Decriminalizing drunk driving: a means to effective punishment.
Criminal court is weak behavior technology—use contingencies, not labels.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cohen (1991) wrote a policy paper, not a behavior experiment.
The author says courts and jail do not stop drunk driving.
He wants new, non-criminal penalties instead.
What they found
No data are shown. The paper is a legal opinion only.
It claims that criminal labels block behavior-change tools.
How this fits with other research
Gilmore et al. (2022) extends the idea. They use Skinner’s verbal units to fight racism inside the same justice system.
Scibak (2025) is a later successor. It tells BCBAs to shape voting and law-making behavior, widening the policy lens.
Negus (2024) is topically close. Both papers re-frame legal problems with operant language, but Negus looks at drug addiction, not drunk driving.
Why it matters
The paper reminds you that contingencies, not labels, change behavior. When you write behavior plans, think beyond punishment. Ask what reinforcers you can add or remove tomorrow. Share this view when you sit on school or county policy boards.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →List one punishing rule in your setting and pair it with a clear reinforcement option.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Drunk driving should not be a crime. This is not to say that it should be approved of or viewed with indifference; rather, the routine case should not be handled by the criminal justice system. That system, employing arrest based on probable cause, prosecution, conviction, and corrections, has proved to be generally ineffective in dealing with drunk drivers. It should be replaced with punishment
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1991 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1991.24-89