Siinviidatu võiks huvi pakkuda suurele hulgale lugejatele alates politseinikest kuni poliitikakujundajateni, kuid ka näiteks lapsevanematele või abikaasadele, kes võivad kokku puutuda võimalike narko- või alkojoobes autojuhtidega. Erilise pühendumisega võiks teksti lugeda kõik ennetushuvilised, sest artikkel pakub väga kasuliku ja avara ülevaate-mõtestamise teoreetilistest aspektidest ennetustööks.

Kontekstiks:

“Over 20 per cent of fatalities across the globe (including but not limited to Australia, Canada, Austria, Cambodia, Norway, United States, United Kingdom) have been attributed to drink driving (International Transport Forum, 2017). More recently, in Queensland, Australia (where this study took place), over 22 per cent of fatalities in 2020 were attributed to drink driving motorists (Queensland Government, 2022). […] In terms of drug driving, it has been reported that over 15 per cent of Australian drivers’ have driven under the influence of drugs (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2017). Further, in Queensland between 2011 and 2015, 48 per cent of road crash fatalities had illicit drugs detected in their system (Davey et al., 2020).” (Truelove et al., 2022, p. 2)

Heidutus on tuntud vahend, aga …

“Deterrence theory has typically been used to examine how legal enforcement and punishment can influence engagement in offending behaviour. The perceived certainty of apprehension has been considered the most important component of classical deterrence theory (Beccaria, 1764/ 2007) and has regularly been suggested to be the most important contributor in deterrence research (Homel, 1988; Nagin et al., 2015; Piquero et al., 2011).” (Truelove et al., 2022, p. 3)

Teadlik rikkumine, kuid karistusest hoidumine on oluline faktor ennustamaks:

“Specifically, committing an offence but avoiding punishment has been found to be one of the most influential factors in the continuation of offending behaviour due to weakening individuals’ perceptions of the certainty of being apprehended for the offence (Stafford & Warr, 1993), and this variable has been found to be a strong predictor for both drink driving (e.g., Freeman & Watson, 2006) and drug driving (Armstrong et al., 2018; Watling et al., 2010).” (Truelove et al., 2022, p. 3)

Heidutuse laiendamine:

“Homel (1988) expanded on deterrence theory to create a deterrence-based model that incorporates the non-legal sanctions of 1) the threat of physical loss to oneself (i.e., I might get hurt) and to others (i.e., someone else might get hurt), 2) the threat of internal loss (i.e., I might feel guilty), and 3) the threat of social loss (i.e., my friends/family might judge me).” (Truelove et al., 2022, p. 4)

Millega oleks kasulik arvestada joobes juhtimise ennetamise kavandamisel:

“Taken together, drivers were found to perceive the threat of legal and non-legal deterrents to be greater for drink driving than drug driving. Moreover, avoiding punishment for drug driving was more common than for drink driving.” (Truelove et al., 2022, p. 13)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“While there were many similarities between the two (most likely due to the similar enforcement method that is used for both behaviours), the most prominent differences that emerged involved the significant deterrent effect of the perceived certainty of apprehension and severity of punishment for drug driving that was not evident for drink driving.” (Truelove et al., 2022, p. 15)

Truelove, V., Davey, B., & Watson-Brown, N. (2022). Examining the differences in perceived legal and non-legal factors between drink driving and drug driving. Journal of Criminology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076221114481