An Evaluation of Michigan’s Repeat Alcohol Offender Laws

Eby, D.W., Kostyniuk, L.P., Spradlin, H., Sudharsan, K., Zakrajsek, J.S. 2002. An Evaluation of Michigan’s Repeat Alcohol Offender Laws.
[ Full Text ]

UMTRl was selected to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of Michigan's repeat alcohol offender package of laws by investigating fourteen research objectives. These objectives ranged from determining the effects of the laws on crashes and crash-related injury to determining the effectiveness of sanctioning on drunk driving recidivism to assessing the opinions of prosecuting attorneys in Michigan. The study found about a 30 percent decrease in the rate of crashes involving drivers currently under license suspensionlrevocation. This decrease in crashes resulted in about a 37 percent decrease in injury rates and a 13 percent decrease in fatality rates from crashes involving drivers currently under suspension1 revocation. The study also found that there was about a 39 percent decrease in crashes involving people with two or more previous alcohol-related convictions, while there was only a one percent decrease in crashes involving people with one previous alcohol-related conviction. The analysis of injuries revealed more than a 40 percent postlaw decrease in injuries resulting from crashes involving drivers with two-or-more previous alcohol-related convictions. Comparison between the prelaw and postlaw years showed that the number of two-plus offenders decreased by about 5 percent: the number of three-plus offenders decreased by about 18 percent. Comparison between prelaw and postlavv years revealed that the rate of DWLS recidivism increased by 2 percent. Thus, the laws did not seem to have the intended effect of reducing DWLS recidivism. The new repeat offender sanctions were found to be applied quite infrequently, but ignition interlocks had the lowest rate of future recidivism. Plea bargaining to a lesser alcohol offense was found to be quite frequent, but did not affect repeat offender status. Prosecuting attorneys, in general, did not report increases in workload and thought that the repeat offender laws make it easier to prosecute drunk driving cases. Several other findings are presented.