Mandated AA attendance for recidivist drinking drivers: ideology, organization, and California criminal justice practices.
This paper examines 2877 municipal court drunk driving cases sampled from 1982 to 1989 in four California sites. Recidivist drinking drivers were those charged with driving under the influence and having two or more drunk driving convictions on their records. In two sites, virtually no AA referrals were made. In the others, in addition to jail terms and fines, judges ordered attendance at meetings of AA for 37-41% of cases. Referral to AA was unrelated to blood alcohol level or number of prior drinking driving convictions. In one AA-referring site, the data indicate that over 75% of drinking drivers convicted in the 1988-89 period were referred to AA by a judge or county probation or parole officer. These findings suggest that, as a whole, California sentencing policies lack a coherent framework. Instead of reflecting information on program effectiveness and offenders' needs, variation in sentencing appears to mark differences in local fiscal circumstances, levels of jail crowding and ideological orientations of judges and other officials. It is suggested that referral practices could have an adverse impact on both individuals' alcohol problems and on recovery programs.
Speiglman
R
R
Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, San Rafael, CA 94901.
D000328:Adult; D000436:Alcoholics Anonymous; D000437:Alcoholism / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D001334:Automobile Driving / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D002140:California; D003416:Criminal Law; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012008:Recurrence