General Deterrence of Drunk Driving: Evaluation of Recent American Policies

  • Evans W
  • Neville D
  • Graham J
  • 23

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 59

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

A testable hypothesis of deterrence theory is that efforts to increase the expected cost of criminal activity by increasing the threat of punishment should, other things being equal, reduce the crime rate. In this paper, we examine whether the incidence of drinking and driving is responsive to escalation of the punitive threat. The recent national campaign against drunk driving provides a natural experiment in which to test the predictions of deterrence theory. Using state level data over the 1975-1986 period, we report no conclusive evidence that any specific form of punitive legislation is having a measurable effect on motor vehicle fatalities. We report suggestive evidence that multiple laws designed to increase the certainty of punishment (e.g., sobriety checkpoints and preliminary breath tests) have a synergistic deterrent effect. The most striking finding is that mandatory seat belt use laws and beer taxes may be more effective at reducing drunk driving fatalities than policies aimed at general deterrence.

Author-supplied keywords

  • Drunk driving
  • general deterrence
  • traffic safety

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Get full text

Authors

  • William N. Evans

  • Doreen Neville

  • John D. Graham

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free