Accid. Anal & Prey. Vol. 12, pp. 105-111 Pergamon Press Ltd.. 1980. Printed in Great Britain

THE SEVERITY OF DRUNKEN DRIVING AS PERCEIVED BY DRUNKEN DRIVERS

DEREK A. POCOCK

Forensic Pathology Section, Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, Nedlands, 6009, W.A., Australia

and

ALl A. LANDAUER Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, 6009, W. A., Australia

(Received 24 April 1979; in revised [orm 14 August 1979)

Abstract--Men convicted of drunken driving rated this particular offence as significantly less serious than men from a control group who had no convictions for drunken driving offences. Instead of shame and guilt feelings preventing the person from committing further acts of drunken driving, prosecution and court appearance seems to have a detrimental effect on the offender's attitudes to this type of criminal behaviour.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Recently Pocock and Landauer [1978] have shown that the offence of drunken driving is viewed as serious by university-oriented subjects. Against the prediction that in Western society drunken driving would tend to be regarded as a relatively minor offence, it was found that driving under the influence of alcohol was viewed as more severe than theft, car stealing, drug smuggling, forging and uttering, assault, and carnal knowledge of a minor. The only offences which were rated as significantly more severe than drunken driving were living off immoral earnings, embezzlement, burglary, rape, armed robbery with attempted murder, and murder.

The method used in that study consisted of asking subjects to award a penalty to hypothetical offenders from stories which described various illegal acts or criminal behaviour. It was assumed that the magnitude of the penalty which a person wishes to impose is a reliable measure of the severity with which that offence is viewed: the magnitude of the penalty will be in a monotonic relationship with the degree of disapproval with which the subject regards the offence.

The severity, rating for these offenders showed minor changes depending upon the age, sex and punitivity of the respondent, but none of these parameters affected the ranking order with which driving under the influence of alcohol was viewed.

By rating the responses of each subject separately one obtains a scale of rankings which is independent of the individual punitivity of the respondents: in previous surveys penalties for simple bus fare evasions have ranged from no penalty to four weeks' imprisonment. At the other extreme, the penalty for a premeditated murder has ranged from three months' imprisonment to capital punishment. However, notwithstanding these large inter-subject differences in the magnitude of the sanction, the rank order of penalty for each of these offences remained remarkably stable.

When the pseudoanecdotal method was first used [Pocock and Landauer, 1978] a search of the literature failed to find an identical experimental methodology. Similar techniques have been used for a long time in law schools, but neither the efficacy of the teaching method nor the comparison of penalties awarded, seems to have been systematically investigated. Brown and Copeman [1975] have used a somewhat similar technique to investigate the attitude of drivers to various traffic offences.

When a random sample of subjects makes ratings like these one can assess the opinion of the population, and by sampling two different populations one can determine if group differences exist.

This study was designed to see if persons who have been convicted of a drunken driving offence regard this particular misconduct as less severe than those who had not. It is reasonable

105

106 DEREK A. POCOCK and ALIA. LANDAUER

to assume that men convicted of a drunken driving offence would regard it as less serious than those who had not been punished for such behaviour. In part, at least, this would be due to rationalization or to other defence mechanisms which a person will use so as to preserve his self-image, in particular if feelings of guilt are associated with the incident. This "dynamic" explanation is partly confirmed by the findings of Raymond [1973] that there is a group of drunken drivers who seems to be completely undeterred by legal sanctions. Gibbs [1975], when referring to motor offences, reports that in most cases even Draconian punishment does not act as a deterrent.

It was therefore decided to examine whether there are any differences in the assessment of a punishment for drunken drivers between those who have and those who have not been convicted of that offence.

METHOD

A questionnaire was constructed which consisted of 20 short stories. Each of these was about 60 words long and related to various offences committed by men of different ages and socio-economic backgrounds. As far as possible no emotive or legal terms were used. The items were presented in random order together with the following instructions:

"In the table below offences are listed for which different men have been found guilty. All these offenders had no previous criminal record. Your task is to give each an appropriate penalty. Please indicate any prison term and/or any fine that you feel each one deserves. An entry in both columns means that you consider a prison term and a fine appropriate. Please award a low penalty even if you consider that the charge should be dismissed because it was the first offence. Please do not impose bonds, suspended sentences, etc., but impose nominal penalties in these cases. Try and decide on the penalty independent of any knowledge which you may have of the correct legal penalty which could be applied".

Subjects were also requested to report their age and usual occupation, though the latter information was not examined or analyzed. In a covering note on the letterhead of the Psychology Department of the University of Western Australia subjects were informed "as you probably know from both television and newspapers that surveys are sent out to find out how people feel about important matters". The recipients were told that this was a similar type of study and that "we are trying to find out what people think about certain crimes and offences, and what penalty (if any) you feel is appropriate". Subjects were requested to answer all questions by themselves but no indication was given as to the reason for the mail survey. A reply-paid envelope was enclosed. One form of the questionnaire was printed on white paper and the other on yellow. The former was sent to the experimental group and the latter to the control group.

Subjects The names and addresses of men convicted of a drunken driving charge were obtained by

examining the charge sheets of a major metropolitan police court. According to the operative law, one of three charges relating to this offence is laid against the offender:

(1) driving under the influence of alcohol; (2) driving with 0.08% or more alcohol in the blood; or (3) refusing breathalyser or blood test. As charge sheets were examined, all men who pleaded guilty or were convicted of any of

the above three offences were listed and a questionnaire was sent to them. Charge sheets were selected at random from the period of 1 January to 30 June, 1978. This meant that between four and 10 months had elapsed since the prospective subjects had been charged with a drunken driving offence. A total of 276 questionnaires were mailed to the experimental group of which 38 were returned as non-deliverable by the post office. Only 50 questionnaires were returned by the recipients and 10 of these could not be used since the respondents had failed to complete the questionnaire. These 40 questionnaires represent less than 17%.

So as to select an equivalent control group a note was made of the electoral district to which an experimental questionnaire was sent. Those electoral rolls were later consulted and the names of men living in the same area were selected at random. A total of 251 questionnaires were forwarded to the control group; of these 21 were returned because they could not be

The severity of drunken driving as perceived by drunken drivers 107

celivered. A far larger percentage (33.5) of control group subjects returned the questionnaire and of these a greater proportion was usable (72, i.e. 31%).

It is unlikely that subjects of the experimental group were aware or believed that they had been selected on account of their drunken driving conviction. A reasonable amount of time had elapsed since their court appearance, control group questionnaires were sent to subjects in their r eighbourhood, and neither the Department nor the authors are popularily known for their research into drunken driving. Persons convicted of drunken driving offences are three to four times more likely to have had a previous conviction [Raymond, 1973; Willett, 1973] and therefore could have related the receipt of the questionnaire to some other offence which they committed. A direct phone number appeared on the letterhead and no phone calls or mail i aquiries relating to this study were received.

The 20 stories, together with a short name for the offence (which was not stated on the c uestionnaire) are given below. They are listed in an ascending order of the magnitude of the r,enalty imposed.

]'he Questionnaire Fare evasion:

Urinating in a public place:

Shoplifting:

hcome tax evasion:

Speeding:

7heft:

£~ving a car without a licence:

S m uggling:

EqSving under the influence of alcohol:

Causing grievous bodily harm:

T~king and driving away a

vehicle:

A 19 yr-old student boarded a bus and was caught trying to use a ticket he had bought the previous day for the same journey. He was caught when a ticket inspector boarded the bus. The fare was $0.50. A 22 yr-old shop assistant, on his way home from a party needed to urinate and found that the public convenience was closed. He was seen urinating in the main street at 2 a.m. and was arrested. A 41 yr-old clerk removed $36 worth of new books from a city bookshop by placing them under his coat. He had $140 in his wallet when stopped outside the shop. A 37 yr-old accountant claimed $490 on his income tax return as educational expenses for his children. A spot check established that he had actually spent only $120 on this. A 51 yr-old barman was stopped by the police whilst driving at 100 km/hr (approx. 62 miles per hr) through a busy suburban shopping street at 3.30 p.m. He said he was speeding because he was late for work. A 28 yr-old fencing contractor was passing by a window of a flat; he forced it open and stole a camera worth $90, which was clearly visible on the window ledge. A 48 yr-old grazier, whose driving licence had been per- manently suspended for medical reasons was apprehended whilst driving his wife's car along a country road. A 43 yr-old teacher was caught trying to smuggle 60 digital watches when returning from a trip to Asia. He claimed that he was bringing them to Australia as presents for friends and neighbours. A 40 yr-old carpenter driving home from the hotel collided with the back of a taxi. Nobody was injured and the property damage was $250. The blood alcohol level of the carpenter was 0.135%. During a political rally a 52 yr-old farmer aimed and threw a rock at the speaker, hitting him on the forehead and knocking him unconscious for a few minutes. The wound required eight stitches. A 19 yr-old trainee manager took a car by short-circuiting the ignition. He drove it for 300km and left the vehicle un- damaged but with an empty petrol tank close to a well known surfing beach.

108

Forging and uttering:

False pretences, selling short- weight goods:

Manslaughter:

Arson:

Em b ezzlem en t:

Burglary:

Armed robbery with attemp- ted murder:

Rape:

Murder:

DEREK A. POCOCK and ALl A. LANDAUER

A 31 yr-old train driver found a wallet containing a Bankcard. He went to a sports store, bought fishing equipment to the value of $180 and used the Bankcard by forging the signature of the rightful owner. A 62 yr-old flour miller had the weights of his packets checked. All his 1 kilogram bags were found to be under- weight, with an average of 942 grams of flour because he had deliberately adjusted his scales to underweigh. During a fist fight in a hotel a 36 yr-old unemployed lorry driver punched a 32 yr-old man who had been calling him a "dole bludger". The younger man hit the back of his head on a concrete floor and died two weeks later from a fractured skull. A 37 yr-old farm worker who could only write his name with difficulty set fire to the empty house owned by his former de [acto wife who had kicked him out. A 24 yr-old bank clerk pocketed a deposit of $1000 instead of paying the amount into an account which was rarely inspected. He needed the money to pay his gambling debts. A 36 yr-old scrap merchant at night broke into the home of a bookmaker, cut open the safe and stole $15,000 in cash. None of the money was ever recovered. A 24 yr-old unemployed man held up a bank and stole $40,000. One of the cashiers who tried to stop the offender as he was escaping was shot in the calf of the leg. All the money was recovered by the police. A 28 yr-old miner danced with a girl at a party. She was called outside because she had left her car lights on. He followed and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. She suffered numerous bruises and abrasions. A 54 yr-old bricklayer killed his foreman who, for six months, had continuously nagged and picked on him. He stabbed him several times in the back with a large bread knife which he had brought from home that morning.

Scoring For each respondent the offences were ranked in ascending order of the magnitude of the

penalty imposed. Fines were converted into prison term equivalents at the arbitrary value of $1000 equalling one month's imprisonment. This value was based on the subjective impression that the average man would opt for a fine at this level rather than accept such imprisonment with consequent loss of earnings. A total punitive score was also determined for each subject. This was achieved by adding all penalties and it gave an index of how punitive each respondent was. In determining the punishment score life sentences were equated to 30 years' imprison- ment, and in the few cases where capital punishment was recommended the penalty was assessed as 50 years' imprisonment.

RESULTS

The mean rank and its standard deviation is listed in Table 1. The rankings are based on the results of all 112 usable questionnaires (40 experimental and 72 control group subjects).

Table 2 contrasts the ranking for two median splits: between high and low punitive subjects on the one hand, and between younger and older subjects on the other hand. Differences which attained statistical significance between groups are marked with asterisks (*p <0.05; **p < 0.01).

Figure 1 contrasts the ratings by the subjects of the experimental group with those of the control group. The 95% confidence interval for each rating is shown. The obvious difference between the ratings for the drunken driving offence is statistically highly significant (two-tailed,

The severity of drunken driving as perceived by drunken drivers

F~RE EVASION

URINATING IN A PUBLIC PI.AC£

SHOP LIFTING

SPEEDING

INCOME TAX EVASION

THEFT

DRIVING ,a CAR WITHOUT LICENCE

SP4UGGLING C,d~,USING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL

T~kKING AND DRIVING AWAY A VEHICLE F,~LSE PRETENCES, SELLING SItORT-WEIGHT GOODS

FORGING AND UTTERING

AllrSON

MANSLAUGHTER

EI4BEZZLEMENT

BL RGLARY

ARMED ROBBERY WITH A"TEMPTTED MURDER

RAPE

MURDER

1119

dz

V//////A I I

V////////2 [ I

[////////I I I

[/////A r--I

[///////A I I V/////////,] I I

c==N

r / / / / / ~ E X P E R I M E N T A L 1 ICONTROL

. . . . , , , , , , ~ ,,, ~ , , , 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I I 13 14 16

i i i i i

16 17 18 19 20

MEAN RATING Fig. I. Mean rating of the offences, 95% confidence interval hatched.

'Fable 1. Mean and standard deviation of the rating of 20 offences by 112 subjects

Shorter description of offence Mean Rank Standard Deviation

Fare evasion

Urinating in a public place

Shop lifting

Income tax evasion

Speeding

Theft

Driving a car without a licence

Smuggling

Driving under the influence of alcohol

Causing grievous bodily harm

Taking and driving away a vehicle

Forging and uttering

False pretences, selling short-welght goods

Manslaughter

Arson

Embezzlement

Burglary

Armed robbery with attempted murder

Rape

Murder

i . 50 0 ° 750

1 .88 1 .035

5 . 3 2 2. 730

6 . 2 5 3 . 0 6 5

6 . 3 3 2 . 9 8 3

8 . 3 3 3 . 1 8 3

8 . 7 4 4 . 0 6 8

8 .91 3 .289

9.30 3.158

9.77 3.967

10.44 3.353

10.51 3.141

10.58 3.153

12.89 4.938

12.92 3.589

13.47 2.323

16.89 1.441

18.09 1.295

18.56 1.105

19.24 1.481

110 DEREK A. POCOCK and ALl A. LANDAUER

Table 2. Ranking after a median split on high and low punitive subjects, and on yonger and older ones (*denotes p<0.05, **denotes p<0.01)

Short description of the offence

Fare evasion

Urinating in a public place

Shop lifting

Income tax evasion

Speeding

Theft

Driving a car without a licence

Smuggling

Driving under the influence of alcohol

Causing grievous bodily harm

Taking and driving away a vehicle

Forging and uttering

False pretences, selling

Punitive Age

short-weight goods

Manslaughter

Arson

Embezzlement

Burglary

Armed robbery with attempted murder

Rape

Murder

1.44" 1.73

1.96 1.80

5.66 4.98

6.32 6.18

6.36 6.30

8.52 8.13

8 . 6 8 8 . 8 0

9 .32 8 . 5 0

9 . 6 7 8 . 9 3

9.40 10.13

9.80* 11.07"

10.24 10.77

10.62 10.55

13.03 12.76

12.21" 13.63"

13.79 13.15

17.18 16.60"

18.34" 17.85"

18.61 18.52

18.86"* 19.62"*

Low Nigh Young

1.55

1.93

5.36

6.43

6.16

8.21

8.64

9.07

8.89

9.49

10 .18

q .96

10.91

13 .26

13 .31

13 .56

16 .94

18 .16

18 .53

19 .45

Old

1 .63

1 .66

5 . 2 4

6 . 2 0

6 . 4 7

8 . 6 7

8 .56

8 . 9 8

9 . 5 5

10 .29

10 .43

11 .01

10 .29

12 .59

12 .53

13 .33

1 6 . 9 4

18 .01

1 8 . 5 8

19.05

78 d[, t = 3.86, p <0.001). No other difference between mean ratings of the two groups of subjects was statistically significant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Although the response rate was disappointingly low there exists no reason to suspect a systematic bias in the data, except that probably the more literate and community conscious subjects responded. With this possible proviso, the results of this investigation show clearly that men who have been convicted of a drunken driving charge consider this offence to be less serious than men not so convicted. Unfortunately the results can not show whether this attitude is taken by offenders in order to minimize their guilt feelings, or due to a belief that their offence is not so serious as when viewed by the control group. Whatever the cause of this difference in ratings may be, the opposite of the desired effect is produced by convicting the offender.

Instead of shame, guilt feelings or any other construct of consciousness operating and preventing the person from committing further breaches of the law, the offender subsequently sees his crime as less serious. Thus prosecution and court appearance may well have a detrimental effect on the "moral" components which relate to the attitude about this type of offence. Any bias in the data would tend to favour the more intelligent and the more community conscious offender.

Since even minor changes of the stories produced minor differences in rank order [Pocock and Landauer, 1979], it would be useless to speculate if the drunken driving offence would have

The severity of drunken driving as perceived by drunken drivers 111

been rated as more serious had bodily injury or death resulted. It is more remarkable that the offence was seen as so severe considering the fact that material damage was minimal.

As far as the differences in rating between the high and low punitive groups are concerned, it is interesting that for the offences of burglary and robbery with attempted murder there were significantly higher ratings by the low punitive group. These findings indicate that within the restricted range of ratings which could be made, low punitive subjects regarded these two offences as relatively more severe. On the other hand, fare evasion, car stealing and murder were seen as significantly more severe offences by the high punitive group. Since both groups have identical mean ratings, these differences reflect the relative severity with which groups judge a particular offence. Although the differences are statistically significant and indicate a real difference in the rating of offences, they are of little importance in the evaluation of the drunken driving offence which was equally rated by high and low punitive respondents. The only difference found in the rating of driving under the influence of alcohol was the fact whether the respondent had previously been convicted of this offence.

The results of the investigation could give a clue to the high rate of recidivism which is associated with this particular type of offence. In place of feeling shame and guilt the offender tends to regard his transgression as relatively trivial. Punishment, instead of preventing the recurrence of the offence causes the very opposite to happen. It is felt that a different approach to the enforcement and treatment of drunken driving offenders should be investigated. The trappings of the law do not alter a person's behaviour until community standards are clearly changed by the passage of time.

Acknowledgement--The authors gratefully acknowledge the support by the Australian Criminology Research Council. Any ~pinions stated do not necessarily coincide with those held by that organisation.

R E F E R E N C E S Brown I. D. and Copeman A. K., Drivers' attitude to the seriousness of road traffic offences in relation to the design of

sanction. Accid. Anal. & Prey. 7, 15-26, 1975. 3ibbs J. P., Crime, Punishment and Deterrence. Elsevier, New York, 1975. Pocock D. A. and Landauer A. A., How serious is the offence of drunken driving? Aust. & N. Z. J. CriminoL 11,141-147,

1978. :'ocock D. A. and Landauer A. A., " . . . to make the punishment fit the crime". Aust. Quart. 51(3), 55--61, 1979. 2aymond A. E., A Review o,f AIcohol in Relation to Road Safety. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra 1973. ',Villett T. C., Drivers after Sentence. Heinemann, London, 1973.