6.1 Discussion 1 -- A discussion of concept
We believe that the original purpose of ALLR is to deter the violation of aggressive hitting-and-running but not leaving the scene. Moreover, to condemn an aggressive running should by means of a judiciary process. Currently, the ALLR punishment is issued from the police. It not only exists a risk of fairness problem but also imposes an overload on police.
This study showed that current ALLR punishment, offenders have no chance to rehabilitate their driving privileges, had serious impact on offenders’ basic rights including moving freedom, the right to work and the right of existence. The ‘protective benefit’ may not balance with the ‘sacrificed benefit’. It may violate the proportion principle of constitution.
Many offenders have expressed that the ALLR punishment brought more impact than that of criminal penalty and civil compensation. It seems to violate the principle of law design.
Furthermore, it may not accordance to the principle of necessity.
Request a hit-and-run offender stay at the scene and report to the police except may violate ‘the principle of the privilege against self-incrimination’, such offender may not be treated equitably while comparing with other serious crimes. In other words, such offenders may be discriminated. It may violate the principle of equality.
To impose a rigorous punishment on serious traffic violators was originated from the concept of retribution that commonly adopted by the police country such as the Germany.
However, in most of western countries, while more emphases are on the human rights, authorities may provide more chance to rehabilitate these rights. Very few countries have imposed a very long-term license revocation. Moreover, a rigorous punishment usually accompanies a rehabilitative design. In Canada, an indefinite license suspension has imposes on serious traffic violators. However, by the concept of “three strikes and you’re out”, such
Moreover, a rehabilitative design was adopted. As to the ALLR in Taiwan, it seems too emphasis traffic safety to respect human rights.
6.2 Discussion 2 -- A discussion of empirical driving incidence
This study has shown that ALLR may be completely effective for only 16.8% of offenders, by compelling them to completely refrain from driving. The results also indicated that ALLR was ineffective for 23.4% of offenders, whose driving habits remained almost the same as before ALLR, and fairly effective for 59.8% of offenders who drove with a significantly reduced frequency. Overall, the 83.2% of ALLR offenders who continued to drive was higher than in previous findings, which were based on relatively short-term license S/R. There may be many reasons for this. First, offenders punished by the relatively short-term S/R may be willing to obey the licensing action and refrain from driving during their S/R period, in order to protect their future driving privileges; ALLR offenders do not have the same motivation. Second, ALLR offenders are in the worst situation possible, as they have no chance of rehabilitation of having their driving privileges reinstated, no matter how much they improve their attitudes and behaviors. Therefore, most ALLR offenders feel desperate and have little to lose by disregarding their sentence. The results of prior studies, in which participants usually under-represented their own incidences of driving, while under license S/R (e.g. Malenfant et al., 2002), may share few similarities with ALLR cases. Third, ALLR offenders were aware of the low risk of apprehension for unlicensed driving, especially after a lengthy period of revocation.
The average annual mileage driven after ALLR decreased significantly to 34.3% of the average mileage driven before ALLR. The results of linear regression showed that, for the almost same driving offenders, annual driving mileage was mainly associated with driving for working and commuting activities, as well as visiting relatives/friends and driving kids.
However, for the reduced driving offenders, their annual driving mileage was only related to
trips of relatively short distances for working and driving kids. In general, ALLR seemed not to significantly persuade the almost same driving offenders group to give up driving for daily activities except for slightly less frequent shopping and leisure travel. However, it did make the reduced driving offenders cut back on their driving, not only for most activity categories, but also in the frequency and/or travel distance for those activities they felt were absolutely necessary.
The age of the offender was found to be a significant factor affecting compliance with ALLR in both Models 1 and 2. Young offenders were more likely to ignore the penalty, and to drive more frequently than older offenders after ALLR. This implies that ALLR was less effective in young offenders. This may be because young offenders are usually more aggressive, as well as needing more flexibility and mobility for driving to work, than older offenders. Furthermore, a higher percentage of offenders over 40 years of age tended to completely give up driving after the imposition of ALLR, when compared to younger offenders.
Offenders’ incomes had significance in Model 1 but not in Model 2. This implies that offenders’ economic conditions significantly determined their attitudes towards complying, or not complying, with ALLR. The only punishment for driving a vehicle while under ALLR suspension, is a fine of 12 000 NTD (about 350 USD). High-income offenders may feel less threatened than low-income offenders when face with the possibility of being caught while driving under ALLR. This could be the reason high-income offenders were more likely to ignore the ALLR sentence and drive almost same as before. This result also indicates that ALLR has more impact on low-income offenders than on high-income offenders. In other words, ALLR could reduce the ability of low-income earners to make a living, resulting in the exacerbation of misfortune.
Incarceration was also found to be a significant factor in both Models 1 and 2, although
the results of the two models are quite different. In Model 1 the offenders who had been incarcerated were more likely to disregard the no-driving restriction and drive the same as before. However, once they had chosen to abide by the restriction, they were more likely to completely give up driving than those who had not been incarcerated. Civil compensation was found to have no significant effect on offenders’ compliance with the penalty of ALLR.
“Duration of ALLR” was found to be a significant factor in Model 2, but not in Model 1.
This implies that the decision to drive almost the same as before will not increase, over time.
However, for those offenders abiding by the punishment, the possibility of never driving significantly decreased over time. Because of the need to drive, while living in a modern society, as well as the low risk of being caught while driving under ALLR, it seemed to more difficult to refrain from driving as time passed. This might explain the estimated results in Model 2.
The driving purposes of working, commuting and shopping were significant in Model 1, but those variables were not applicable to Model 2. That is, the necessity to drive for working, commuting and shopping were the significant factors to ALLR offenders’ in determining whether or not to abide by the penalty. Furthermore, since the female sample was extremely small in this study (only 1.7% of interviewed offenders, n = 13), it was not included in the logistic regression analysis. However, the statistical results showed that all offenders who drove with almost the same frequency as before ALLR were male. We believe that female offenders, who drove almost the same as before ALLR, numbered much fewer than male offenders.
In summary, short-term license S/R has been consistently associated with traffic safety benefits. Many prior studies have concluded that S/R of a driver’s license, depriving a person of the right to drive a vehicle, is an effective and appropriate penalty for drunk-driving offenders (Ross, 1991; Williams et al., 1991; Smith and Maisey, 1990), and is even more
effective than sanctions involving jail, education or treatment alternatives (Tashima and Peck, 1986; Sadler and Perrine, 1984; Hagen, 1977; Popkin et al., 1983; Salzberg et al., 1981).
However, even for a short-term S/R, one-fifth of the US states rejected the adoption of administrative S/R, because it could lead to loss of employment, in turn impacting the offender’s dependents and subsequent social welfare costs (Knoebel and Ross, 1997; Voas and DeYoung, 2002). In Taiwan, the original purpose of ALLR was to protect road users by keeping the disqualified, and therefore, the more dangerous, drivers off the road forever. This study determined that a very severe punishment, such as ALLR, is fairly effective in keeping offenders off the road. However, most of these offenders are the financial backbones of their families and have older or younger family members to take care of. ALLR not only reduces an offender’s capacity to make a living, but also brings an excessive burden to his/her innocent family members. Many ALLR offenders complained that the impact of ALLR was not only greater than that of a criminal penalty and civil compensation, but also lasted for the remainder of their lives. ALLR is not enforced in most developed countries, whereas, in under-developed or developing countries, the over-emphasis on traffic safety may over-shadow human rights and neglect more effective deterrents.