I recently attended a fascinating seminar on tax compliance in Canada. If you’ll bear with me, I’ll illustrate how some of the findings on tax compliance are relevant to this thread.
Each year, the federal government surveys Canadians on their values. Included in this survey are several questions on tax compliance. Basically, people break into three groups:
Compliers: Believe it’s not OK to cheat on taxes and don’t do it.
Contingent non-compliers: Believe it’s not OK to cheat on taxes, but do it when the opportunity arises.
Non-compliers: They will cheat regularly and with purpose. Risk of getting caught is not a factor.
Here’s where it gets interesting. The overall survey results were mapped out according to these groups. Not surprisingly, compliers scored relatively high in areas like “everyday ethics,” “government involvement,” and low in “civil disobedience.”
At the other end of the spectrum, non-compliers scored high in “cynicism” and “civil disobedience.” Perhaps frighteningly, they scored incredibly low in areas like “everyday ethics,” “equality of the sexes,” and “openess toward others," while high in “ethnic intolerance" and "attraction to violence.”
Those people in the middle were basically “good folks.” And, interestingly, they are risk averse. In other words, if they think they’ll get caught, they are less likely to do it.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to adapt this sort of profile for other issues, such as drunk driving. The overall numbers will be different, but you’d quite likely have similar results, within three groups:
Sober drivers: Are against drunk driving and don’t do it.
Contingent drunk drivers: Are against drunk drivers, but may do it depending on the circumstances, i.e. “I’ve only had a couple of drinks,” or “I’m only five minutes from home.”
Drunk drivers: Your chronic re-offenders. These are the guys you read about with a dozen convictions, their licence was revoked, yet somehow they’re still ending up behind the wheel.
The point of this is that one-sized fits all solutions won’t work. Do the folks in the middle deserve to lose their licence permanently after only one offence? Is locking up all drunk drivers really going to solve the problem?
Personally, I cringe at “tough on crime” statements because they are too simplistic. If a stiff punishment were deterrent enough, then shouldn’t a state like Texas be executing fewer, if any, criminals for murder? In fact,
research would suggest that while tough sentences are somewhat of a deterrent, the risk of getting caught is far more effective in preventing crime.
With the worst tax cheats, the study recommends using the full force of the law. Come down hard on them – they will try to offend no matter what. Education programs and publicizing enforcement activities will take care of the contingent non-compliers, as they don’t like taking risks if they know there's a good chance they'll face consequences.
With drunk driving, I think it should be similar. Sentences should be in relation to the seriousness of the offense and based on prior record. I don’t know what Martin Heidgen’s history is, but if he has any previous convictions for impaired driving, then a murder charge may be appropriate. A strong sentence also has an element of public safety because it keeps the worst offenders behind bars and off the roads.
Increase resources to checkstop programs and publicize enforcement and prosecutions. That’s a very effective deterrent for those folks in the middle.
Of course, if someone is killed, that should be considered an aggravating factor in the charges and sentencing. But ultimately, I think a thought out and well measured, rather than emotional, response is not only more effective, but more just.
