The effect of victim impact panels on DUI rearrest rates: A five-year follow-up

Criminology

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 1319-1340

  Rojek, Dean G ^a   Coverdill, James E ^a   Fors, Stuart W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

DUI; Hazard rates; Recidivism; Victim Impact Panels

Indexed keywords

EID: 1642634035     PISSN: 00111384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01021.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Allison, Paul D. 1995 Survival Analysis Using the SAS System: A Practical Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
2. Applegate, Brandon K. and Francis T. Cullen 1995 Public support for drunk-driving countermeasures: Social policy for saving lives. Crime and Delinquency 41: 171-191.
3. Ashworth, Andrew 2002 Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology 42: 578-595.
4. Badovinac, Kimberly 1994 The effects of victim impact panels on attitudes and intentions regarding impaired driving. Journal of Alcohol Drug Education 39 (3): 113-118.
5. Baumer, Eric P., Richard Wright, Kristrun Kristinsdottir, and Helga Gunnluagsson 2002 Crime, Shame and Recidivism. British Journal of Criminology 41: 40-59.
6. Braithwaite, John 1989 Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
7. C'de Baca, Janet, Sandra Lapham, Susan Paine, and Betty Skipper 2000 Victim impact panels: Who is sentenced to attend? Does attendance affect recidivism of first-time DWI offenders? Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 24: 14200-1426.
8. Cohen, Stanley 1985 Against Criminology. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books
9. Donovan, Dennis M. 1989 Driving while intoxicated: Different roads to and from the problem. Criminal Justice and Behavior 16: 270-298.
10. Fors, Stuart W. and Dean G. Rojek 1999 The effect of victim impact panels on DUI/DWI rearrest rates: A twelve-month follow-up. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 60: 514-520.
11. Hay, Carter 2001 An exploratory test of Braithwaite's reintegrative shaming theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38: 132-153.
12. Makkai, Toni and John Braithwaite 1994 Reintegrative shaming and compliance with regulatory standards. Criminology 32: 361-383.
13. Mann, Robert E., E. R. Wingillis, G. Leigh, L. Anglin, and H. Blefgen 1986 School based programmes for the prevention of drinking and driving: Issues and results. Accident Annals Prevention 18: 325-337.
14. Miethe, Terance D., Hong Lu, and Erin Reese 2000 Reintergrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency 46: 522-541.
15. Morris, Allison 2002 Critiquing the critics: A brief response to critics of restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology 42: 596-615.
16. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) 1989 The Effects of the Washington County DUI Victim Impact Panel on Recidivism Rates. Washington, OR: Washington County MADD Chapter.
17. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2001 Traffic Safety Facts 1999, Report No. DOT HS 809 086. Washington: Department of Transportation.
18. Nichols, J. L. and H. Lawrence Ross. 1989 The Effectiveness of Legal Sanctions in Dealing with Drinking Drivers. Surgeon General's Workshop on Drunk Driving: Background Papers: pp. 93-112. Washington, D. C.: Department of Health and Human Services.
19. O'Laughlin, Linda H. 1990 Drunk Driving: The Effects of the Clackamas County DUI Victim Impact Panel on Recidivism Rate. Oregon City, OR: Clackamas County MADD Chapter.
20. Piquero, Alex 1998 On preventing drunk driving recidivism: An examination of rehabilitation and punishment approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice 26: 129-433.
21. Polacsek, Michelle, Everett Rogers, Gill Woodall, Harold Delaney, Denise Wheeler, and Nagesh Rao 2001 MADD Victim Impact Panels and stages-of-change in drunk-driving Prevention. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 62: 344-350.
22. Powers, Daniel A. and Yu Xie 2000 Statistical Methods for Categorical Data Analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. Ross, H. Lawrence 1993 Punishment as a factor in preventing alcohol-related accidents. Addictions 88: 997-1002.
24. Ross, H. Lawrence and Robert Voas 1989 The new Philadelphia story: The effects of severe penalties for drunk driving. Washington, D.C.: AA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
25. Sheppard, M. A. and C.A. Stoveken 1993 Convicted impaired drivers' knowledge about alcohol: Relevance for program development. Journal of Alcohol Drug Education 38: 113-122.
26. Shinar, David and Richard P. Compton 1995 Victim impact panels: Their impact on DWI recidivism. Alcohol Drugs and Driving 11: 73-87.
27. Shore, Elsie. R. and Joseph R. Ferrari 1998 Preventing Drunk Driving. London, England: London Guildhall University.
28. Simpson, H. M., D. R. Mayhew, and D. J. Beirness 1996 Dealing with Hard Core Drinking Drivers. Ottawa, Canada: Traffic Injury Research Foundation.
29. Sprang, Ginny 1998 Victim impact panels: An examination of the effectiveness of this program lowering recidivism and changing offenders' attitudes about drinking and driving. Journal of Social Service Research 22: 73-84.
30. Uniform Crime Reports 2001 Crime in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
31. Van Ness, Daniel and Karen Strong 1997 Restoring Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.
32. Wagenaar, Alexander and Traci L. Toomey 2002 Effects of minimum drinking age laws: Review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 206-226
33. Weed, Frank J. 1991 Organizational mortality in the anti-drunk driving movement: Failure among MADD chapters. Social Forces 69: 851-868.
34. Wilson, James Q. and Richard Herrnstein 1985 Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon and Schuster.
35. Zehr, Howard 1990 Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press