@article{ref1,
title="Post-schooling of alcohol conspicuous drivers and their consideration in terms of the traffic law's 'de lege lata' and 'de lege ferenda'",
journal="Blutalkohol",
year="1981",
author="Preisendanz, H",
volume="18",
number="2",
pages="87-97",
abstract="Courses (following the 'Mainz 77' model or comparable courses) for additional education of persons convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol as a means to reduce the high rate of repeated offences are welcome, but cannot replace the sanction of criminal law. They can only supplement these measures. Their effect should not be overestimated, as the danger of recidivism cannot only be attributed to lack of knowledge, but also to weakness of character which can hardly be permanently cured by psychological training. If this were not so, the inability of policemen, lawyers and sometimes even of judges and public prosecutors to differentiate between alcohol consumption and driving under the influence cannot be explained. Additional education should only be initiated after the decision to revoke a driver's licence has become effective. It may then become a so-called 'new fact'. To ensure the inclusion of a large number of persons suitable for additional training it seems appropriate to reduce the minimal period of revocation from the present 6 to 3 months. Courses attended prior to the decision to revoke a driver's licence might by way of exception have the effect that by the time of the court decision, the offender need no longer be considered unfit to operate a vehicle. Even if the offender participated in a course, a positive prognosis can only be considered, if the accused's licence was suspended for at least 6 months (positive effect of the impact of the preliminary measure). As long as the withdrawal of the permission to drive is part of the measures to improve the offender and to safeguard the public, probation cannot be considered. After amending the withdrawal of the permission to drive in favour of a long-term licence-suspension a solution could be found whereby, after a minimal period (6 months for first offenders, one year for repeated offenders), the remaining period of the licence-suspension is changed to probation on the condition that an additional education course be attended. A general change in favour of probation would be contrary to crime prevention principles and cannot be justified in the interest of traffic safety.<p />",
language="de",
issn="0006-5250",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}