Left on the side of the road? A review of deterrence-based theoretical developments in road safety

Deterrence-based initiatives form a cornerstone of many road safety countermeasures. This approach is informed by Classical Deterrence Theory, which proposes that individuals will be deterred from committing offences if they fear the perceived consequences of the act, especially the perceived certainty, severity and swiftness of sanctions. While deterrence-based countermeasures have proven effective in reducing a range of illegal driving behaviours known to cause crashes such as speeding and drink driving, the exact level of exposure, and how the process works, remains unknown. As a result the current study involved a systematic review of the literature to identify theoretical advancements within deterrence theory that has informed evidence-based practice. Studies that reported on perceptual deterrence between 1950 and June 2015 were searched in electronic databases including PsychINFO and ScienceDirect, both within road safety and non-road safety fields. This review indicated that scientific efforts to understand deterrence processes for road safety were most intense during the 1970s and 1980s. This era produced competing theories that postulated both legal and non-legal factors can influence offending behaviours. Since this time, little theoretical progression has been made in the road safety arena, apart from Stafford and Warr's (1993) reconceptualisation of deterrence that illuminated the important issue of punishment avoidance. In contrast, the broader field of criminology has continued to advance theoretical knowledge by investigating a range of individual difference-based factors proposed to influence deterrent processes, including: moral inhibition, social bonding, self-control, tendencies to discount the future, etc. However, this scientific knowledge has not been directed towards identifying how to best utilise deterrence mechanisms to improve road safety. This paper will highlight the implications of this lack of progression and provide direction for future research.

Sharing social space with strangers: Setting, signalling and policing informal rules of driving etiquette

Recent research suggests that aggressive driving may be influenced by driver perceptions of their interactions with other drivers in terms of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ behaviour. Drivers appear to take a moral standpoint on ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ driving behaviour. However, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in the context of road use is not defined solely by legislation, but includes informal rules that are sometimes termed ‘driving etiquette’. Driving etiquette has implications for road safety and public safety since breaches of both formal and informal rules may result in moral judgement of others and subsequent behaviours designed to punish the ‘offender’ or ‘teach them a lesson’. This paper outlines qualitative research that was undertaken with drivers to explore their understanding of driving etiquette and how they reacted to other drivers’ observance or violation of their understanding. The aim was to develop an explanatory framework within which the relationships between driving etiquette and aggressive driving could be understood, specifically moral judgement of other drivers and punishment of their transgression of driving etiquette. Thematic analysis of focus groups (n=10) generated three main themes: (1) courtesy and reciprocity, and the notion of two-way responsibility, with examples of how expectations of courteous behaviour vary according to the traffic interaction; (2) acknowledgement and shared social experience: ‘giving the wave’; and (3) responses to breaches of the expectations/informal rules. The themes are discussed in terms of their roles in an explanatory framework of the informal rules of etiquette and how interactions between drivers can reinforce or weaken a driver’s understanding of driver etiquette and potentially lead to driving aggression.

Penology from city to country: Rurality and penality in Australia

There is a long tradition of social inquiry concerned with locational patterns and place-based explanations of crime in which urban/rural differences have been regarded as of cardinal importance. The geographical and socio-spatial aspects of punishment have on the other hand been widely neglected. One reason for this is that cities have been treated as the site of the major crime problems, presenting a contrast with what are commonly assumed (often without careful empirical research) to be the naturally cohesive character of rural communities. Thus punishment, like crime, is not a significant or distinctive issue in rural communities, requiring the attention of criminologists. But just as there are significant and distinctive dimensions to rural crime, the practice of punishment in rural contexts raises important questions worthy of attention. These questions relate to (1) the demand for punishment (i.e. the penal sensibilities to be found in rural communities); (2) the supply of punishment according to principles of legal equality (notably the question of the effective availability in rural courts of the full range of penalties administered by urban courts, in particular alternatives to incarceration); and (3) the differential impact of the same penalties when imposed in different geographical settings (e.g. imprisonment may involve distant removal from an offender’s community in addition to segregation from it; license disqualification is a great deal more consequential in settings where public transport is unavailable). The chapter examines these questions by reference to available knowledge concerning patterns of punishment in rural Australia. This will be set against the background of an analysis of the differential social organisation of penality in rural and urban settings. The generally more attenuated nature of the social state and social provision in rural contexts can, depending upon the profile of particular communities (and in particular their degree of social homogeneity), produce very different penal consequences: more heavy reliance on the penal state on the one hand, or greater recourse to informal social controls on the other.

Some empirical evidence on offender time discount rates

The conventional wisdom is that offenders have very high discount rates not only with respect to income and fines but also with respect to time incarcerated. These rates are difficult to measure objectively and the usual approach is to ask subjects hypothetical questions and infer time preference from their answers. In this article, we propose estimating rates at which offenders discount time incarcerated by specifying their equilibrium plea, defined as the discount rate, which equates the time and expected time spent in jail following a guilty plea and a trial. Offenders are assumed to exhibit positive time preference and discount time spent in jail at a constant rate. Our choice of sample is interesting because the offenders are not on bail, punishment is not delayed and the offences are planned therefore conforming to Becker’s model of the decision to commit a crime. Contrary to the discussion in the literature, we do not find evidence of consistently high time discount rates, and therefore cannot unequivocally infer that the prison experience always results in low levels of specific deterrence.

Evaluation of a workplace alcohol and other drug policy

BACKGROUND The current impetus for developing alcohol and/or other drugs (AODs) workplace policies in Australia is to reduce workplace AOD impairment, improve safety, and prevent AOD-related injury in the workplace. For these policies to be effective, they need to be informed by scientific evidence. Evidence to inform the development and implementation of effective workplace AOD policies is currently lacking. There does not currently appear to be conclusive evidence for the effectiveness of workplace AOD policies in reducing impairment and preventing AOD-related injury. There is also no apparent evidence regarding which factors facilitate or impede the success of an AOD policy, or whether, for example, unsuccessful policy outcomes were due to poor policy or merely poor implementation of the policy. It was the aim of this research to undertake a process, impact, and outcome evaluation of a workplace AOD policy, and to contribute to the body of knowledge on the development and implementation of effective workplace AOD policies. METHODS The research setting was a state-based power-generating industry in Australia between May 2008 and May 2010. Participants for the process evaluation study were individuals who were integral to either the development or the implementation of the workplace AOD policy, or both of these processes (key informants), and comprised the majority of individuals who were involved in the process of developing and/or implementing the workplace AOD policy. The sample represented the two main groups of interest—management and union delegates/employee representatives—from all three of the participating organisations. For the impact and outcome evaluation studies, the population included all employees from the three participating organisations, and participants were all employees who consented to participate in the study and who completed both the pre-and post-policy implementation questionnaires. Qualitative methods in the form of interviews with key stakeholders were used to evaluate the process of developing and implementing the workplace AOD policy. In order to evaluate the impact of the policy with regard to the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment, and the outcome of the policy in terms of reducing workplace AOD impairment, quantitative methods in the form of a non-randomised single group pre- and post-test design were used. Changes from Time 1 (pre) to Time 2 (post) in the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment, and changes in the behaviour of interest—(self-reported) workplace AOD impairment—were measured. An integration of the findings from the process, impact, and outcome evaluation studies was undertaken using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS For the process evaluation study Study respondents indicated that their policy was developed in the context of comparable industries across Australia developing workplace AOD policies, and that this was mainly out of concern for the deleterious health and safety impacts of workplace AOD impairment. Results from the process evaluation study also indicated that in developing and implementing the workplace AOD policy, there were mainly ‗winners', in terms of health and safety in the workplace. While there were some components of the development and implementation of the policy that were better done than others, and the process was expensive and took a long time, there were, overall, few unanticipated consequences to implementing the policy and it was reported to be thorough and of a high standard. Findings also indicated that overall the policy was developed and implemented according to best-practice in that: consultation during the policy development phase (with all the main stakeholders) was extensive; the policy was comprehensive; there was universal application of the policy to all employees; changes in the workplace (with regard to the policy) were gradual; and, the policy was publicised appropriately. Furthermore, study participants' responses indicated that the role of an independent external expert, who was trusted by all stakeholders, was integral to the success of the policy. For the impact and outcome evaluation studies Notwithstanding the limitations of pre- and post-test study designs with regard to attributing cause to the intervention, the findings from the impact evaluation study indicated that following policy implementation, statistically significant positive changes with regard to workplace AOD impairment were recorded for the following variables (risk factors for workplace AOD impairment): Knowledge; Attitudes; Perceived Behavioural Control; Perceptions of the Certainty of being punished for coming to work impaired by AODs; Perceptions of the Swiftness of punishment for coming to work impaired by AODs; and Direct and Indirect Experience with Punishment Avoidance for workplace AOD impairment. There were, however, no statistically significant positive changes following policy implementation for Behavioural Intentions, Subjective Norms, and Perceptions of the Severity of punishment for workplace AOD impairment. With regard to the outcome evaluation, there was a statistically significant reduction in self-reported workplace AOD impairment following the implementation of the policy. As with the impact evaluation, these findings need to be interpreted in light of the limitations of the study design in being able to attribute cause to the intervention alone. The findings from the outcome evaluation study also showed that while a positive change in self-reported workplace AOD impairment following implementation of the policy did not appear to be related to gender, age group, or employment type, it did appear to be related to levels of employee general alcohol use, cannabis use, site type, and employment role. Integration of the process, impact, and outcome evaluation studies There appeared to be qualitative support for the relationship between the process of developing and implementing the policy, and the impact of the policy in changing the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment. That is, overall the workplace AOD policy was developed and implemented well and, following its implementation, there were positive changes in the majority of measured risk factors for workplace AOD impairment. Quantitative findings lend further support for a relationship between the process and impact of the policy, in that there was a statistically significant association between employee perceived fidelity of the policy (related to the process of the policy) and positive changes in some risk factors for workplace AOD impairment (representing the impact of the policy). Findings also indicated support for the relationship between the impact of the policy in changing the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment and the outcome of the policy in reducing workplace AOD impairment: positive changes in the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment (impact) were related to positive changes in self reported workplace AOD impairment (representing the main goal and outcome of the policy). CONCLUSIONS The findings from the research indicate support for the conclusion that the policy was appropriately implemented and that it achieved its objectives and main goal. The Doctoral research findings also addressed a number of gaps in the literature on workplace AOD impairment, namely: the likely effectiveness of AOD policies for reducing AOD impairment in the workplace, which factors in the development and implementation of a workplace AOD policy are likely to facilitate or impede the effectiveness of the policy to reduce workplace AOD impairment, and which employee groups are less likely to respond well to policies of this type. The findings from this research not only represent an example of translational, applied research—through the evaluation of the study industry's policy—but also add to the body of knowledge on workplace AOD policies and provide policy-makers with evidence which may be useful in the development and implementation of effective workplace AOD policies. Importantly, the findings espouse the importance of scientific evidence in the development, implementation, and evaluation of workplace AOD policies.

Crime Justice and Social Democracy: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference, 9-10 July 2015

We are pleased to present these selected papers from the proceedings of the 3rd Crime, Justice and Social Democracy International Conference, held in July 2015 in Brisbane, Australia. Over 350 delegates attended the conference from 19 countries. The papers collected here reflect the diversity of topics and themes that were explored over three days. The Crime, Justice and Social Democracy International Conference aims to strengthen the intellectual and policy debates concerning links between justice, social democracy, and the reduction of harm and crime, through building more just and inclusive societies and proposing innovative justice responses. In 2015, attendees discussed these issues as they related to ideas of green criminology; indigenous justice; gender, sex and justice; punishment and society; and the emerging notion of ‘Southern criminology’. The need to build global connections to address these challenges is more evident than ever and the conference and these proceedings reflect a growing attention to interdisciplinary, novel, and interconnected responses to contemporary global challenges. Authors in these conference proceedings engaged with issues of online fraud, queer criminology and law, Indigenous incarceration, youth justice, incarceration in Brazil, and policing in Victoria, Australia, among others. The topics explored speak to the themes of the conference and demonstrate the range of challenges facing researchers of crime, harm, social democracy and social justice and the spaces of possibility that such research opens. Our thanks to the conference convenor, Dr Kelly Richards, for organising such a successful conference, and to all those presenters who subsequently submitted such excellent papers for review here. We would also particularly like to thank Jess Rodgers for their tireless editorial assistance, as well as the panel of international scholars who participated in the review process, often within tight timelines.