Creative Sentencing

Offenders found guilty of repeat Driving While Intoxicated charges in Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 13 are availed of sentencing options developed years ago. The principles employed are tough, requiring hard work and lifestyle changes for the offender. This approach is very similar to that of Drug Courts.

In 1988, Judge Atkinson began a program for sentencing repeat DWI offenders. He offered them a choice: either take a significant jail sentence or a supervised sentence, also including some jail-time, with tough terms.

The terms would involve a stream of sanctions beginning with several days in jail, followed by 90 meetings of AA within 90 days, drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment, attendance at meetings of survivors of people killed by drunk drivers, loss of driving privileges, community service hours, and more. They would be allowed to receive a restricted driver's license if they were willing to install an ignition interlock device on their cars (the device only allowed a car to start if the driver first blew into a breath device--if the device detected alcohol, the vehicle was disabled and the event recorded, to be forwarded to the judge).

And one more thing -- they would have to report to the court, early in the morning, once a month, to look the judge in the eye and report on their progress.

The approach is known as a system of graduated or intermediate sanctions, and is very similar to the principles employed today in Drug Courts. Similar sentencing schemes are employed by a number of courts in dealing with repeat DWI offenders. The approach was controversial in 1988, but Judge Atkinson felt, from his experience with clients as a trial lawyer, as well as judicial education he received early on, that it was time to try something new.

But, did it do any good? He set out to measure performance. A group of 400 offenders was followed for a period of three years after being sentenced for second DWIs, to determine how many had received subsequent DWIs in that period. Both, offenders who had taken the straight jail-time sentences, usually averaging 45 days in jail, and those who had taken the tough probation, were in the group.

The results were good. Both groups had recidivism rates one-half of what had been found with offender groups prior to Judge Atkinson's program (9% vs. 18%). (Sentences for repeat DWI offenders before the program had usually consisted of light jail sentences; probations were very uncommon.) In addition, recidivism rates for the jail-time group and the probation group were nearly identical (9.1% vs. 9.2%).

Interestingly, it appeared that these two sentencing alternatives, jail-only vs. tough supervision with less jail but more follow-up, including face-to-face visits with the judge, had the same effect in reducing recidivism.

During each visit to the judge, the supervised group completed a survey which asked, "Which components of your sentence were the most effective in deterring you from re-offending? Which were the least effective? Please rank them." The surveys and interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

Judge Atkinson developed a respect, and to some degree, admiration for those who took what he thought to be the tougher road, the long-term lifestyle change achieved through the program and the hard work of the offender.

To this day, Judge Atkinson continues this program. And, he receives letters from folks who worked through the program, from 1988 to the present, never re-offended, and are glad they had the opportunity to straighten out there lives.

See also: Judge Mark Atkinson and Judicial Education

Leadership Roles and Awards

Biographical Sketch

Young Offenders

Legislation for the Courts