Is Law Enforcement About Arrests Or Public Safety?

Ken McCracken • November 7, 2007

Recently North Dakota’s Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem released DUI arrest numbers for the state with a comment that the increase in arrests is “appalling.” But there’s a problem with the Attorney General’s analysis, mostly in the fact that arrests are a terrible metric for gaging the effectiveness of law enforcement. The numbers we should be looking at are not arrests but rather the level of safety the public has on the roads.
This may seem like a rather hair-splitting distinction, but bear with me.
Think about drunk driving objectively for a moment. Why do we ban it? Is it because drinking and driving is, by itself, inherently bad? Or is it because drunk drivers endanger their fellow motorists? It’s the latter, obviously, because if people were safe behind the wheel while they were drunk none of us would have a problem with them drinking and driving. Thus the objective in making drinking and driving illegal is to keep our roads safe, not simply put drunk drivers in prison.
Now let’s go back to the numbers the Attorney General is upset about. According to the AG’s office most recent criminal report, “DUI arrests increased 9.4 percent from 5,923 in 2005 to 6,480 in 2006.” But, again, what do arrests matter? Let’s look at actual traffic safety numbers.
According to data compiled by the City of Fargo, alcohol-related traffic fatalities in North Dakota have remained relatively static:

So has the number of alcohol-related traffic injuries:

The point, here, is why Attorney General Stenehjem may be outraged about the increase in alcohol-related traffic arrests in 2006, the actual public safety picture surrounding the issue has changed little. If anything, it’s actually improved from 2002 per the numbers above. So what’s there to be upset about?
What’s more, if we think about it, there’s a good reason that arrests are up and it has a great deal to do with the “crackdowns” on drinking and driving law enforcement in the state is always talking about. Put simply, our law enforcement agencies are devoting more officers and more resources to catching drunk drivers. This, obviously, has led to more arrests and thus the numbers the Attorney General references.
But if we look at the flip side of that coin, we can also see that increased enforcement is actually having little impact on the overall public safety aspect of this issue. Which means that we’re putting more people in jail and in alcohol counseling, at great cost to the taxpayers, without actually making the roads any safer.
Frankly, I often think we’d be better off taking all the money we spend on DUI enforcement and putting it toward a tax-funded “free ride home” program for drunks. But that’s just me.

Tags: Cultural Marxism, Nanny State, North Dakota News, Politics

http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

The one conclusion we can draw is that Fargo drivers are drinking a lot more. Maybe we should ban alcohol down there.
Anthony

When a person is drunk their judgement becoms impaired. They don’t know that they aren’t safe to drive any more. By the same token they don’t know they need a ride home, so even if it is free they won’t take it. after all who wants to leave their car at the bar.

Another class of drunk drivers are those that just don’t care. They’ll drive drunk unless you keep them in jail. The whole fine and release thing needs to change, multiple offenders need to go to jail, not counesling.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

What would be a lot more interesting would be a break down of seriously impaired (0.15 and above) drivers and whether that’s going up or down.
MADD’s hysterics aside, it’s difficult to contend that these drivers (and there are more than you might think) are literally an accident waiting to happen.

I think you meant that it’s not difficult to contend…..

I would agree with you. I wish the state would move after the drunk drivers and stop going after the social drinker.
2Hotel9

Which generates more revenue, public safety or DUI arrests? Therein lies your answer, Grassjumper.
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

Just think of all the money Wayne and his fellow travelers could rake in if ND brought back prohibition!
He probably has sweaty dreams about it!
jet5

You also have to consider that in many areas of our state, you have both deer and gravel roads that can challenge even a sober driver. Bottom line, we need to look at where we can get the most return from law enforcement resources, and whether on the margin catching an additional impaired driver is the best use of those resources. Especially if we’re paying overtime to do checkpoints etc that tend to catch more drivers that are just barely over the 0.08 limit and, although legally impaired, may not be quite the safety concern that they are made out to be.
I think we agree that the numbers presented don’t show significant benefits.
jet5

One reason the AG uses arrest stats instead of, say, conviction stats, is because a significant fraction of low BAC DUI cases get pled down to reckless driving. Depending on the county, a BAC below 0.12 will very often yield a plea agreement to a reduced charge if the defendant didn’t have prior offenses.
Arrest stats are a good metric because the officer has to have probable cause for an arrest, which usually means a field breath test. These aren’t accurate enough to be admissible in court, but they’re a lot more accurate that defense attorneys claim.
What would be a lot more interesting would be a break down of seriously impaired (0.15 and above) drivers and whether that’s going up or down.
MADD’s hysterics aside, it’s difficult to contend that these drivers (and there are more than you might think) are literally an accident waiting to happen.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

If you are a SAFE drunk, you won’t get pulled over.

That’s not quite true. At 1:00am in North DAkota cities, if you’re on the road long enough you’re pretty much going to get pulled over regardless.

Explain how putting drunks in prison (you exaggerate, fining them and throwing them in the drunk tank for a night is more like it) doesn’t make the roads safer

Well the spike in arrests in North Dakota didn’t seem to do anything noticeable to fatality or injury rates in alcohol-related accidents. But that’s not really the argument I’m making.

What I’m saying is a different approach. Let’s find a way to get everyone home safe instead of putting more people in jail.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Arrest stats are a good metric because the officer has to have probable cause for an arrest, which usually means a field breath test. These aren’t accurate enough to be admissible in court, but they’re a lot more accurate that defense attorneys claim.

But the problem I have is that it’s about public safety, not arresting people. If we arrest more people but the fatality/injuries due to alcohol rate hasn’t changed, what have we accomplished?

I think we need a fundamental shift in the way we think about these things.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

Thus the objective in making drinking and driving illegal is to keep our roads safe, not simply put drunk drivers in prison.

Que? Same difference, no? That’s the logic at least. If you are a SAFE drunk, you won’t get pulled over. Explain how putting drunks in prison (you exaggerate, fining them and throwing them in the drunk tank for a night is more like it) doesn’t make the roads safer… and then we’ll be onto something. I just don’t see how that argument is going to go.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I don’t know, Anthony. I’m not sure that more and more jail time is really the answer.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Is Law Enforcement About Arrests Or Public Safety?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments