Drunk Driving: A Crisis in Need of Reform by Mackenzie Wheelock

Drunk Driving: A Crisis in Need of Reform

Mackenzie Wheelock, Salisbury University

Abstract

Drunk driving is all too familiar for far too many people in society. With thousands of lives being lost every year, it is evident that the current system for handling these offenses is not an adequate deterrent to the behavior. Improvements need to be made to this system to not only stop the behavior, but to save lives. Drunk driving has been a longstanding issue in society, and reforming the system is important on several identifiable levels. As research has indicated, drunk driving needs to be addressed through a combination of legal, educational, and social reforms. By taking a multifaceted approach to drunk driving offenses, the system can work better to prevent drunk driving before it happens and reduce recidivism.  While drunk driving is a national issue, this research focuses on the state of Maryland. This research shows the structure of the current system in Maryland and suggests several reforms to increase the system’s effectiveness. This research demonstrates the importance of a combination approach to the sanctioning of drunk driving offenses to successfully address the drunk driving public health crisis and save the lives of thousands each year. This article demonstrates that Maryland’s current DUI framework relies too heavily on isolated sanctions rather than coordinated interventions. Evidence suggests that combining certainty of punishment, swift adjudication, rehabilitative treatment, educational interventions, and technological prevention produces greater reductions in recidivism than any single strategy.

---

Introduction and Statistics

Every year, thousands of Americans are killed or injured in alcohol-related crashes despite decades of criminal penalties and public awareness campaigns. Federal and Maryland state laws define drunk driving as operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher as measured by a chemical test (Maryland Judiciary, 2025). 

Drunk driving is not a new phenomenon. In 2003, there were 17,401 drunk driving-related fatalities reported in the United States, 14,409 in 2004, 15,195 in 2005, and 11,654 in 2020 (CDC, 2024; Dula et al., 2007; LaBrie et al., 2007; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). In 2017, there were 6,627 crashes resulting in serious injury and/or fatality in Maryland alone (Maryland MVA, 2018). The National Center for Statistics and Analysis found that in 2023, 12,382 people died in drunk driving-related accidents nationwide, and 11,904 in 2024 (2025). In 2025, 485 people died in drunk driving-related crashes in Maryland alone (Maryland MVA, 2025). Overall, the data highlights how persistent this problem has been over time. 

When analyzing the national vehicular fatality rate, approximately 41% of vehicular fatalities are the result of a drunk driving incident (Bouffard, 2010; Dula et al., 2007; Eibner et al., 2006). In other words, nearly half of all traffic fatalities are preventable deaths. Furthermore, 32 people in the United States are killed every day in crashes where alcohol was a factor (CDC, 2024; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, n.d.). These accidents can be directly linked to one risky and dangerous behavior: driving under the influence. 

Nationally, there have been as many as 906 million drunk driving-related incidents in a single year (Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). Drivers take over 82 million trips a year while over the legal intoxication blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher (Dula et al., 2007). With numbers this high, these findings suggest that drunk driving remains a widespread public safety issue rather than an isolated phenomenon.  

Despite the efforts put forth by the justice system to reduce drunk driving incidents, it persists. Research demonstrates that under the current system, approximately 20% of drivers continue to drive under the influence, contributing to thousands of fatal vehicular crashes every year (Stringer, 2018). The number of drunk drivers still on the road demonstrates a need for more effective measures and reforms of the legal system. 

Recidivism is another issue the system faces. One in three drunk driving offenders are reoffenders (Bouffard, 2010; LaBrie et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2014). With over 1.3 million arrests each year for these offenses, the current legal system’s sanctions and interventions are not adequately deterring drunk drivers from re-engaging in the behavior. Since reoffenders are responsible for a large portion of drunk and impaired driving arrests, addressing recidivism and increasing deterrence could substantially reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes and fatalities.

To truly understand the need for legal reforms, it is important to recognize the heightened risks posed by individuals with multiple DUI offenses. Individuals with multiple DUIs have a higher likelihood of causing a motor vehicle accident, which not only endangers themselves but also innocent drivers, passengers, and pedestrians as well (Miller et al., 2014; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). The risks posed by repeat offenders are compounded by the fact that these individuals have not been deterred by traditional sanctions. This heightened risk underscores the urgent need for stronger deterrents and rehabilitation programs. 

Overall, the statistics regarding drunk driving demonstrate a concerning pattern. Drunk driving is not just a legal issue, but a deadly crisis in need of reform. The current measures presented by the legal system are not properly deterring offenders, and a stronger, combined approach is needed to work toward bringing an end to drunk driving.  The existing sanctions and interventions presented by the legal system are insufficient in deterring and rehabilitating offenders. 

Legal Reforms and the Path Ahead

A multifaceted approach to DUI enforcement focused on increasing visibility, consistency, and public awareness is needed to develop adequate legal reforms. Offenders need ongoing support and interventions from multiple angles to curb recidivism rates. Increasing utilization of sanctions like victim impact panels and drug court allows for the educational and rehabilitative sides of deterrence to be increased for offenders. 

Legal reform should also focus on reducing system delays in the court and administrative systems in order to ensure that sanctions are imposed swiftly after the arrest. Swift and certain punishments are more effective at deterring behavior. Consequently, the legal system needs to adopt reforms to increase the swiftness and certainty of punishment in order to decrease drunk driving rates. 

Legal reform should aim to increase the use of breathalyzer technology and intoximeters. The breathalyzer test is a strong determinant of the intoxication levels of offenders. However, its status in the current legal system prevents this technology from being used to its fullest extent in curbing recidivism rates and preventing offenses. By lowering the legal limit and increasing the usage of the test, blood alcohol related policies can be reformed to better apprehend, sentence, and manage impaired drivers. 

Current System

In Maryland, offenders are required to go to court for the charges and, if found guilty, are subject to sanctions imposed by the state. Under Maryland laws, drivers face immediate legal sanctions, criminal penalties, and license sanctions (Maryland Judiciary, 2025; MDOT, 2025; Hansen, 2015; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). An offender is entitled to a district court hearing for all criminal offenses, citations, and charges in a district court, and an MVA hearing for the imposition of license sanctions by the Office of Administrative Hearings at the MVA (MDOT, 2025; Maryland Judiciary, 2025). While the possible sanctions are standard as outlined by the statutes, which ones and how strongly they are imposed are often dependent on the facts of the case and the individual.  

The consequences for a DUI can vary widely depending on the circumstances of the case and the offender’s history. When facing consequences for a drunk driving offense, an offender can receive a variety of possible sanctions from the district court, including jail or prison time, heavy fines, community service, restitution, drug court, alcohol classes, and many others (Benson et al., 1999; Bouffard, 2010; Dula et al., 2007; Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2013; Maryland Judiciary, 2025; Miller et al., 2014; MDOT, 2025; MADD, 2025; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). While this discretionary nature does allow for flexibility dependent on case circumstances, it can pose problems. For example, one such problem is inconsistent outcomes across seemingly similar cases. 

The district court is one part of the system, and the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) is the other. As a result of the MVA case, possible sanctions could include a loss, revocation, or suspension of license or the installation of an ignition interlock device (Maryland Judiciary, 2025; MDOT, 2025; MADD, 2025). The MVA has the authority to impose a variety of administrative penalties for drunk driving offenses as a separate entity from the court system that offenders must face regardless of the outcome of the court case. A key difference between the sanctions imposed by the court and the MVA is that the MVA focuses specifically on an offender’s driving privilege and is intended to monitor and/or limit the offender’s ability to drive. 

This two-court system works well for implementing sanctions from multiple angles. However, since the two are not connected, it is possible that an offender can win their case in one court and lose in the other, sending a message of inconsistency. When an offender is not convicted in district court but is found guilty by the MVA, only the license sanctions are imposed. If the reverse happens and the offender is convicted in district court but found not guilty by the MVA, then the offender receives only the district court sanctions and not the license sanctions. The split nature of these courts allows for this possibility, which allows mixed messages about the certainty of punishment, and the deterrent effects are substantially reduced since not all relevant sanctions are imposed. 

Apprehension and Sentencing

Efforts to reform the criminal justice system need to look beyond punishment and address the underlying processes that are contributing to the ongoing drunk driving issue in society. Research demonstrates that the focus of reforming the system needs to be on apprehension and sentencing to lower both the commission and recidivism rates (Dula et al., 2007). If drunk driving offenders believe that they will not be apprehended, they are more likely to take the risk and engage in the behavior. By raising the perceived risk of apprehension, potential offenders are less likely to drive under the influence. 

If society does not perceive enforcement and the threat of punishment as high enough, the system of punishment will not work. Research continuously demonstrates that drunk driving behaviors will be less likely to occur if the individual believes that the chances of being caught and the likelihood of punishment (sentencing) are high (Dula et al., 2007; Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2013; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). Without having this kind of perception, the laws in place lose their deterrent power, leading to increased numbers of drunk driving cases. If individuals are led to believe that they can either get away with the behavior or see the potential consequences as minor and/or unlikely, individuals are statistically more likely to engage in drunk driving behaviors.  

Understanding the DUI recidivism rate also requires analyzing how a conviction impacts recidivism. Nochajski and Stasiewicz (2006) discuss how individuals who are not convicted on the initial offense (for any number of reasons) are more likely than someone who is convicted to re-offend and receive a subsequent DUI (p. 186). A conviction from the court statistically appears to have a stronger deterrent effect on an offender than a case that is either dropped or results in no conviction. When individuals are not convicted (for whatever reason: legal loopholes, insufficient evidence, plea deals, etc.), the offense is likely taken less seriously, and the wrong message is sent to both the offender and to the public.  

Perceptions and Timing

It is commonly seen in the fictional media that legal cases are handled swiftly and have certain and guaranteed punishments. However, this will not change the perceptions of society so long as the real-life experiences of offenders are contrary (Dula et al., 2007; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006; Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2013). The fictional image of cases being resolved quickly with certain punishments creates a picture of an efficient and decisive justice system. However, the actual experiences people have in the legal system are riddled with delays, uncertainty, and puzzling outcomes. While the fictional media may paint the picture of an ideal justice system, a genuine change in the public’s perception of the legal system requires real reform of how the justice system is carried out in the real world.  

The timing of the legal system’s engagement with offenders is vital to the system’s success. Research has indicated that as the length of time between the offense(s) and the sanctions being imposed increased, the DUI recidivism rate increased as well (Benson et al., 1999; Dula et al., 2007; Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2013; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). In other words, sanctions reduce recidivism rates most effectively when the sanctions occur in close proximity to the arrest. Immediate consequences for illegal behavior are more effective at changing and deterring behavior. Since offenders may not face any meaningful consequences until long after the offense, the delayed punishment can weaken both the impact and the deterrent effect of the punishment. 

If the sanctions imposed, regardless of how many are imposed, are not implemented (and perceived as being) swift and certain, individuals will not be successfully deterred from engaging in the behavior. By implementing sanctions closely following the offense, offenders are more likely to make a clear connection between their actions/behavior and the punishment associated. Inadequate and/or delayed sentencing can reduce deterrent effects. The swift and certain implementation of legal consequences reinforces the message to offenders, both current and future, that choosing to drive under the influence has serious and real-world consequences.

Ongoing Support

The imposition of a sanction on its own is not enough to permanently deter offenders from engaging in drunk driving behavior. Research demonstrates that relapse rates increase once the sanction(s) are removed to rates equivalent to those for offenders who never had the sanction to begin with (Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2013; Miller et al., 2014; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). While the sanctions imposed do temporarily reduce offending behavior, the effect of this punishment often diminishes over time, and once the sanctions are lifted, the recidivism rate returns to levels as if the sanctions had never been imposed. 

As the research indicates, without ongoing support and intervention, offenders are more likely to relapse and repeat the behavior.  Since many offenders resume and re-engage in drunk driving behaviors, the current sanctions alone are insufficient for attaining a long-term behavioral change. This limited, short-term impact of these sanctions on offenders suggests that measures directed at long-term rehabilitative changes and continued support are needed to prevent repeat offenses.

Victim Impact Panel

Working to keep the reality of drunk driving and its consequences in the public consciousness, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)’s goal is to make drunk driving a thing of the past. In working towards this goal, the organization built a Victim Impact Panel in which the offender sits and listens to presentations and testimonials that have been given by people whose lives have been impacted by a drunk driver (MADD, 2025; Miller et al., 2014; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). When undergoing the Victim Impact Panel, offenders are directly exposed to the consequences of drunk driving through listening to stories from both victims and their families.  

The increased use of the victim impact panel in courts demonstrates the increasing weight and importance being placed on the educational and emotional aspects of deterrence beyond just legal consequences. Furthermore, the use of the victim impact panel highlights a shift from a retributive punishment state towards one focused on the rehabilitation and education of offenders.  

The MADD panel helps offenders see the human cost of drunk driving, not just the fines, license points, and other legal sanctions. Those victims and their families volunteer to discuss how the DUI event changed their lives, while not placing blame or judgment on the offenders (Miller et al., 2014). Hearing the firsthand testimony from these victims and their families makes the consequences of drunkenly operating a vehicle personal, showing that real lives are at stake with the goal of leading the offender to develop an emotional connection that is capable of shifting the mindset of an offender and reducing recidivism.   

Blood Alcohol Concentrations

The development of reliable tools and techniques to measure driver impairment levels has played a critical role in apprehending drunk drivers. The first breathalyzers were created in 1956 (Hansen, 2015). These devices established an objective and accurate method of measuring and determining impairment in a non-invasive manner. Before the breathalyzer became a reliable method of measuring impairment, police officers mainly relied on field sobriety tests and personal experiences with impaired drivers to determine levels of impairment. While the breathalyzer devices have improved drunk and impaired driving detection, their use still has flaws within the legal system that need to be addressed through legal reforms. 

Breathalyzer tests measure how much alcohol is present in a person’s breath. The current legal limit on a breathalyzer test is 0.08 grams per 210 liters of breath (Maryland MVA, 2025). This means if an offender blows at or over this threshold as established by law, they are charged with driving under the influence. In recent years, the National Transportation Safety Board has repeatedly proposed lowering the blood alcohol concentration limit from the current 0.08 to 0.05 (Hansen, 2015). This would mean that any breathalyzer test at or over 0.05 grams per 210 liters of breath would constitute driving under the influence. The implementation of this reform would lead to stricter drunk driving laws and contribute to the increase in deterrent efforts. 

The breathalyzer test is a major breakthrough in the prevention, apprehension, and conviction of offenders. However, submission for a breathalyzer test is currently not required of an offender for drunk driving offenses in Maryland in every suspected drunk and/or impaired driving case. Drivers are not required to submit to a breathalyzer test unless serious injury or fatality has occurred with the offense (Maryland MVA, 2025). Since Maryland law does not require submission for the test in every case, it becomes harder for authorities to prove intoxication in court. The limited mandatory use in the current legal system prevents this technology from being used to its fullest extent in curbing recidivism rates and preventing offenses. This leads to offenders not receiving full sanctions or not being convicted of drunk driving offenses. 

The breathalyzer test result has additional implications aside from proving intoxication. The DR-15 Advice of Rights is a form presented to all arrested for a drunk and/or impaired driving offense and informs offenders of their rights to take and to refuse a breathalyzer test, and the consequences of both options (Maryland MVA, 2025). For example, by choosing not to take a breathalyzer test, offenders lose their license and privilege to drive for a period of time as mandated by the DR-15 Advice of Rights (Maryland MVA, 2025). There are also consequences for blowing a breath test from 0.05 to 0.08, though they are less than those for a breathalyzer test with a result equal to or greater than 0.08 grams per 210 liters of breath. Various consequences can include license suspensions or revocations, with differing lengths of time depending on the offense number and other case circumstances.

License sanctions and MVA involvement are not the only sanctions imposed as a result of an offender’s submission to a breathalyzer test. The District Court has increased sanctions for offenders with a BAC constituting driving under the influence. 42 out of 50 states (including Maryland) have instituted “Aggravated DUIs” for offenders with extremely dangerous blood alcohol concentration levels (Hansen, 2015). Extremely dangerous blood alcohol concentration levels range from 0.15 to 0.20, with Maryland’s being at 0.15 (Hansen, 2015; Maryland Judiciary, 2025). These charges are accompanied by harsher punishments and sanctions than standard DUI offenses, to limit future drunk driving events and minimize recidivism rates.

Intoximeters and Ignition Interlock

The ignition interlock device (known as an intoximeter) is a key part of analyzing drunk driving behaviors and reducing the behavior. An ignition interlock device is installed in a car that requires the driver’s blood alcohol concentration to be below the legal limit before allowing the car to start, with continuous checks during the vehicle’s operation (MADD, 2025; Miller et al., 2014; MVA, 2025). Ignition interlock devices ensure that the car cannot be operated while the driver is under the influence. Consequently, these devices have enormous potential to reduce drunk driving rates. 

Laws regarding the ignition interlock device for offenders have been changing in recent months. Under a new law enacted in 2025 (Section 16-404.1 of the Maryland Transportation Article) known as Noah’s Law, anyone convicted of a DUI or who has received a disposition of probation before judgment for a DUI is required to have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle (Maryland Judiciary, 2025; MVA, 2025). First-time offenders are mandated to six months, second-time offenders to 12 months, and third-time and subsequent offenders are mandated to three years. This means that every offender found to have engaged in drunk driving behaviors by the District Court is required to have the ignition interlock device installed for a set period of time, not including sanctions imposed by the MVA. This law is a step towards collaborative efforts by the District Court and the MVA to curb drunk driving offenses, rather than working as two separate agencies fighting the same war. 

Intoximeters work well as a deterrent because they target drunk and impaired driving behavior before the crime occurs. Rather than relying on deterrence or punishment taking place after the commission of a crime, the use of intoximeters prevents drunk driving at the source. The technology makes it physically impossible to start and operate a vehicle under the influence, thereby removing the opportunity for drivers to engage in the behavior before they have a chance to. 

While the interlock is a strong deterrent for drunk driving offenses, its effectiveness is tied to its implementation. Much like other legal sanctions, studies of the ignition interlock device demonstrate that the effectiveness of the device is limited to while the device is installed in the vehicle (Miller et al., 2014). Within Miller’s studies, the groups with the interlock device experienced a 60% lower recidivism rate than the control group. However, once the device was removed from the vehicle, the difference in recidivism rates was no longer statistically significant. In other words, while the interlock is a strong deterrent, its effect is only strong while the device is installed in the vehicle and does not leave a lasting deterrent effect. 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is working on taking a different approach with the potential to revolutionize this area of the legal system through the increased use of intoximeters. MADD is working to encourage the development of a legal basis to equip every new car with anti-drunk driving technology (such as intoximeters), to move forward on the path to ending drunk driving for good (MADD, 2025). With intoximeters in cars, the car cannot start if alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath. This would lead to a decrease in drunk and impaired driving offenses since it stops the crime before it has the chance to occur.

Drug Court: A Rehabilitative Approach

The district court is where all offenders must go to face the charges against them. However, drug court, a court system dedicated to changing offender behavior, is a different court and is increasingly being utilized as a sanction for drunk driving offenses (Eibner et al., 2006; Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2013; Maryland Judiciary, 2025). Separate from the district court and imposed as a sanction, drug court involves the offender typically having the charges reduced in exchange for agreeing to receive treatment. 

Drug court contains several steps for completion through a dense treatment plan. Treatment includes detoxification, counseling services, education, group and individual meetings, alcohol tests, and mandatory court appearances for a period of time (Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2013, p. 270). The frequent monitoring, testing, and meetings create an environment and framework where offenders are held accountable for their actions, while receiving guidance and support in working towards a long-term behavioral change. 

A drug court sanction contains several steps and a dedication to change on the part of the offender, unlike traditional correctional approaches. The data illustrates that drug courts reduce recidivism more effectively than traditional correctional approaches like jail and fines (Bouffard, 2010). Bouffard attributes this decreased recidivism to the long-term behavioral changes offenders experience because of the drug court program. By prioritizing accountability through recovery efforts, drug court introduces a comprehensive approach to fostering a genuine behavioral change, rather than just punishing the behavior. 

The increasing use of drug courts in sanctioning drunk driving offenders reflects a shift in the legal system from primarily punitive approaches to an approach focused more on behavioral and treatment-based interventions. The use of drug courts provides a chance for accountability and long-term behavioral changes. By focusing on both the punishment of the offenders and their recovery, drug courts help lower recidivism rates, protecting both individuals and the community.

Reforming the System: A Combination Approach

While the area of the legal system concerned with drunk and impaired driving is complicated, the research on its effectiveness is clear. The criminal justice procedures, public health policies, sanctions, treatment strategies, and other interventions for DUI offenders have not responded to the demonstrated need for change (LaBrie et al., 2007). Legal reform should focus on mandatory, multifaceted sanctions and sentencing structures that blend punishment, prevention, education, and rehabilitation. Consequently, reforms need to be made in the legal system to respond to the demonstrated needs for change. While each individual component has reforms to be made, combining the reforms can develop a multifaceted approach to deterring drunk and impaired driving. 

The effectiveness of the combination approach is demonstrated through research and statistics. Research demonstrates that the combination of several sanctions to punish offenders is more impactful than single sanctions on offenders in reducing recidivism rates in DUI cases (Benson et al., 1999; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). Furthermore, a multifaceted approach to sanctioning drunk driving offenders is significantly more impactful than a singular punishment model. Since relying on singular sanctions does not significantly reduce the likelihood of reoffending, a combined sanction approach should be implemented to create a stronger deterrent and corrective effect. 

The benefits of a multifaceted approach have been seen in Maryland’s criminal justice system. The court system has demonstrated that individuals who participate in and complete alcohol treatment programs, drug court, and ignition interlock systems have much lower recidivism rates than those who do not receive these sanctions (Goodfellow & Kilgore, 2013; Maryland Judiciary, 2025; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). As this research demonstrates, the combination of different kinds of sanctions has a notable, positive impact on offender behavior. 

Additional research continues to demonstrate the positive effects of a multifaceted approach. Miller et al. (2014) found that the combined use of fines, jail, license restrictions, and the speed at which they were imposed reduced recidivism rates better than each sanction individually. Combining the various sanctions of the present legal system in a manner that addresses the issue from multiple directions is more effective at deterring future offenses than a single-direction approach. 

Research demonstrates that repeat DUI offenders will benefit from this multifaceted model of drunk and impaired driving sanctions. Combination treatment and educational approaches have reduced recidivism rates for repeat offenders (Bouffard, 2010). Since one in three drunk driving offenders is a re-offender (Bouffard, 2010; LaBrie et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2014), this is a significant decrease in offenses through the use of a combination approach. 

Beyond looking solely at the relationship between specific sanctions, research has analyzed the overall trends in data for combined interventions. For example, there are larger effects and a greater impact for combined, multifaceted approaches and interventions than those involving only one component (Miller et al., 2014). In other words, evidence suggests that multi-component sanction programs are more effective at deterring drunk driving behaviors than single-component programs. Consequently, the legal system should focus on multifaceted and multi-component sanctions for drunk and impaired driving offenders to decrease drunk driving rates.

Multifaceted approaches to drunk driving cases work best for deterrence and reducing recidivism because of the combination of areas addressed. The ability to respond to the combination of legal, social, and psychological factors associated with drunk and impaired driving behavior is the driving factor behind the higher success rates of multifaceted approaches (Miller et al., 2014). Offenders face legal consequences from possible jail sanctions or fines, behavioral changes from counseling and education, and prevention through license restrictions and interlock devices. By facing consequences from multiple angles, offenders face a challenge in minimizing or ignoring the seriousness of the actions they have committed. In addition, the combination of both punitive and rehabilitative elements in sanctioning helps the offenders to not only suffer consequences but also understand, address, and correct their underlying behavioral issues. 

While the multifaceted approach is the best approach to legal reforms, there are limitations to its effectiveness. The justice system cannot simply throw every possible sanction at offenders and hope something works. Understanding whether the punishments and sanctions are effectively reducing drunk driving offenses is critical to determining the appropriate combination of education, enforcement, and punishment that can both maximize social welfare and minimize recidivism rates (Hansen, 2015). With the appropriate combination of education, punishment, and enforcement, offenders are more likely to be deterred from the behavior. This will lead to decreased drunk and impaired driving rates, increased deterrence, and thousands of saved lives.

Conclusion

The impacts of drunk driving are far-reaching and a painful reality. The persistence of thousands of drunk driving-related injuries and fatalities every year suggests that the current criminal justice system does not adequately deter impaired driving. As statistics and research have demonstrated, drunk driving has been a longstanding issue in society, and reforming this system has enormous potential. The overarching goal of legal reforms is not to simply convict more people, but to prevent future harm and offending. 

The combination approach that addresses and sanctions drunk driving behaviors through a combination of legal, educational, and social reforms is a necessary legal reform that has the potential to change the lives of thousands. By engaging in a multifaceted approach and enacting the reforms for sanctioning offenders, the system can work better to prevent recidivism and prevent drunk driving before it happens. 

Future research regarding drunk driving laws both nationally and in Maryland should focus on the impact of these changes in widespread real-life application. Future legislation in this legal field should focus on implementing these combined approaches and refining the technique to best serve and protect the public. 

References

Benson, B. L., Rasmussen, D. W., & Mast, B. D. (1999). Deterring drunk driving fatalities: An economics of crime perspective. International Review of Law and Economics, 19(2), 205–225.

Bouffard, J. A. (2010). Drug courts for DWI offenders? The effectiveness of two hybrid drug courts on DWI offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.11.004

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Impaired driving: Get the facts. https://www.cdc.gov/impaired-driving/about/index.html

Dula, C. S., Dwyer, W. O., & LeVerne, G. (2007). Policing the drunk driver: Measuring law enforcement involvement in reducing alcohol-impaired driving. Journal of Safety Research, 38, 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2006.10.007

Eibner, C., Morral, A. R., Pacula, R. L., & MacDonald, J. (2006). Is the drug court model exportable? The cost-effectiveness of a driving-under-the-influence court. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31(1), 75–85.

Goodfellow, M., & Kilgore, C. (2013). DUI offenders’ beliefs about DUI statutes and DUI law enforcement: Implications for deterrence. Journal of Drug Issues, 44(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042613500052

Hansen, B. (2015). Punishment and deterrence: Evidence from drunk driving. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1581–1617. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130189

LaBrie, R. A., Kidman, R. C., Albanese, M., Peller, A. J., & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Criminality and continued DUI offense: Criminal typologies and recidivism among repeat offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 603–614.

Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration. (2025). Maryland impaired driving laws. https://mva.maryland.gov/drivers/Pages/maryland-impaired-driving-laws.aspx

Maryland Judiciary. (2025). Maryland Judiciary: Fair, efficient, and effective justice for all. https://www.courts.state.md.us/

Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. (2018). MVA. Mva.maryland.gov 

Miller, P. G., Curtis, A., Sønderlund, A., Day, A., & Droste, N. (2014). Effectiveness of interventions for convicted DUI offenders in reducing recidivism: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 41(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2014.966199

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. (2025). MADD Victim Impact Panel. https://madd.org/

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (n.d.). Drunk driving. U.S. Department of

Transportation. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2025, June). Alcohol-impaired driving: 2024 data (Report No. DOT HS 813 815). U.S. Department of Transportation. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813815 (Crash Stats)

Nochajski, T. H., & Stasiewicz, P. R. (2006). Relapse to driving under the influence (DUI): A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.11.006

Stringer, R. J. (2018). Exploring traffic safety culture and drunk driving: An examination of the community and DUI related fatal crashes in the US (1993–2015). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 56, 371–380.