Interlocks for first offenders: effective?
Interlocks for first offenders: effective?
复制标题
初犯联锁装置：有效吗？
DOI：
10.1080/15389580701598559
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Marques,Paul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Roth,Richard;Voas,Robert;Marques,Paul
目的：车辆联锁已被证明能有效地降低多名边驾驶边受损(DWI)违法者的再犯罪率；然而，其对初犯者的有效性的证据是混合的。加拿大的两项研究发现，安装联锁可以减少首次DWI累犯率，但美国在西弗吉尼亚州和加利福尼亚州的研究未能发现联锁计划中首次DWI犯罪者的累犯率显著降低。这项研究的目的是确定这种装置对新墨西哥州初犯的有效程度。方法：这项研究比较了2003年1月1日至2005年12月1日在新墨西哥州安装联锁装置的1,461名初犯和同期未安装装置的17,562名初犯。用COX多元比例风险回归方法比较三个时期的再犯罪率：联锁装置安装在车辆上时，犯罪者拆除联锁装置后直到研究结束(约2年)，以及合并期间(联锁装置安装和拆除后)。结果：当联锁装置安装在车辆上时，他们的再犯罪率，每年2.6%，显著低于对照组的7.1%/年(CMVPHR危险比=0.39，p<；0.0001)。摘除装置后，联锁组的年化再犯罪率增加到4.9%/年，低于对照组的6.7%，但危险比无统计学意义(CMVPHR危险比=0.82，P=0.16)。当考虑到联锁开启和关闭的联合时段时，联锁组的再犯罪率为每年3.9%，再次显著低于对照组的6.8%(CMVPHR危险比=0.61，p<；0.0001)。结论本研究提供证据表明，联锁组对于初犯和多发性犯罪者同样有效(大约减少60%的重复犯罪率)。此外，要求初犯使用连锁装置的好处比成本高出三倍。
Objective.Vehicle interlocks have been shown to effectively reduce the recidivism of multiple driving-while-impaired (DWI) offenders; however, the evidence for their effectiveness with first offenders has been mixed. Two Canadian studies found that the installation of an interlock reduced first DWI recidivism, but U.S. studies in West Virginia and California failed to find a significant reduction in recidivism for first DWI offenders in interlock programs. The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which such devices were effective with first offenders in New Mexico.Methods.This study compared 1,461 first offenders, who installed interlocks in New Mexico between January 1, 2003, and December 1, 2005, with 17,562 first offenders convicted during the same period who did not install the units. Cox multivariate proportional hazards regression (CMVPHR) was used to compare recidivism rates during three periods:while the interlock was on the vehicles of offenders who installed them,after those offenders removed the units until the end of the study period (approximately 2 years), andfor the combined period (both while the interlock was installed and after it was removed).Results.While the device was on the vehicles of the interlock group, their recidivism rate, 2.6% per year of exposure, was significantly less than the 7.1% per year rate of the comparison group (CMVPHR hazard ratio = 0.39,p < 0.0001). After the device was removed, the annualized recidivism rate of the interlock group increased to 4.9% per year of exposure, which was less than the 6.7% rate of the comparison group, but the hazard ratio was not statistically significant (CMVPHR hazard ratio = 0.82,p = 0.16). When the combined periods (interlock on and off) were considered, the interlock group had a recidivism rate of 3.9% per year, which again was significantly lower than the 6.8% rate for the comparison group (CMVPHR hazard ratio = 0.61,p < 0.0001).Conclusion.The study provides evidence that interlocks are as effective with first offenders (approximately 60% reduction in recidivism when on the vehicle) as they are for multiple offenders. In addition, the benefits of requiring an interlock for first offenders exceed the costs by a factor of three.