Study: DUI offenders agree harsher penalties needed
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
It’s no secret that Montana is plagued with drunk driving. DUI laws are a hot topic in the Legislature this year as lawmakers grapple with the most effective methods of reducing the number of DUI offenders, especially repeat offenders, in the state. While some contend that harsher punishments such as longer sentences for convicted offenders are the solution to Montana’s DUI problem, others believe alternative treatment to help offenders overcome their drinking problems is the way to go.
But what do the offenders themselves think would help? A recent study conducted by faculty and students in the University of Montana’s School of Social Work sought to find out just that.
During December, researchers held 10 focus groups at various correctional facilities across the state of Montana, interviewing felony offenders from Montana State Men’s Prison, Montana State Women’s Prison and Warm Springs Addictions Treatment and Change Program East and West. Around 80 offenders with five or more DUI convictions took part in the focus groups. They were asked questions including:
• “In your experience, what factors, besides legal penalties, affect whether or not people drive under the influence of alcohol? (For example, employment, family, friends, etc.). In your view, which is the most important factor?”
• “Have your views towards drinking and driving changed during the course of your detention? How so? What’s different?”
• “If you could imagine yourself many, many years in the future with all your DUI troubles behind you, what would you say finally made the difference? Why did you never drive drunk again?”
• “Do you think that current Montana laws regarding DUI are effective in deterring people from committing multiple offenses? Why or why not? What would you change?”
• “Bottom line: What will prevent Montanans from committing DUI offenses?”
Interviewers transcribed 229 pages of dialogue from the focus groups and were able to distill the opinions of multiple-felony offenders into 12 dominant themes, with the top three being education, external control mechanisms and stiffer penalties. Offenders’ endorsement of external controls was a new finding. According to lead researcher and UM Associate Professor Timothy Conley, offenders’ endorsement of external controls was a new finding. The conclusion section of the report states that “short-term physical control efforts such as bracelets and breathalyzers are endorsed by offenders as a necessary first step to buying them enough abstinence time for treatment of the alcohol dependence disorder to take hold.”
Not only did participants feel that penalties for drunk driving should be stiffer, but they said penalties should be increased for first-and second-time offenders.
“…it is very clear the offenders identify a need for earlier and stiffer intervention. In the words of one: ‘Hit us hard and hit us early,’” the report states.
In a rural area like Lake County, drunk driving is even more prevalent in part due to the lack of public transportation. Last year in Lake County, District Court dealt with 13 DUI offenders who had four or more DUI convictions. In Lake County Justice Court, there were 115 first-time offenders charged with DUI; 15 second DUI charges; and two third-time charges.
Polson City Court dealt with 19 first-time DUIs; five second DUI offenses; and three third offenses.
The Montana Highway Patrol dealt with 128 DUI charges, 43 related to crashes, and 21 of which were turned over to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Courts.
It’s because of statistics like these that Justice of the Peace Chuck Wall, Polson City Court Judge Doug Olson and Polson Police and Court Clerk Joan Hart have been working on setting up a DUI court for people who have been found guilty of their second or third DUI, giving them an alternative to the regular route of fines and/or jail. Participants would be required to attend weekly counseling at Western Montana Addiction Services, take weekly drug and/or alcohol tests and submit to random checks from a misdemeanor probation officer. A DUI court team including the judge, a member of the prosecution, a defense attorney, a treatment provider, a probation officer and the court coordinator would also meet weekly to keep them appraised of the offender’s progress.
Alcohol monitoring — SCRAM — bracelets could also be another alternative to jail time and fines, or at least a tool to supplement the DUI court program. But the program will have to wait until funding is available, which Wall hoped would happen this spring.
The report on the UM study, entitled, “To Drink is to Drive,” is available at http://www.cor.mt.gov/content/Issues/ToDrinkisToDrive.pdf.
