| |
Ask A Counselor About Us Addiction Information Services Prevention Programs Resources Advocacy Special Events Get Involved The Key Newsletter NCADA In The News Success Stories Employment/ Internships |
Are we ready to take on drunk driving in Missouri?
by Daniel K. Duncan, NCADA's Director of Community Services.
Published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on October 18, 2009.
The recent Post-Dispatch series on DWIs and the manner in which offenders are charged, processed and adjudicated, particularly in the St. Louis area, has thrown down the gauntlet to our lawmakers in Jefferson City.
This issue has languished far too long in the dark shadows of a legal system geared toward enabling and deal-making. Drunk driving in Missouri has been allowed to become simply another charge for which the response does not necessarily serve justice or make sense. Too often, repeat drunk drivers can avoid prosecution via loopholes and manipulation of the law. Yet, presupposing that we are ready to take on this issue, a variety of interests and variables make it a difficult fix.
Variables include where an individual gets charged, what lawyer represents his interests and the legal advice he is given. The legal response to driving drunk is subject to the foibles of uneven law enforcement, inconsistent judgments from the bench and a variety of loopholes. These loopholes include such things as refusing to blow into a Breathalyzer, judicial enabling and manipulating the results of a substance abuse assessment. The system begs for change, yet where do we begin?
Start with the first offense by taking a look at those who get caught drunk driving. Essentially, there are two types of DWI offenders: one is a social drinker; the other an alcoholic. At least half, perhaps more, first-time DWI recipients are in some stage of alcoholism. Their reaction to a DWI will be the same. Neither will wish to experience it again. However, the real response of the social drinker and the alcoholic will differ.
The social drinker vows to never experience it again, and most won't. They can control their drinking and they will be careful in the future regarding drinking and driving. Rarely does a social drinker get a second DWI.
The initial response of the alcoholic is similar. He, too, vows never again, but that vow essentially evaporates the moment the alcoholic takes his next drink. Alcoholics are not in control of their drinking; they drink in excess regularly and to a level of impaired thinking. Therefore, most will continue to drink and drive.
Considerably more focus should be put on the first-time recipient. A second drunk-driving charge is an assessment in and of itself.
In cases in which drunk driving has caused no damage or injury and a person is determined to be alcoholic, treatment makes much more sense than incarceration.
Besides being considerably cheaper, treatment provides an opportunity for resolution. The treatment, however, must be adequate. Throwing weak, short-term outpatient treatment at a chronic alcoholic is a mismatch that will be ineffective. Inpatient treatment is more effective for an individual who has progressed beyond the early phase of alcoholism. Sufficient treatment can be highly effective in both cost and resolution. Still, there will be cases in which individuals who receive treatment will refuse to comply. Then, incarceration may be the only option.
Missouri's Substance Abuse Treatment Offender Program system has been somewhat hobbled by past political interference. While the program can steer people toward treatment, there are some inherent weaknesses. For instance, many people with one DWI have been instructed by a lawyer to not agree to a Breathalyzer if stopped again. This marginalizes evidence so the offender can sidestep treatment. Reform might include a law that says if you don't agree to a Breathalyzer, you go to inpatient treatment or jail.
Reform also should include a statewide standardized database and substantial strengthening of an existing law that requires the use of ignition-interlock devices.
Missouri has more drug courts than any other state. The concept of holding the leverage of law above a person's head while he gets help works well in most cases.
Some places in Missouri have DWI courts. Like a drug court, these courts deal only in DWI cases, providing an improved and consistent system and helping people avoid repeat offenses. If an alcoholic receives appropriate treatment and responds to that treatment, there's a good chance the legal system will never see him again. By virtue of recovery, DWI and related incidents become only a memory, potential tragedies averted, lives saved. This is a win-win-win situation for the public, the legal system and families.
A system that enables drunk drivers to continue to pose risks to the public safety benefits no one. Deal-making and enabling must be eliminated. A drunk driver behind the wheel is a lethal weapon barreling down the road.
It is time to deal with this issue in a comprehensive, straightforward and intelligent manner. But serious reform will be necessary.
|
|
