Friday, February 13, 2009

Three OWI Convictions In One Month

I received the weekly issue of the Waupaca County Post, and this story caught my eye (sorry, no link):
Waupaca County Circuit Court Judge John Hoffmann placed Ryan C.A. Johnson, 23, Waupaca, on three years' probation on Monday, Feb. 9.

Johnson was convicted of his fourth and fifth drunken driving offenses. He will serve 100 days in jail and pay $1,723 in fines and court costs for his fourth offense and serve eight months in jail and pay $1,748 for his fifth offense.

Johnson was convicted of his third drunken driving offense and misdemeanor bail jumping on Jan. 8 in Shawano County, where he will spend a total of 115 days in jail and pay $2,166.
This guy is only 23 years old, but has been already convicted five times for drunk driving. It has cost him thousands of dollars already, and now will cost him a good chunk of his life. However, he should be grateful he still has a life and hasn't killed himself or someone else.

I know that there has been a lot of talk about drunk driving over the past several months, with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel doing a story on it every day for over two months and even has a blog to just cover all of the OWI stories throughout the state.

The different approaches to this problem is as diverse as the number of stories about drunk driving. There are some that advocate a complete crackdown on drunk driving, including making first offenses a criminal matter, establishing police checkpoints, lowering the blood alcohol level for drunk driving, and increasing the sentencing for drunk drivers, especially repeat offenders.

As for criminalizing the first offense of drunk driving, it seems to me that the current set up is rather counter intuitive. If driving while intoxicated is illegal the second, third, or any other number of times, why isn't it criminal the first time? Perhaps it is due to the valid concern that the offender might have made a mistake that is out of their character, and don't want to punish the person excessively. While that makes some sense, it would seem to me that we trust our judges to make their rulings based on the law, but with common sense. If we can't trust the judge's to judge if the person's background and history, then they are not very good judges.

The check point idea is a very bad one. Simply put, it is too much like a police state and it infringes on the rights of too many people, even if it might save some lives, to justify following that plan. Besides, some cops wouldn't know a drunk driver if they saw one.

I don't think lowering the BAC levels, increasing the penalties or raising the drinking age will have any meaningful impact on the issue, especially when it comes to repeat drunk drivers. Look at the young man at the beginning of this post. He had already picked up two previous offenses. I am sure that there was some penalties, like fines and the suspension of his license, but that did not deter him from going out and doing it some more.

I realize that it is emotionally and politically easier to just beat up on the drunk driver, but being a social worker and having more than a passing familiarity with psychology, I adhere to the theory that alcoholism is a disease, and needs to be treated as such. Drunk driving can be a symptom of this disease. They are generally in denial of their illness until something forces them to recognize their problem. This is common among many people who have a mental illness.

People that are arrested for their first drunk driving offense are usually ordered to have an assessment and go through a remedial driving course, but rarely is the offender offered any actual therapy or counseling to help them realize that they have a problem, on how it is hurting themselves and their loved ones. They are never given the chance to help themselves out of their downward spiral.

Instead of dumping all of this money in locking up first offenders, I would like to see some of that money be used in offering the offender a chance to get better first. Sure, the incarcerated drunk driver will have sobriety forced on them while in prison (unless they know how to make jailhouse hooch), but this won't address the underlying issue of his or her alcoholism, nor will it give them the tools to deal with it when they are released from prison.

If the person refuses to heed the advice of the counselors and therapists, and doesn't take measures to follow steps to help themselves from putting further people at risk, then they need to be taken from behind the wheel and off of the streets before someone gets hurt or killed. But while incarcerated, it is imperative that they are given the tools they will need to remain sober on the outside. Otherwise, they are only being set up for failure when they are eventually released.

Wouldn't it make sense to spend less money, keep people a productive member of society instead off a financial burden housed in a jail, and bound to continue the cycle until they die or kill someone else?

13 comments:

  1. Finally, a thoughtful piece on a very serious subject! It is politically easy to beat up on drunk drivers, but it does not serve society well. Current penalties are stiff enought to send the message that drunk driving will not be tolerated. Most offenders are one-time offenders and learn their lesson. And while society has the right and obligation to protect itself from folks who can't conform their behavior in this regard, increasingly harsh punishments seem much less likely to work than tactics like treatment and ignition interlock devices.

    Keep sending this message - it needs to be heard.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the blame addressing this issue ought to be laid at the feet of Democrats. The GOP is not a moving target.

    But the War on Drugs (almost 40-years-old) has simply opened a new front: the War on drinking culture and so on, criminalization, world-leading incarceration rates; all done with the help of Democrats.

    To listen to some, you would not be aware of the fact that OWI is illegal (as it ought to be). See http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/docs/owi-penchrt.pdf for the sactions.

    And the penalties are rightfully stiff.

    But if one takes a look at the arguments of Falk/Rowan/MJS/WSJ and so forth, one can see that their war is mostly rhetoric and sophistry.

    Check the empirical methodology behind the creation of the "alcohol-related" accident stat.

    How many repeat OWI drivers out of the driving universe are there in percentage terms?

    And what about the Fourth Amendment RE roadblocks?

    Very little intelligent discussion of these matters [your's is a welcome exception].

    Personally, in making a Fourth Amendment argument against roadblocks, I have read several comments stating that I was merly arguing for a "right" to drink and drive.

    What drivel!

    ReplyDelete
  3. capper, I think you are on to something here. Why stop at drunk/drugged drivers? Why not apply this logic to all crimes committed while a person is intoxicated or drugged. After all, drunk/drugged drivers aren't the only ones that need "help".

    The tail is wagging the dog again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I get it now. You have a friend or perhaps friends that are convicted drunk drivers. This post is terrible and now it makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Um, no, it's because I have an education and a background in psychology, and I understand that alcohol is a disease. I look deeper than my anonymous commenters do for the reason for the problem, and how to resolve the problem.

    The last two anonymous are satisfied with just hating the world around them. I like doing something more constructive with my life.

    ReplyDelete
  6. capper, you are more outraged over Mr. Krause carrying his gun on his own property than you are over drunk drivers using their cars as weapons. Mr. Krause posed no threat unlike the way drunk drivers do. Your selective outrage is disturbing. It's all about what fits your liberal agenda. Common sense rarely comes into play with you.

    BTW, a person doesn't have to embrace your way of thinking to be productive. I would think trying to save lives by advocating for tougher drunk driving laws is more productive than making excuses for the drunk drivers who kill innocent people. Sad you consider that to be "just hating the world" but I shouldn't expect more from you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mmmm. Didn't realize I was outraged about either issue, really.

    My positions are actually consistent, with wanting to hold people responsible for their behaviors. It is just with alcoholics, I advocate for treatment and/or education (whichever term you prefer) to give the alcoholic tools to improve his or her life, to accompany the punishment handed out by the court. I am advocating for a proactive approach instead of a strictly reactive approach.

    With Mr. Krause, there is no need for therapy. I also don't recall saying that I had the last word on any such issue. I am merely offering my opinion on the matter at hand.

    I'm sorry if my exercising of my First Amendment rights is offensive to you. But I won't be stopping either.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did I say I was offended? Did I ask you to stop?

    I do have to ask though...who would be paying for this so called treatment/education you want drunk driver to receive when they are caught?

    The majority of people who are court ordered to go to some sort of treatment in lieu of being charged with a crime and/or going to jail treat it as a joke. They are just happy they got away with their crimes. What is needed is an effective deterrence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They keep increasing the penalties, increasing the drinking age, and lowering the BAC levels, but DUI's are still occurring at a high rate.

    Education and treatment is cheaper than incarceration. And if they treat it like a joke, they go to jail, just like any other criminal on extended supervision.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And who is going to monitor whether or not the drunk drivers are taking the treatment/education seriously?

    I know someone who was stopped for drunk driving (1st Offense) and she was ordered to go to some sort of alcohol treatment/education. She would laugh about it and she partied right through the entire treatment/education. They never tested her and she said even the people in charge thought it was a joke. So, I called them and asked them about their program and they basically told me their program wasn't effective because alcohol doesn't stay in the system long enough for random testing to catch those who are still drinking. This was the court ordered program/treatment/education that the taxpayers are paying for, I'm sure. The alcoholic continued to drink, and her kids continue to suffer with an alcoholic mom, and the rest of this alcoholic's family is fractured. The alcoholic knew what she need to do to get help but she didn't WANT help, however I did hear her say she wouldn't drive drunk again because she didn't want to go to jail. It sickened me that her only concern was for herself (not the people she could kill while driving drunk) but that is pretty typical of alcoholics or people who do drive drunk (because not all of them are "alcoholics").

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't know when your friend had this experience, but they have the technology to monitor a person's BAC 24/7 remotely. It is often included in the GPS units that are given to people on house arrest or other electronic monitoring systems.

    AS for the self-centeredness of your friend, it is unfortunately too true of many people, whether they drink or not.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just for the record (not that it matters except to me) she wasn't a "friend".

    I still like to know who is going to pay for all this treatment/education...and now the technology?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Part with the money save by no incarceration, part by the defendant. Same as now.
    The cost of the technology is pretty low.

    ReplyDelete