1 / 9

Administrative vs. Judicial Approaches to Alcohol Law Enforcement: Implications for Ignition Interlock Programs

Administrative vs. Judicial Approaches to Alcohol Law Enforcement: Implications for Ignition Interlock Programs. Ignition Interlock Symposium Bachelor Gulch, Colorado October 24, 2006 James F. Mosher, JD Director Center for the Study of Law and Enforcement Policy

dalmar
Download Presentation

Administrative vs. Judicial Approaches to Alcohol Law Enforcement: Implications for Ignition Interlock Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Administrative vs. Judicial Approaches to Alcohol Law Enforcement:Implications for Ignition Interlock Programs Ignition Interlock Symposium Bachelor Gulch, Colorado October 24, 2006 James F. Mosher, JD Director Center for the Study of Law and Enforcement Policy Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

  2. Deterrence in Judicial Proceedings Mission/Purpose • Establish and reinforce societal moral standards • Protect public safety • Determine guilt: “mens rea” of individual offenders • Impose a significant penalty and limit personal freedom of offenders

  3. Deterrence in Judicial Proceedings Punishment is relatively severe Imposition of penalty is relatively uncertain • Limited detection of DUI offenses • Significant prosecutorial and judicial discretion • High costs of prosecution • Extensive plea bargaining • Imposition of penalty is relatively slow • Significant procedural hurdles • Determined defense likely • Overloaded court dockets

  4. Deterrence in Administrative Proceedings Mission/Purpose • Administer community/societal standards • Impose non-criminal penalties to deter unwanted individual behavior • Balance competing social interests • Protect public health and safety

  5. Deterrence in Administrative Proceedings Punishment is relatively significant although less severe than criminal penalties Imposition of penalty is relatively certain • Costs are lower • Easier burden of proof • Presumptions of violation are permitted Imposition of penalty isrelatively swift • Procedures are more streamlined • Certain forms of punishment can be imposed before proceedings are completed

  6. Public Health Practice: • Focuses on community health • Emphasizes prevention • Searches for interventions in social and community environments • Seeks changes in social norms to support new public health interventions • Is not concerned with individual morality or blame

  7. Implications for Interlock Policy • Administrative procedures can be effective in promoting public health interventions. • To be effective, new strategies are needed to enhance perceived certainty of detection among violators. • Shifting social norms in support of broad use of interlocks across population groups will increase perceived certainty of detection.

More Related