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?