Driving under the influence of alcohol : determining an optimum sanction.

Ames, W. A; Peters, Eric G · 1971 · ROSA P / Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC)

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This 1971 study by W. Allen Ames and Eric-G. Peters addresses the challenge of designing an optimal statutory scheme for prohibiting and sanctioning driving under the influence (DWI) of alcohol. Motivated by the high mortality rate associated with motor vehicle accidents and the specific role of alcohol in these fatalities, the research seeks to determine sanctions that effectively deter prohibited conduct while remaining politically feasible and administratively workable. The authors argue that current laws fail to achieve wide-scale deterrence, partly due to a conflict between the social acceptance of drinking and motoring, and partly because penalties are often too severe, leading to reluctance among law enforcement and judiciary personnel to pursue convictions. The methodology relied on a public opinion survey administered to 2,548,134 licensed drivers in Virginia, categorized into four groups based on their driving records: those with no violations, those with moving violations, those with license suspensions for non-DWI reasons, and those with DWI convictions. A fifth category consisted of judges and commonwealth’s attorneys. Questionnaires were randomly selected and distributed to 1,000 individuals per driver category and 371 judicial officials. Responses were analyzed statistically to compare attitudes across these groups and demographic variables, including residence in rural, small town, suburban, or urban areas. The study aimed to reveal misconceptions about DWI offenders and assess public and judicial support for various legal reforms. Key findings indicate that DWI offenders exhibit a consistent pattern of traffic violations and higher accident frequencies compared to average drivers, contradicting the public misconception that they are merely "social drinkers." While 51.7% of drivers with clean records claimed to be abstainers, admitted alcohol consumption levels were similar across other violation categories. The judiciary expressed significant hesitation in convicting first-time DWI offenders, largely due to the mandatory 12-month license revocation, which was viewed as excessive. Both the public and judiciary favored a discretionary suspension model, with a minimum of six months and a maximum of 12 months. Regarding blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) limits, 68.8% of judicial officials supported lowering the presumptive intoxication level from 0.15% to 0.10%, citing scientific evidence, whereas public support was weak due to fears of penalizing social drinkers. Additionally, there was substantial distrust of breath testing despite its scientific accuracy, and a general lack of knowledge regarding its reliability. The study concludes with specific recommendations for revising Virginia’s DWI laws. The authors propose lowering the presumptive BAC level to 0.10%, authorizing the use of scientific breath testing as admissible evidence, and modifying license revocation penalties to allow judicial discretion within a 6-to-12-month range. They also recommend allowing the introduction of evidence when an accused refuses a blood test and establishing state-funded screening and rehabilitative procedures for problem drinkers and alcoholics. These measures aim to align legal sanctions with scientific data and public opinion, thereby enhancing deterrence and addressing the pathological nature of many DWI offenders.

Key finding

Judges and the public supported lowering the presumptive blood-alcohol concentration limit from 0.15% to 0.10% and replacing mandatory twelve-month license revocations with a discretionary range of six to twelve months.

Methodology

survey

Sample size: 1089

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement
• drowsy as impairment
• alcohol