Speiglman R
Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, San Rafael, CA 94901.
Addiction. 1994 Jul;89(7):859-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb00989.x.
This paper examines 2877 municipal court drunk driving cases sampled from 1982 to 1989 in four California sites. Recidivist drinking drivers were those charged with driving under the influence and having two or more drunk driving convictions on their records. In two sites, virtually no AA referrals were made. In the others, in addition to jail terms and fines, judges ordered attendance at meetings of AA for 37-41% of cases. Referral to AA was unrelated to blood alcohol level or number of prior drinking driving convictions. In one AA-referring site, the data indicate that over 75% of drinking drivers convicted in the 1988-89 period were referred to AA by a judge or county probation or parole officer. These findings suggest that, as a whole, California sentencing policies lack a coherent framework. Instead of reflecting information on program effectiveness and offenders' needs, variation in sentencing appears to mark differences in local fiscal circumstances, levels of jail crowding and ideological orientations of judges and other officials. It is suggested that referral practices could have an adverse impact on both individuals' alcohol problems and on recovery programs.
本文研究了1982年至1989年从加利福尼亚州四个地点抽取的2877起市法院醉酒驾驶案件。累犯酒驾者是指那些被指控在影响下驾驶且记录中有两次或更多次醉酒驾驶定罪的人。在两个地点，几乎没有转介到戒酒互助会（AA）的案例。在其他地点，除了监禁刑期和罚款外，法官还命令37%至41%的案件当事人参加戒酒互助会的会议。转介到戒酒互助会与血液酒精含量或先前醉酒驾驶定罪的次数无关。在一个转介到戒酒互助会的地点，数据表明，在1988 - 1989年期间被定罪的酒驾者中，超过75%是由法官、县缓刑或假释官员转介到戒酒互助会的。这些发现表明，总体而言，加利福尼亚州的量刑政策缺乏一个连贯的框架。量刑的差异似乎并非反映项目有效性和罪犯需求的信息，而是体现了当地财政状况、监狱拥挤程度以及法官和其他官员的意识形态倾向的不同。有人认为，转介做法可能会对个人的酒精问题和康复项目产生不利影响。
