“Being for driver safety is a good thing. We need to study it in a deliberate way before we rush into it.”
So said Gov. Timothy M. Kaine during a press conference he held with senior members of the General Assembly yesterday in defense of abusive-driving fees enacted into law this year. (Read Jeff Schapiro’s account of the press conference in the Times-Dispatch.)
Yes, we can all agree that driver safety is a good thing. But where, pray tell, was the “deliberate” study? What empirical basis does Virginia’s political leadership have for stating that highly punitive fines will lead to safer roads?
It just so happens that the Virginia Crime Commission published a study earlier this year, “Effectiveness of Existing Punishments and Recommendations for Additional Remedies for Driving While Intoxicated,” that examined the effectiveness of increased punishments for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Del. David B. Albo, R-Fairfax, the leading advocate of the now-infamous Abuser Fees, introduced legislation in the 2004 session that increased penalties for DUI. Measures included (1) increased minimum sentences for second and third convictions, (2) lower blood alcohol levels to trigger mandatory minimum sentences, and (3) other penalties such as suspension of driver’s licenses, confiscation of cars and a presumption against bail under certain circumstances.
The law went into effect July 1, 2004. The study’s conclusions (my italics):
The data does show that there were fewer convictions for second and third offense drunk driving charges in 2005, as compared to 2004. Because this data reveals recidivism rates for only a one year period, it is possible that other factors are responsible for the lower numbers. Staff has concluded that it is not possible to definitively state, with methodological rigor, that the more severe punishments are causing recidivism for drunk driving to decline. Whether the lower numbers for DUI convictions will continue, or whether 2004 will come to be seen as an unusual year in which the number of DUI incidents was lower than normal, remains to be determined.
Additionally, there are many factors that contribute to the total number of DUI incidents occurring during a given year. The number of law enforcement officers assigned to patrol for drunk drivers, the number of DUI checkpoints established throughout the state, and the number of public service announcements on radio and television cautioning people to avoid drunk driving, all may impact DUI rates. The types of counseling and treatment given to people convicted of a first DUI may have even more of an impact on their future behavior than the amount of punishment they receive. Attempting to objectively discern what precise variables are having the most measurable effects on lowering DUI rates is extremely difficult.
While the initial data for the past year, with the lower DUI figures, is encouraging, it is too soon to draw any firm conclusions as to whether this is due to the changes made to the DUI statutes in 2004. Until data is available for at least four to six years, it is not possible to assess whether those changes are responsible for lowering recidivism rates. Nevertheless, the initial data is promising, and the Crime Commission intends to continue monitoring DUI rates on an annual basis to see if the downward trend continues.
That’s the only relevant report to the General Assembly that I could find in 2007 or 2006. (Someone might want to go behind me and make sure I didn’t miss something.) Fact: No one studied anything related to Abuser Fees “in a deliberate way” before passing the law. Fact: There is no empirical basis for claiming that the higher fees for traffic offenses will translate into safer roads. There are only hints, based on one year’s of data, that increased penalties might reduce recidivism for DUI, but the study insisted that the data were inconclusive and pointed to other possible causes.
If Gov. Kaine, House Speaker William J. Howell and other General Assembly leaders insist upon keeping the the fines, they should, at a minimum, do this: Fund mechanisms to measure and analyze the impact of Abuser Fees on drivers’ behavior. Let us not re-open the debate three or four years from now as ignorant of the facts as we are today!