© 2005 Behavioral Health Research Institute of the Southwest
612 Encino Place NE / Albuquerque, NM 87102 / 505.244.3099 / www.bhrcs.org

Albuquerque Journal, November 2, 2002

Activist Disputes DWI Victim-Impact Study
Journal Staff Report

A Santa Fe activist is challenging a recent study that questioned the effectiveness of victim-impact panels, where drunken drivers face people who suffered injuries or the loss of loved ones in DWI crashes.

Dick Roth, coordinator of a Santa Fe victim-impact panel, said he analyzed the data used by an Albuquerque-based research center for the study and found "serious flaws" in the center's conclusions.

Roth said his examination of information on 6,702 people arrested for DWI in Bernalillo County used by the Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest indicates the data actually support the effectiveness of victim-impact panels.

"I wouldn't put my name on that study," Roth said. "It was very poorly done."

Dr. Sandra Lapham, a physician who directs the research center and co-author of the study, stood by the study's findings Thursday.

"I would say that it was published in a prestigious journal (The Journal of Studies on Alcohol) and was peer-reviewed by experts in the field," Lapham said.

She acknowledged the study faced limitations "as all studies do," but said: "We're just supplying evidence and he (Roth) doesn't like the findings."

The study said drunken drivers sent to victim-impact panels are just as likely to be arrested again for DWI as those who don't attend the panels. And it said female repeat offenders might be even more likely to be arrested for DWI again after going before such a panel.

Roth said:

• The study's information on 4,006 male first offenders  —  the biggest group in the study  —  showed those referred to victim-impact panels were 17 percent less likely to be rearrested for DWI. Lapham said Roth is "misinterpreting" the data. She said a proper reading of the numbers is that no significant statistical difference shows up among male first offenders who attended victim-impact panels and those who didn't.
• The 175 female repeat offenders considered in the study represents "a very small and highly biased" sample. He said female offenders referred to victim-impact panels were probably considered by judges to be the most serious offenders and so shouldn't be compared uncritically to those not referred to the panels. Lapham said one of the biggest problems courts face is that judges "notoriously" can't foresee who should be considered a high risk to re-offend.

Roth said he was concerned the study would lend credence to the position of Santa Fe Municipal Judge Fran Sena Gallegos, who recently stopped referring DWI offenders to victim-impact panels. Gallegos said she was concerned that victims who speak at the panels could be traumatized.

Lapham acknowledged one problem with the study was that while it considered offenders who said they had been referred to victim-impact panels, the researchers had no way of checking whether the offenders actually attended panel sessions.

"We don't have an ax to grind here," she said. "We're just looking at data. We're trying to help solve the problem."

Copyright © 2001 Albuquerque Journal
Click for permission to reprint (PRC# 3.4676.494827)