An Examination of How DUI-Child Endangerment Laws Are Used in Court

Each year, about 200 children aged 14 years old (y/o) or less die and another 4,000 are physically injured while being driven by an adult that has been drinking (aged 21 y/o or more). Concerned by this phenomenon, there are a growing number of States implementing Driving Under the Influence – Child Endangerment (DUI-CE) laws to prevent adults from driving under the influence with children. These laws however, have failed to reduce the rates of DUI-CE injuries and fatalities. It has been hypothesized that such a failure occurs, at least in part, because these laws are being pled-down in courts, this study examines this hypothesis. We analyzed DUI-CE related court information collected by court monitors available in the Court Monitoring Database (CMD) provided by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Despite investigating data that included only DUI offenders who were driving with at least one child passenger at the time of the arrest, only 10% of those charged with a DUI felony and 11% of those charged with a misdemeanor were also found guilty of a DUI-CE violation. These findings support the hypothesis that DUI-CE offenses are being pled down in court and probably contribute to the ineffectiveness of DUI-CE laws. Unfortunately, data limitations preclude any decisive conclusions. Future research should focus on increasing our understanding of the DUI-CE problem and understanding why DUI-CE laws are not working toward the goal of deterring and punishing those who endanger the lives of children.

Open Letter to Mothers against Drunk Driving

Although I shall be criticizing you, even severely, please do not take this amiss. I mean your organization no harm. Quite the contrary. My two children, in their early 20’s, are both new dri-vers. I would suffer more than I can tell you if anything were to happen to them as a result of drunken driving. I am thus a sup-porter of yours. I am on your side. Please take what I say as no more than friendly amendments to your plans and proposals. Some of the following critiques may sound harsh, but friends do not mince words with each other in life and death situations, and I would like you to consider me a friend of yours. We may disagree on means, but certainly not on ends. First, you must expand your scope of operations. While drunk driving is of course a major calamity on our nation’s roads, it is far from the only one. There are quite a few others, even besides the «big three» of speed, weather conditions and driver error1. What difference does it really make if our children and loved ones die in a traffic fatality emanating from drunkenness or any of these other conditions? Happily there is no need to change even the MADD name if you adopt this suggestion. Only instead of the first «D» standing for «drunk» it could refer to «death,» as in Mothers Against Death Drivers. All of these things —alco-hol, drugs, speeding, malfunctioning vehicles, badly engineered roads, weather conditions, whatever— are threats to our fami-ly’s lives. Why single out any one of them? A possible defense of the status quo is to borrow a leaf from the economists, and defend the present, limited, status of MADD on grounds of specialization and division of labor2. True, no one organization can do everything. Better to take on a limited agenda and do it well, than to take on too much and accomplish little or nothing.

5. Legacies

‘Legacies’ explains that the most important legacy of prohibition in the United States concerned a dramatic change in drinking habits. The raunchy all-male saloon disappeared for good and per capita consumption of alcohol was reduced for a very long time. Consumption in the 1930s was one-third lower than before prohibition because people had little money to spend on drinks during the Great Depression and because a generation that had come of age during prohibition never imbibed much alcohol. Other legacies include industry-sponsored scientific research on alcohol and alcoholism; the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous, which placed responsibility for drinking upon the individual drinker; and the 1980s designated driver scheme proposed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Lobbying, learning and policy reinvention: an examination of the American States’ drunk driving laws

Scholars have consistently shown that learning of successful policies in other states leads to higher likelihood of policy adoption. This study extends this finding two ways. First, policy learning can also lead to more comprehensive adoption of successful policies. Second, the effect of policy learning on policy comprehensiveness is conditional on lobbying by interest groups, an alternative source of information about policy success. To test these hypotheses, we conduct a directed dyad-year analysis using a dataset on American state drunk driving regulations from 1983 to 2000. The results show that more comprehensive policy adoption by states is positively related to policy success in other states when lobbying by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is relatively low. Moreover, lobbying by MADD increases policy comprehensiveness when policy success is relatively low. This study advances the literature by examining the conditional effects of lobbying on the relationship between policy learning and policy reinvention.