Citation

Marques PR, Voas RB, Beirness DJ, Taylor EP, Cossins DE. Proc. Int. Counc. Alcohol Drugs Traffic Safety Conf. 1997; 1997: 201-206.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, The author(s) and the Council, Publisher International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Evidence from several sources shows that during the time breath alcohol ignition interlock devices (BAIID) are installed on the vehicles of alcohol offenders, there is a reduction in rearrest relative to comparison samples. The offenders who are motivated to have their driving privileges fully restored, and are willing to abide by the restrictions of BAIID-monitored driving, will have recidivism rates below those of comparison offenders. Data aggregated have shown that among 591 offenders required to drive with a BAIID for one year, only 8 drivers (1.35%) reoffended during that interval (apparently in non-interlock vehicles). By contrast, two groups without BAIIDs (totalling 19,067 offenders matched for prior offenses) had reoffense rates of 5% and 6% during the same period. This three fold reduction in rearrest is similar to the rate reported by Morse and Elliott (1993) who found 3% relative to 9% reoffending during a similar interval. These differences do not reflect random assignment from a common pool, so those who choose a BAIID may have different expected reoffense rates from those who don't. But once removed from the vehicle, interlock-using offenders look remarkably like other DUIs. That is, in all reports of interlock effects to date none have found much difference between the interlock and suspended groups after the period of interlock-controlled driving ends.