Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:09:33.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing the Public Drunkenness Laws: The Impact of Decriminalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2024

David E. Aaronson ,
C. Thomas Dienes  and
Michael C. Musheno
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Laws that decriminalize public drunkenness continue to use the police as the major intake agent for public inebriates under the “new” public health model of detoxification and treatment. Assuming that decriminalization introduces many disincentives to police intervention using legally sanctioned procedures, we hypothesize that it will be followed by a statistically significant decline in the number of public inebriates formally handled by the police in the manner designated by the “law in the books.” Using an “interrupted time-series quasi-experiment” based on a “stratified multiple-group single-I design,” we confirm this hypothesis for Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis, Minnesota. However, through intensive “microanalysis” of these two jurisdictions, we show that Minneapolis, in responding to strong business pressure, developed several alternative means of keeping the streets clear of transient public inebriates while Washington, D.C., treated decriminalization as an opportunity to shift police priorities and relied on informal “safe zones” to handle the inebriate population.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 12 , Issue 3: Special Issue on Criminal Justice , Spring 1978 , pp. 405 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 The Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

This article is based on a larger study of the decriminalization of public drunkenness funded by LEAA-NILECJ, Grant No. 74NI-99-0055. Those parts of the study that deal with police discretion as an explanation for the impact of decriminalization, and with the analysis of alternative policies for dealing with the pickup and delivery of public inebriates, are contained in our final report (Aaronson et al., 1977b) and in another journal (Aaronson et al., 1977a, 1978). We gratefully acknowledge the many persons who commented on earlier drafts and criticized the methodological development of this paper: Richard Abel, Egon Bittner, Bruce Bowen, Gene Glass, Dorothy Guyot, Michael Hindus, Laura Irwin, James Levine, Dennis Palumbo, David Perry, H. Laurence Ross, Peter Rossi, Charles Ruttenberg, and George Silberman.

References

AARONSON, David E., C. Thomas, DIENES and Michael C., MUSHENO (1977a) “Police Discretion: Rationality in Handling Public Inebriates, Part I,” 29 Administrative Law Review 447.Google Scholar
AARONSON, David E. (1977b) The Impact of Decriminalization on the Intake Process for Public Inebriates: A Final Report. Washington, D.C.: NILE-LEAA.Google Scholar
AARONSON, David E. (1978) “Police Discretion Rationality in Handling Public Inebriates, Part II,” 29 Administrative Law Review 93.Google Scholar
AARONSON, David E., D., HOFF, P., JASZI, N., KITTRIE and D., SAARI (1977c) The New Justice: Alternatives to Conventional Adjudication. Washington, D.C.: U.S.G.P.O.Google Scholar
AARONSON, David E. and J., SWEENEY (1975) “Criminal Law Reform in the District of Columbia: An Assessment of Needs and Directions,” 24 American University Law Review 207.Google Scholar
BACHRACH, Peter and Morton, BARATZ (1970) Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
BITTNER, Egon (1967) “The Police on Skid Row: A Study of Peacekeeping,” 32 American Sociological Review 699.Google Scholar
BOCHE, Leonard (1975) “The Public Inebriate: An Innovative Approach to the Transporting of Clients to a Detoxification Center.” Presented at the North American Congress on Alcohol and Drug Problems, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, Donald and H. Laurence, ROSS (1968) “The Connecticut Crackdown on Speeding,” 3 Law & Society Review 33.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, Donald T. and Julian C., STANLEY (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
COMMITTEE ON PRISONS PROBATION AND PAROLE (1957) Karrick Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.G.P.O.Google Scholar
DAVIS, Kenneth Culp (1975) Police Discretion. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
DOLBEARE, Kenneth (1967) Trial Courts in Urban Politics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
DYE, Thomas (1972) Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
FREEMAN, J. Leiper (1965) The Political Process. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
FRITSCHLER, A. Lee (1969) Smoking and Politics: Policymaking and the Federal Bureaucracy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
GAMMAGE, Allen Z. et al. (1972) Alcoholism, Skid Row, and the Police. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas.Google Scholar
GLASS, Gene (1968) “Analysis of Data on the Connecticut Speeding Crackdown as a Time-Series Quasi-Experiment,” 3 Law & Society Review 55.Google Scholar
GLASS, Gene, George, TIAO, and Thomas, MAQUIRE (1971) “The 1960 Revision of German Divorce Laws: Analysis of Data as a Time-Series Quasi-Experiment,” 5 Law & Society Review 539.Google Scholar
GLASS, Gene V., Victor, WILLSON and John, GOTTMAN (1975) Design and Analysis of Time-Series Experiments. Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press.Google Scholar
GOLDSTEIN, Joseph (1960) “Police Discretion Not To Invoke the Criminal Process: Low-Visibility Decisions in the Administration of Justice,” 69 Yale Law Journal 171.Google Scholar
GRAD, Frank, A., GOLDBERG and B., SHAPIRO (1971) Alcoholism and the Law. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
JELLINEK, Elvin (1960) The Disease Concept of Alcoholism. New Haven, Conn.: College and University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KITTRIE, Nicholas (1971) The Right To Be Different. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
LaFAVE, Wayne (1965) Arrest: The Decision To Take a Suspect into Custody. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
MEDALIE, Richard, Leonard, ZEITZ and Paul, ALEXANDER (1968) “Custodial Police Interrogation in our Nation's Capital: An Attempt to Implement Miranda,” 66 Michigan Law Review 1347.Google Scholar
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT (1968), Memorandum Orders Nos. 8 and 11, Series 1968, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
MILNER, Neal (1970) “Comparative Analysis of Patterns of Compliance with Supreme Court Decisions: Miranda and the Police in Four Communities,” 5 Law & Society Review 119.Google Scholar
MORRIS, Norval and Gordon, HAWKINS (1969) The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MUSHENO, Michael C., Dennis, PALUMBO and James, LEVINE (1976) “Evaluating Alternatives in Criminal Justice: A Policy Impact Model,” 22 Crime and Delinquency 265.Google Scholar
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS (1971) Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act, in Dept. of H.E.W., First Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. Washington, D.C: Department of H.E.W.Google Scholar
NIMMER, Raymond (1971) Two Million Unnecessary Arrests. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
OSTROM, Elinor (1973) Community Organization and the Provision of Police Services. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
PACKER, Herbert (1968) The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PITTMAN, D. and W., GORDON (1967) Revolving Door: A Study of the Chronic Police Case Inebriate. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.Google Scholar
RESEARCH AND STATISTICS DIVISION, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND STATE AGENCY AFFAIRS (1974) Follow-Up Study of Five Hundred Public Inebriates. Washington, D.C.: Department of Human Resources.Google Scholar
ROSS, H. Laurence (1975) “The Scandinavian Myth: The Effectiveness of Drinking-and-Driving Legislation in Sweden and Norway,” 4 Journal of Legal Studies 258.Google Scholar
RUBINGTON, Earl (1970) “Post Treatment Contacts and Lengths of Stay in a Halfway House,” 31 Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 167.Google Scholar
SCHUR, Edwin (1965) Crimes without Victims. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
SCHUR, Edwin and Hugo, BEDAU (1974) Victimless Crimes: Two Sides of a Controversy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, Jerome (1967) Justice without Trial. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
STRAUS, Robert (1974) Escape from Custody. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
TITUS, H.W. (1973) “Perils of Decriminalization.” Presented at the Second Criminal Justice Conference, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.E.W. (1971) First Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. Washington, D.C.: U.S.G.P.O.Google Scholar
WILSON, James Q. (1968) Varieties of Police Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WILSON, Jerry V. (1975) “Police Discretion and the Public Inebriate.” Presented to Faculty of Washington College of Law, the American University.Google Scholar
ZIMRING, Franklin (1975) “Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act of 1968,” 4 Journal of Legal Studies 133.Google Scholar