I'd like to make this perfectly clear: When I consumed too much alcohol and operated a motor vehicle I broke the law. Specifically, I broke the criminal law, which is defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is prohibited by the state because it is held to threaten, harm or otherwise endanger the safety and welfare of the public, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on those who breach these laws. I could have caused an accident that night in which someone got hurt.
It was stupid and irresponsible and I deserve punishment. I am genuinely remorseful and ashamed of my actions. I would like nothing more than to assure society that this will never happen again and take any appropriate, reasonable punishment for my actions. However, I feel the punishment for DUI is too severe, ineffective, and misguided.
Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Jurisdictions differ on the value to be placed on each.
- Retribution is the idea that criminals ought to be punished in some way and made to suffer. This is "eye for an eye" idea (although the Old Testament was actually preaching moderation here--take no more than an eye.)
- Deterrence is punishment aimed at preventing the same crime from reoccurring, either individual (individual deterrence) or by society at large (general deterrence). It's often very hard to prove a particular punishment has a deterrent effect. I.e., capital punishment certainly has a specific deterrent effect (the criminal is dead and won't recommit the crime), but experts are conflicted over whether it has a general deterrent effect.
- Incapacitation is simply keeping the criminal physically separated from society to prevent future harm.
- Rehabilitation is transforming the criminal into a valuable, productive member of society.
- Restitution is repaying any damages to individuals that were harmed in the committing of the criminal act.
Punishment for a DUI is certainly retributive. Posted bond, fines, costs, and license reinstatement fees. In addition, you may have to pay probation fees, the cost of mandatory drug and alcohol assessment and counseling, and the cost of any associated monitoring like an ignition interlock device or continuous alcohol monitoring, lost work time, and attorney fees. You can also expect to pay much higher automobile insurance rates, often for years after your license is reinstated. Illinois is one of the few states providing an official estimate of average DUI costs. The typical Illinois DUI conviction costs the drunk driver $14,660.
The severe retributive punishment is certainly an individual deterrent. Most offenders I met were not aware of the retributive costs of a DUI prior to their arrest, and, when combined with society's acceptance of drinking, and lack of information of what a DUI arrest entails, indicates that there exists little general deterrent effect.
Punishment for a first offense DUI in New Hampshire results in loss of license for six months. This is a form incapacitation. For second offense DUI's some state impose prison sentences.
Rehabilitation is a component of DUI punishment, though it is neither a significant nor effective one, and this is the issue which prompted me to create this blog. First, all offenders are assumed, and later, diagnosed to be alcoholics by Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselors, or LADCs. In some states they are called Certified Alcohol and Drug Counselors, or CADCs. In New Hampshire to be a LADC all you need is a high school diploma or G.E.D. and completion of a certification program. The certification program consists of 270 hours of training, followed by 6000 hours of "supervised alcohol and drug abuse work experience." There are tons of online schools available.
The problem with LADCs is that most, if not all, of them in New Hampshire are former alcoholics who espouse religion-based recovery programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous. They are "true-believers" in A.A. and the power of Jesus to cure your "disease." All the ones I've met have been of below-average intelligence, hateful, and on a power trip. They see an alcoholic in everyone. They have succeeded when they get you to admit that you are an alcoholic (I've actually seen a devious grin form on a LADC upon someone's "breaking."). Then they require that you join and take part in AA as part of your "aftercare."
This is not rehabilitative. AA has been shown to be largely ineffective. Multiple studies have shown that the success rate of AA and NA (Narcotics Anonymous) are between 3-7%. According to Harvard Medical School, the spontaneous remission rate for alcoholism is 5%. Nor is imprisonment rehabilitative. Placing DUI offenders in cells with violent criminals is a recipe for breeding more violent criminals. (Note: In prisons, AA attendance is often used as an implied condition of good behavior early parole, even though the explicit requirement of AA for this purpose has been ruled unconstitutional.)
In addition to being ineffective, Alcoholics Anonymous is faith-based and relies entirely on one's belief in a higher power to cure oneself of alcoholism. A staple of the A.A. meeting is holding hands at the end and chanting the Lord's Prayer in unison. The higher power, make no mistake, is Jesus. AA is a evangelical organization, and almost all (85-93%) of the alcohol treatment programs in the U.S. that D.U.I. offenders are mandated to attend are based on AA. And after attending alcohol treatment programs, many, like myself, are required to attend months of AA meetings in order to get my license back. This is unconstitutional. It violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This was the First Amendment. In other words, it's what the founding fathers thought was the most important right of an American citizen--to be free of Federal Laws that in any way establish religious activity or inhibit religious activity. The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868, allowed the courts to eventually prohibit similar State laws:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
The first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Since then, it is unconstitutional for any State to enact laws that coerce or inhibit religious activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment