DUI Reform
Our State Government is currently spending huge sums of tax dollars to deal with the problem of Drunk Driving.
Alcoholism and DUI’s in Idaho, a Felony or a treatable disease?
Observations and a suggested solution.
Any alcohol in the system while driving is treated as a crime in Sweden. While this may be applicable in the lower amounts (such as we prohibit driving while using any prescription drugs), both the USA and Sweden fail to truly address the issue of addiction.
A normal, non-alcoholic person:
Is six times more likely to be involved in an accident after just one drink. (Insurance Co. data)
With a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .08, driving skill impairment is discernable.
At .10 impairment is obvious.
At .11 the person can’t find his car.
At .12 he can’t get off the bar stool.
At .13 he is face down on the floor and can’t get up.
IF a person is driving with a BAC of .14 or greater, he is an alcoholic, and has been drinking for hours to get to this high, his tolerance level is high, which is why he is trying to drive, while the normal man is passed out.
If the BAC is .20 or greater, the person would have to have been a practicing alcoholic and has been drinking for days and has a NORMAL BAC of .10 to .14, just a few drinks drive the BAC up and over .20 quickly, as the person’s body cannot process the alcohol out fast enough.
Some are arrested with BAC’s as high as .38, nearly a fatal dose were it not for the tolerance the person has built up.
The simple fact is that Alcoholism IS a disease, mentally, physically and spiritually. The ONLY long-term successful treatment is the person’s willingness and a 28 day standard rehab program.
To make a .20 BAC a felony may please the groups that want revenge upon alcoholics, but it serves no logical purpose. It may be that a respected public servant with divorce or other problems has fallen prey to a clever disease that affects the person’s mind and a state of cognitive dissonance is in place, the person may have no criminal record ever, but be stopped for a mere mechanical violation and wind up with a felony charge, to lose his job and rights. There but for the Grace of God go I.
The point here is that a disease is not a felony. Once an obsessive-compulsion to drink has become apparent, the person has little ability to control it. He may suspect he has a problem, but denies it. He may know he has a problem but also knows he cannot control it. He may find himself drinking even when he consciously does not want to. As the disease progresses, his ambient BAC grows higher, his tolerance greater, many middle stage alcoholics are able to pass a field sobriety test, but a field breath test can show BACs in excess of .20 , an indication that there exists a tolerance the disease has produced. He is helpless. It is recommended that a serious legislator attend several AA meetings at the Alano Club, or any of the many meetings in the Treasure Valley, for one cannot understand the loss of control and the helplessness that these people suffer.
WE have the opportunity to make good law, here and now.
Suppose the State recognized the disease and problem for what they are, and addressed it totally differently than ever before? An experiment? Yes, but most any certified drug/alcohol therapist will confirm what I suggest in these next few paragraphs.
Should a person be stopped, and a field Breathalyzer test indicate a very high BAC (>.14), the officer is required to take the person directly to a medical facility and a blood sample taken, and re taken at ½ hour intervals for 2 hours. Any fluid intake by the person is to be limited and under supervision and recorded.
IF the person has a BAC of .14 to .19, the officers supervisor is to immediately contact or telephone a judge, explain or fax the facts of the case, and the judge may speak to the suspect, and dependant on predetermined criteria, the judge decides wether to commit immediately, hold at medical facility till immediately earliest court appearance, where a commitment decision must be made.
For all persons whose BAC is .20 or greater, there is no decision to be made, the law should require an immediate commitment to a 28 day in-patient program. This COULD be applicable at the lower .14 level, but might be a hard sell to a legislature. The person would be immediately placed into a facility contracted to be prepared to accept such cases on a 24/7/365 basis.
The ability of the State to effect a commitment without ‘habeas corpus’ implications is to remove the criminality (at the beginning) and declare it a ‘life threatening emergency’ for the person. Few doctors would disagree. Minimal contact with the outside world would be allowed, save for brief telephone contacts for family and financial affairs. The State would absorb the initial costs, under the auspices of the Health & Welfare Department.
The persons employer would be notified only that a medical emergency existed and that it is requested that the persons job be preserved for him. This assists the persons willingness to participate, knowing that there are efforts to assist him, not jail him.
Upon successful completion of the 28 day in-patient program, the person is brought before the judge, who orders that NO charges will be filed so long as the person signs a contract that:
He repays the cost (or a income-respective portion thereof) of the rehabilitation program (low-interest financing arranged so as to not harm the breadwinner’s family, or cause impossibility in paying child support), consents to random Breathalyzer or BAC tests for 15 years (plus a designation on the drivers license and computer notations to assist field law enforcement officers), provides regular proof of continuing treatment for the first 5 years. Suspending licenses often only forces the person to drive illegally, or lose work and return to drink and despair, these then compound the problem rather than solving it.
If he refuses to comply, he is charged. He is not given a second chance to accept the offer (perhaps a physician may declare when the person is sober enough to decide as it may take a day or two to clear the body of alcohol in high BAC cases).
As most recidivism occurs within the first 5 years, the program must be a long term one. Many DUI’s currently repeat over and over, until death by sickness or violence, or until they somehow come to be in a in-patient rehabilitation program. These repeat costs to the State could prove to be higher than the costs of the solution suggested herein.
Should the person successfully complete the 15 year plan, pay back the preponderance of the costs, and remain problem and crime free, he escapes with no charges filed. Society is cleansed of a problem, reimbursed and satisfied. At any time, should he fail to complete that which he has contracted to do, the State may file charges, his contract agreeing to the delay in filing.
In case wherein injury occurred during the DUI, several things must be considered.
As of the empirical data available in 1991, 84% of DUI fatalities were drinking related. This is say that the drunk that kills only himself in a single car accident, and the drunk that gets into a car with a drunk driver is part of the 84%, as is the other drunk driver that hits another drunk driver (most sober drivers are able to avoid DUI accidents), as is the drunk pedestrian that is unable to see the oncoming DUI. 16% of DUI fatalities are totally innocent and alcohol free. This is not to minimize their loss, as it is tragic, and for these deaths the penalty ought be heightened, but for drunks hitting each other, responsibility ought be shared.
Much as some well-publicized groups seek to have DUI’s thrown in jail and the key tossed away, this serves only to prolong the problem. One cannot punish a diabetic for his problems with sugar, and there is suspicion that the close relation of alcohol and sugar and the effects on diverse human metabolisms have some as-yet-to-be-determined connections.
The logical approach to alleviating the DUI problem and alcohol problems in general is through early education, family involvement, access to programs (and easy financing to make them affordable to all) and a solid plan as to how to deal with DUI’s as is suggested herein.
The State that implements a wise program and works it to the pinnacle of success will be the State to whom other states, and nations will look to for wise and practical innovative solutions.
Currently, I am working on a proposed bill that would address the above points, but much more concensus is needed to make the idea work.
Copyright 2002, T. Allen Hoover, permission to reprint granted, with full credit to author.
|