Alternative court procedures for DUI offenders.

65657807PDFTech ReportVHTRC 79-R28VirginiaVirginia Transportation Research CouncilAbbene, John JKeith, Peter EVirginia Highway & Transportation Research CouncilVirginia. Dept. of Highways and TransportationVirginia. Dept. of Transportation SafetyUS Transportation CollectionThe purpose of this report is to evaluate the need for alternative court procedures in Virginia for handling cases involving persons charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), with particular focus on the referral of DUI offenders to the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (VASAP). In February 1978, the Virginia General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution No. 102, which created a Commission to study all aspects of Virginia's drunk driving laws. This report, designed to aid the Commission in its inquiry, discusses four issues specifically raised by House Joint Resolution No. 102: 1. Whether the law should limit the discretion presently given the trial judge; 2. whether convictions for DUI should be required prior to entry into rehabilitation programs; 3. whether work privileges to operate a motor vehicle should be issued instead of allowing an offender to retain his full driving privilege; and 4. whether second offenders should be given another opportunity to enter a rehabilitation program. In order to evaluate these issues, questionnaires were mailed to all the general district court, circuit court and juvenile court judges, all commonwealth's attorneys and local VASAP directors, and a random sample of state and local police. The questionnaires were designed to discover the present court procedures being used in DUI cases and to elicit the participants' opinions on possible alternatives to the present procedures. Overall, 78% of the questionnaires were answered. The report presents an analysis of the questionnaire results along with a brief review of the literature evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and hardship licenses as highway safety countermeasures. On the basis of this analysis, the authors recommend several revisions to the existing statutes and practices