"I'll Just Do My Time": The Role of Motivation in the Rejection of the DWI Court Model

Background: The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model Beginning in the late 1970's, court systems across the United States funneled resources into the development of drug courts, as an alternative to the more punitive and less successful measures that had previously been used to curb drug offenses (Stinchcomb, 2010). In answer to criticisms of the "revolving door" of the criminal justice system for drug offenders who recidivated, the drug court approach was borne out of a therapeutic model, focusing on the need for treatment for drug offenders, and offering defendants treatment as an alternative to incarceration. The idea exploded, and as of the end of 2011, there were over 2,600 drug courts functioning throughout the United States (National Institute of Justice, 2012 http://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/drug-courts/). Empirical research provides evidence of their success, estimating somewhere between a 10 and 15 percent reduction in recidivism for drug offenses (Belenko, 2001; Deschenes, Peters, Goldkamp, & Belenko, 2003; Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearly, 2003; Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999; Marlowe, 2010). Based on the success of drug courts, other therapeutic court models have emerged over the last 10-15 years. Among these varieties is the driving while intoxicated (DWI) court, typically aimed at individuals who have three or more charges of driving while intoxicated within a 10 year period. Similar to the drug court model, DWI court is based on the "carrot and stick" approach to adjudication, whereby offenders with three, four, or more DWI's can avoid jail time and have their drivers licenses reinstated sooner by participating in the DWI court program. As of the end of 2011, there were 192 designated DWI courts and an additional 406 DWI/drug hybrid courts throughout the United States (National Center for DWI Courts, 2012). DWI Courts DWI courts proliferated because of the increase in automobile crashes and fatalities over the last several decades linked to driving while intoxicated. The criminal justice system has employed educational public service campaigns, general deterrence policies, alcohol control policies (DeJong & Hingson, 1998), punishment (Bouffard & Bouffard, 2011) and other means to reduce drunk driving. Despite these efforts, intoxicated drivers continue to be a significant threat to public safety. According to the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), alcohol was involved in nearly a half a million accidents nationwide in 2005, affecting a quarter of a million people (NHTSA, 2006, as cited in Saum, Hiller, & Nolan, 2013). In 2009 alone, 11,000 people lost their lives as a result of a drunk driving incident, 70% of which involved drivers with multiple DWI offenses (http://www.dwicourts.org/sites/default/files/ncdc/DWI_COURT_Brochure.pdf). The state in which the current study is located, Minnesota, is no different than the rest of the United States in imposing penalties for drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher; yet even with these penalties in place, 9,878, or 31%, of the traffic fatalities in the United States in 2011 involved drivers whose blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) was .08 or higher (NHTSA, 2012). While the total number of fatalities involving drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher has decreased since 2002, the percentage in relation to total traffic fatalities has not (NHTSA, 2012; Saum, Hiller & Nolan, 2013). In response to these alarming statistics, and along with the knowledge that the worst offenders tended to be DWI recidivists, DWI courts were created to help curb the incidence of DWI's and improve case management of these multiple DWI offenders (Bouffard & Bouffard, 2011). Part of a DWI court's purpose is to reduce recidivism of repeat offenders who have not responded to other methods (Tauber & Huddleston, 1999). Tactics such as enhanced enforcement (e.g., sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols) and drinking age increases are most effective with social and underage drinkers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998: as cited in Tauber & Huddleston, 1999), but there remain a population of adult recidivists who continue to drive drunk regardless of society's efforts to curb the problem (Tauber & Huddleston, 1999). …