Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Crime & Delinquency
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kingsnorth, R.
Right arrow Articles by Jungsten, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Driving Under the Influence: The Impact of Legislative Reform on Court Sentencing Practices

Rodney Kingsnorth

Michael Jungsten

In 1982, California introduced a number of revisions into its Vehicle Code sections dealing with the prosecution and sentencing of defendants charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. These revisions included redefining the relationship between blood alcohol concentration and criminal liability, constraints upon the plea-bargaining process, and an increase in the severity of penalties. An assessment is offered, based upon a random sample of 2,091 cases from one California county, of the impact of legislative reform on court sentencing practices. While the new law succeeded in eliminating "prior conviction" bargaining, the "reduction to reckless driving" form of bargaining, though initially substantially reduced, quickly rose again to prereform levels. Contrary to expectations, trial rates increased and rates of conviction at trial decreased. Problems of court congestion were exacerbated rather than relieved. The impact of increased penalties has been substantial for some offenders and for others negligible.

Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 34, No. 1, 3-27 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/0011128788034001001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crime DelinquencyHome page
J. R. Lilly, R. A. Ball, G. D. Curry, and J. McMullen
Electronic Monitoring of the Drunk Driver: A Seven-Year Study of the Home Confinement Alternative
Crime Delinquency, October 1, 1993; 39(4): 462 - 484.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
R. F. KINGSNORTH
The Gunther Special: Deterrence and the DUI Offender
Criminal Justice and Behavior, September 1, 1991; 18(3): 251 - 266.
[Abstract]