Deterrence and Prevention of Alcohol-Impaired Driving in Australia, the United States, and Norway

A sample of 4,316 drivers from Norway, the United States, and Australia responded to national surveys probing individual, social, and legal factors that contribute to control of alcohol-impaired driving. These factors are considered within the framework of general deterrence (control in response to a fear of punishment) and general prevention (control through internalization of moral inhibitions and socialization of preventive habits). Striking differences in social norms, attitudes, and behaviors surrounding drinking and driving in the three countries suggest that Norway has progressed farthest toward general prevention, whereas Australia relies more on general deterrence. Both general deterrence and general prevention are relatively weak in the United States

Young People, Alcohol and Driving in Two Australian States

Road traffic accidents are the single largest cause of death in Australia among people aged 15–24. The proposition that a broadly based deterrence measure, such as random breath testing (RBT), would be sufficient to change the behavior of young drivers was tested in a comparison of young drivers in New South Wales (NSW), which has had RBT for 6 years, with young drivers in Western Australia (WA), where there was no RBT. The results demonstrated that NSW young drivers were less likely to drink and drive and more likely to believe their peers would disapprove of drink-driving than were their counterparts in WA. It was concluded that RBT had altered the drink-driving behavior and possibly the beliefs about drink-driving of young people in NSW

INTENTIONS TO OFFEND: EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF PERSONAL AND VICARIOUS EXPERIENCES WITH PUNISHMENT AND PUNISHMENT AVOIDANCE

Stafford and Warr (1993) reconceptualized general and specific deterrence into a single theory in which people\u27s tendencies to commit crimes are based on a combination of personal experiences and vicarious experiences with being punished and avoiding punishment. The authors make a significant contribution to the deterrence literature by considering the effect of punishment avoidance when testing deterrence theory. Despite the theoretical appeal of this model, few studies have assessed its empirical merit. The present study tests the applicability of Stafford and Warr\u27s reconceptualized theory by examining people\u27s intentions to drink and drive. The results reveal only partial support for deterrence. We offer suggestions on how future research can clarify why some findings are inconsistent with deterrence theory. © 2006, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC