the .08 percent standard,
proponents sought a national solution, winning
a victory in October 2000, when Congress
enacted, and then-President WILLIAM JEFFERSON
CLINTON signed, the Transportation
Appropriation Bill. Included in the act was a
provision that requires states to enact a .08 percent
BAC as the legal limit or lose part of their
federal highway funding. Since this enactment,
36 states and the District of Columbia have
reduced their BAC standard to .08 percent,
while the others have maintained a .10 percent
standard.
Evidence suggests a strong correlation
between a BAC greater than .05 percent and risk
of serious injury or death while operating a
motor vehicle. After a person’s BAC reaches
.08 percent or more, the probability of a crash
climbs rapidly. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated
that in 1998, alcohol played a part in 39 percent
of all fatal crashes and seven percent of all
traffic accidents. NHTSA also predicted that
three out of ten Americans will be involved in
an alcohol-related crash at some time during
their lives.
The Clinton administration supported a
national approach to establishing a drunkdriving
standard but met congressional resistance.
The .08 percent BAC law passed in the Senate in 1998, but it failed to pass in the House
of Representatives. As a compromise, Congress
provided $500 million of incentive grants over
six years to states that have enacted, and that are
enforcing, a .08 BAC law. Congress agreed to
adopt the .08 limit only after adjusting the timing
and severity of penalties for states that refuse
to lower their legal limits. States that refuse to
lower their limits by October 1, 2003 will lose
two percent of their federal highway construction
funding. This percentage will increase to
four percent in 2004, six percent in 2005, and
eight percent in 2006. If states lose funding in
2003, they will have four years to pass the .08
BAC standard. If they do so, the money withheld
will be returned to them.
Lowering the BAC percentage is not the only
action that states have taken to curb drunk driving.
In many states, a refusal to submit to a BAC
test is admissible in court. Most states permit
police to establish sobriety checkpoints in order
to identify drunk drivers. Moreover, in the vast
majority of states, vehicular HOMICIDE involving
drunk driving is a felony.
DWI: Should Punishment Be Stricter for Repeat Offenders?
In 2001, alcohol-related auto accidents
took the lives of 17,448 people across
the United States. Statistics show that
nearly 80 percent of those fatal accidents
were caused by drivers with a history of
driving while intoxicated (DWI). There is
no shortage of horror stories in which
innocent people have been killed by a
drunk driver who later turns
out to have a prior record for
DWI offenses. The question of
whether repeat offenders
should be subject to stricter
punishment is hardly new, but
it is a complex question even
though it seems to tackle an
issue that has no gray areas.
Typical repeat DWI offenders will have
a blood alcohol level of up to three times
the legal limit by the time they get behind
the wheel. Three-fourths of repeat offenders
can be classified as alcohol abusers or
alcohol dependent. Their consumption of
alcohol is frequent and chronic. Perhaps
most alarming, however, is that most of
these drivers are neither remorseful for the
damage they inflict nor deterred by the
threat of arrest or loss of driving privileges.
Either they believe they can escape getting
caught, or else they believe their punishment
will turn out to be minimal.Not even
the threat to their own physical safety
(many drunk drivers end up as
fatalities themselves) seems to
inhibit them.
In the past, repeat DWI
offenders might be given PROBATION
or minimal time in
jail, along with a suspended
driver’s license. In some cases,
the punishment might be a specified
period of community service. The
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
BOARD (NTSB) has called for states to
eliminate community service as a punishment,
in part because it keeps prosecutions
off offenders’ records and makes
repeat offenses more likely.
Treatment for alcohol abuse works in
some but not all cases. It is certainly
worth trying, but in many cases repeat
offenders are not interested in being
helped. They will go through a treatment
program if it is required by law, but positive
effects may be short-lived.
Partly in response to the federal government’s
call for tougher laws and partly
in response to groups such as MOTHERS
AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MADD),
state governments are working to make
DWI laws stricter and more than just an
inconvenience for recidivists. In Massachusetts,
for example, a new law went
into effect on November 28, 2002, that
allows judges to consider DWI convictions
that are more than ten years old
when sentencing a repeat offender.Under
the old law they could not be considered,
and a driver whose earlier conviction had
been classified a “youthful indiscretion”
could be treated as a first-time offender.
The 2002 law requires that anyone who receives a second conviction faces two
years probation, a suspended license, and
14 days at an in-patient alcohol treatment
program.
Other measures include the use of
technology. Ignition interlock devices,
which require the driver to pass a breath
test before the car will start, have met
with positive results. A study in Maryland
showed that DWI repeat offenders who
used ignition interlock devices had a
RECIDIVISM rate one-third lower than
those who did not. Some municipalities
have tried electronic monitoring. In Los
Angeles, electronic monitoring lowered
the recidivism rate for DWI offenders
and also cut jail costs significantly.
Some states have pushed to be able to
charge repeat DWI offenders in fatal
crashes with felony murder. In some
municipalities, bartenders who serve
people who are knowingly inebriated and
allow them to drive have been subject to
criminal charges.
Even strict measures are not 100 percent
effective. The National Commission
Against Drunk Driving (NCADD) estimates
that up to 80 percent of DWI
offenders will take the risk of driving
with a suspended license. Lynwood
Anthony Vrba of Waco, Texas had eight
DWI convictions, including two felonies,
before he swerved in front of another car
and earned a ninth conviction. (The
driver of that car happened to be an agent
of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission).
His prior felonies allowed a judge
to sentence him to 60 years in prison in
early 2000. The system may have worked
on one level, but the truth is that if Vrba
had not been stopped that day, he may
have had yet another serious accident.
A driver who wishes to thwart the
law can usually do so. DWI offenders are
often able, for example, to determine the
exact locations of police roadblocks
based on established patterns and avoid
them by traveling an alternate route. People
who have ignition interlock devices in
their cars can have a sober friend start the
car for them. The trick for law enforcement
officials is to stay one step ahead of
the criminals. The police can easily vary
their patterns and stop cars randomly on
different roads. As for technology, interlock
devices can be equipped with a restart
option that requires the driver to
take a breath test several times during a
car trip, even if the car is still running.
This arrangement keeps the offender
from drinking while driving.Moreover, if
those who serve liquor or who allow
drunk drivers behind the wheel know
that they can face criminal charges, it
stands to reason that they will be more
careful about letting a drunk person get
behind the wheel of a car.
Ultimately, the most effective way to
deal with repeat DWI offenders may be a
combination of these measures. It may
not be possible to keep DWI recidivists
off the road completely, but making it
increasingly difficult for them to remain
on the road can yield positive results.
FURTHER READINGS
Beck, Kenneth H., et al. 1999. “Effects of Ignition
Interlock License Restrictions on
Drivers with Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A
Randomized Trial in Maryland.”American
Journal of Public Health (November 1).
“Judges May Weigh Full Drinking Record.”
2002. Boston Globe (November 28).
CROSS-REFERENCES
Alcohol; Recidivism.
