SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Getting Tough About Driving Drunk
Jeremy Jordan is in prison for 70 months after driving drunk, and hitting a bicyclist, last spring. This was his second time with a DUII. Now he says if he'd been treated differently after the first arrest maybe this accident wouldn't have happened. His wife, who has been blogging about her experience, says Jeremy really wants to raise awareness about the dangers of drinking and drunk driving. Not surprisingly, she believe the regret around this accident goes long past 70 months.
What do you think? Are the region's drunk driving laws tough enough? How has drinking and driving affected your life?
Tagged as: alcohol · driving · law
Photo credit: Leonardo Perin / Creative Commons
-
Drinking and driving is a complex topic, that is anything but black and white.
I got a DUI, and it was a fluke. I suppose I should state I didn't get into an accident, I was pulled over. You are treated like an animal by the courts and the treatment program. I was assessed by a gruff women, who didn't have the acumen to make a hot dog. She sent me to a program geared towards alcoholics, when I wasn't one. I had to sit around with other alleged alcoholics hearing about their plight with some wannabe social worker under fluorescent lights. It was a dreadful experience, that if anything would have turned me into an alcoholic had I let it. I protested and I think I was the only person in the group that didn't get sent for further treatment. I've never had a problem since---nor do I drink much at all. I know people say that, but I actually mean it.
I don't dispute that I committed the act, but I do take issue with the way I was treated and the assumptions that a DUI is used to imply which are not necessarily true.
My anecdotal account doesn't mean much statistic-wise, but it does mean there are people out there who don't fit the bill and mandatory or tougher laws are a bad idea. It sounds like Jeremy Jordan is saying something like this: if only someone would have stopped me sooner this wouldn't have happened to me. His motivation isn't to make it safer for people on the roads, it is to try and stop something like this happening to someone like him.
I think even if you kill someone while under the influence you should not spend time in jail. You could perhaps be sent to someplace to recover, but if all people who commit DUIs are allegedly alcoholics, then they have a disease and should be treated accordingly. Or else alcoholism isn't a disease? Our society can't have it both ways. I don't know how you can technically be prosecuted at all or convicted of a crime---because if you don't have the capacity to operate a vehicle then you also don't have the capacity to fully realize the gravity of your actions, so how can you be considered negligent?
-
I got a DUI, and it was a fluke. I suppose I should state I didn't get into an accident, I was pulled over.
*Everyone calls it a "fluke". Very few DUIs are due to accidents.
You are treated like an animal by the courts and the treatment program. I was assessed by a gruff women, who didn't have the acumen to make a hot dog.
*They don't have to be nice to you--you broke the law.
She sent me to a program geared towards alcoholics, when I wasn't one.
*The program isn't geared towards alcoholics, it is geared toward people who got a DUI. And that would be you.
I had to sit around with other alleged alcoholics hearing about their plight with some wannabe social worker under fluorescent lights.
*Boo-hoo! Poor little thing! Those flourescent lights must have been traumatic!
It was a dreadful experience, that if anything would have turned me into an alcoholic had I let it. I protested and I think I was the only person in the group that didn't get sent for further treatment. I've never had a problem since---nor do I drink much at all.
*Good--maybe that means the treatment was effective.
I know people say that, but I actually mean it.
*Yes, everybody says it, and everybody means it.
*You drove while under the influence. That is the only thing that needs to be true.
*It doesn't matter what you do to yourself. When you endanger someone else, however, you are playing a whole different game. And I, as a pedestrian, should have a right to not be killed by drunk drivers.
*Some people are not helped by treatment. How many people should a person have to kill before going to jail? 2? 5? 10?
*Charles Manson has a disease that makes him crazy and want to kill people. Yet he is in jail.
*So should you be able to, say, murder babies at will when you are black-out drunk? Or would murdering babies be considered a crime whether you remember doing it or not?
-
luckyrucker,
The facts are: I had a DUI ten years ago. I haven't had one since. Nor did I drink much at the time, nor do I do so today. The last time I had a drink was on my parent's anniversary over a month ago. I had two Campari and Oranges. I don't like alcohol---I never did. The night my DUI occurred I was at a benefit with an open bar. I was to stay at a friends and my friend left with someone else. I lived over 30 miles from the event and drove home, which I had not planned to do. Whether or not you think it was a fluke is up to you. It doesn't make a bit of difference either way to what I wrote.
About the cliched world where everything is black and white and little me drove under the influence: I never once said I should not have a received a DUI. So I am not even sure what your point is.
About your irrelevant, yet typical, meaningless comparisons: Murdering babies even while drunk has nothing to do with a DUI. Murder, even drunk murder, goes a large step further from operating a car with no intent to do harm of any-kind. Driving is an entirely normal, commonplace act, except for the addition of alcohol.
I didn't say people should be allowed to drive drunk and kill someone with no consequences. I said they should be in someplace to recover or receive treatment.
Additionally, I don't need your sympathy, patronizing, understanding or anything else!
-
Hi Scott, I'm Cristie and am a volunteer at an alcohol addiction center. I read your comment and I just wanted to say that allthough you consider spending some time in a program like this one is a lost of time you actually stop drinking or driving under influence of alcohol.I think that's wonderful and I consider that motivation is important, even if yours was not to end up in a program. The important thing is that you stop drinking. I will not argue your motivation.
-
As a DUII prosecutor in the state of Oregon, I can say that people charged with DUII are not all the same. They tend to either be social drinkers that made a mistake about the level of impairment they were at, alcoholics that think they are social drinkers, or hard core alcoholics that are aware of their problem.
It is important to note that the state is not prosecuting people for being alcoholics with DUII laws. This is America and people are free to waste themselves away with alcoholism. The state is prosecuting people for getting behind the wheel and endangering others, something people are not free to do.
Unfortunately, despite major gains over the last 30 years, driving under the influence of intoxicants is still somewhat socially acceptable. This social acceptance is reflected in Oregon's decision to give the vast majority of people charged with DUII a free first pass via the diversion program. The ambivalence of the Oregon legislature toward holding intoxicated drivers accountable for their actions is further reflected in allowing most people another diversion if 10 years has passed since your last conviction for DUII or diversion (every 15 starting in 2010). This legislatively created get out of jail free card is an anomaly in the criminal code. If we must have diversion at all, why not once in a lifetime? Why do we allow so many DUII offenses before someone can get a felony DUII in this state?
The laws in Oregon are very lenient towards intoxicated drivers, especially when you consider the huge community safety concerns that intoxicated drivers pose. Maybe one reason for the state of our laws is because, unlike a lot of other crimes, DUII crosses all socio-economic boundaries. No matter what neighborhood you live in or how many rooms your house has, you are likely to be or interact with people that have been charged with DUII. Oregon's elected representatives that make the laws we all live under are no different in this regard. It might be easy to get tough on "those people" that commit theft, rape, or murder, but with DUII there really is no "those people." It's all of us.
-
Another reason we collectively view a DUI as different is because it simply is---it seems to be conceptually different from any other offense. As terrible as a DUI is, it is generally nothing like "theft, rape, or murder." There is rarely if ever any form of intent in a DUI.
Driving will drinking is also a personal event that doesn't harm anyone unless things go wrong. The same person can drink the same amount and drive home one time and nothing happens, the next time something may happen----chance is a big factor in the act leading to harm.
It is not that "driving under the influence of intoxicants is still somewhat socially acceptable" but that every form of intoxication is generally socially acceptable. The president just shared a beer at the White House.
The state may not be prosecuting people who get DUIs for being alcoholics but it punishes them and treats them like they are. Not only that but it turns people into liars, because you essentially have to act regretful or guilty for allegedly being an alcoholic in order to get out of the treatment programs. Quite frankly it should be illegal to treat people for something they don't have and is entirely unethical. I have no idea how it is legal to treat someone for a disease when a doctor has not established they have one.
Additionally, you can't separate the drinking from the driving, because if you did there would be no crime. So if the disease of alcoholism leads you to drive a car you are indeed punishing the alcoholism, because the alcoholism is the primary component that led to the alleged crime.
I realize people and the state are trying to do the best they can for the anomaly that a DUI is, but it doesn't make it correct. We use bad and faulty logic in an attempt to rectify the unfortunate oddity of a DUI.
-
I would like to see some efforts at preventive education about drinking.
Many years ago I was talking to a person who was reputed to be in or to have been in the CIA and they said that they were taught to never ever drink more than two drinks. I think that ought to be taught to kids while growing up and reinforced every year in schools.
I think that alcohol education is too often just left to Alcohol Industry ads and product placements in movies, and with the hypocritically worded warning to "Drink responsibly". That warning wording is very carefully designed and if you know anything about how language works and matters you realize that it is first of all a command to drink and then the word responsibly is weakly added as a modifier, so it comes across like this "DRINK!.........responsibly".
More effective words would be something like "A responsible person never drinks more than two drinks.", or "More than two drinks makes you irresponsible". Hmm, "More than two and you are through".
Alcohol and tobacco are the two worst drugs in the US for causing disease and deaths and they really ought to be more effectively taught about to kids.
When I was at OSU one of the fraternity brothers had 19 shots when he turned twenty one, passed out and vomited and inhaled the vomit into his lungs and almost died but was saved by a hospital. I'd like to see those old traditions educated out of existence, and peoples lives saved.
I'm not against alcohol but "Two will do"!
-
@scottmil
Quite frankly it should be illegal to treat people for something they don't have and is entirely unethical. I have no idea how it is legal to treat someone for a disease when a doctor has not established they have one.
Right on. Right on.
I will even go so far as to say that, while not the only treatment mandated, AA is a disease itself and the state mandating AA is a scary thing.
-
Even when someone does get a felony, after multiple county offenses, I have learned from the experience of an aquaintance that there is no treatment available for many in SCIs. Simply warehousing multiple offenders in state facilities is likely to make them bitter, not better. The person I know was arrested in counties other than Multnomah, which sentenced him to a few months for each offense and required no treatment, minimum post-prison supervision. Thank goodness he hasn't injured or killed anyone yet, but it is highly likely he will re-offend.
We must insist that multiple offenders get effective treatment and adequate post-prison supervision. The costs of incarceration alone, which is not an effective deterrant, much less potential human costs, make this imperative.
-
You said: "Additionally, you can't separate the drinking from the driving, because if you did there would be no crime. So if the disease of alcoholism leads you to drive a car you are indeed punishing the alcoholism, because the alcoholism is the primary component that led to the alleged crime."
*Having alcolism has nothing to do with the crime. You can be drunk every minute of your life after you turn 21 and never break a law. You only break the law when you drive after drinking too much.
-
luckyrucker,
"Having alco(ho)lism has nothing to do with the crime."
"You can be drunk every minute of your life"...."and never break a law. You only break the law when you drive after drinking too much."
From your own words, alcoholism has everything to do with the crime, because you "only break the law when you drive" drunk. If you take the drink out of the driving then there is no crime. So the drinking and the driving are inseparable. The crime would not occur without either. It is the combination of the two activities.
-
I got a DUI about 5 years ago, though not in Oregon. All in all I paid close to $10,000 in fees, etc. I was required to attend a 10 week alcohol safety and awareness class, and a minimum of 3 AA meetings. My liscense was suspended, I am now required to file an SR-22 with an insurance company and I must pay to get my license back. Like the previous person, I was pulled over, I did not get into an accident. When I began working at a convenience store soon after, I had to be transferred to a store that did not sell alcohol; I could have lost my job. I thought that my penalty was a bit excessive, but it did the trick. I have not driven since, and certainly not driven under the influence.I also tell anyone that I see driving after drinking that the consequences are not worth it.
My second cousin was killed by a drunk driver, and that did not stop me from drinking and driving. Heavy fines, the threat of not being able to pay those fines due to termination, and hanging out with miserable alcoholics for two months did.
-
I'm 61 years old and I grew up in a culture where drinking and driving was tolerated by society and binge drinking was a rite of passage for youth. At a problematic time in my life I chose to numb myself with drinking and yes this included driving frequently while drunk. I got a DUI, took the diversion option, went through the classes, drank the whole time I was taking classes, got slapped on the hand and went back to my old ways with a suspended liscense I as many of the people in my diversion class did not take the opportunity to change my behavior. I just had the attitiude that I had slipped up by getting caught and that I wouldn't get caught again. There was no behavior change. I got caught a second time and while waiting for the hearing got a wakeup call from a girl friend who told me a was an alcoholic and needed to quit drinking I had never thought of myself as a drunk. An option for me was the DISP [DUI Intensive Superviion Program] which I entered I had 60 days of electronic monitering, weekly at first and then monthly meetings with a probation officer. I had to attend two AA meetings a week and couldn't leave state without permission I was subject to random urine sampling and had to pass lie detector tests for three years It was very humbling but I followed the requirements to a tee and have been sober for seven years The get tough approach that I voluntarily accepted worked in my case The electronic monitering was absolutely terrible. I would never want to go through that again. I also had a work acquaintance kill a local girl in a car accident about the same time while driving under the influence. He was sentenced to many years in prison and may be still in jail today I realized that could have been me. I feel that the diversion option for lst time DUI offenders is too lenient as there are too many repeat offenders Some type of limited time electronic monitering would be quite a bit more effective in deterring future behavior
-
Who is sabotaging my posts?
-
It is probably just a technical problem. Honestly, with all the ridiculous things I write on here, I have never had a problem----I've perhaps taken the thinking out loud too literally. Unless you are just that subversive? Good luck... .
-
Scott's right: no one's sabotaging your posts! Are you perhaps cutting and pasting from Word? Our site sort of flips out when people do that.
Email me and I can try to help you out:
dmiller (at) opb (dot) org
Sorry!
Dave
-
"Are you perhaps cutting and pasting from Word? Our site sort of flips out when people do that."
Yes.
But it also does it when I just edit a post and add to it without involving Word at all.
I posted the offending post the next day over in
"Suggest A Show". I had tried it here as a test to see if it was only rejected in "Suggest A Show".The comment box either gets a red line around the inside or says the message is over twenty five hundred characters and then freezes up.
IT froze up my entire computer Saturday morning after I reposted it and went offline. It took me half a day to figure out that the problem was TOL but after I shut down the TOL page I got back control of my computer.
-
"Are laws tough enough?" is the wrong question. Although I agree that prevention is the best investment, when we get to sentencing the question should be "are laws and sentences effective enough?"
Unfortunatley, the debate is monopolized by an ideological divide that a recent Oregonian op ed characterized as between those who believe in personal responsibility and those who blame society for all crime. Sentencing laws and sentences are usually used as trophies in that dispute and not as tools to achieve public safety. The tragic truth is that outside treatment courts 95% or so of all sentences are essentially produced by plea bargains that have nothing responsibly to do with public safety.
By far, the vast majority of DUII offenders - even those who get a conviction in a new case after a "successful" diversion -- never come back again. It makes no sense to impose draconian sentences on all first offenders - we can't afford it and it would do far more harm than the good we'd accomplish by capturing (and eventually releasing) the really dangerous offenders in that enormous net. Besides, it would be cheaper to install interlock devices on all vehicles.
Effective sentencing follows these rules
- insist on responsible pursuit of crime reduction when sentencing;
- understand that different things work or not on different offenders; use risk and need assessment to craft sentences;
- use treatment courts (instead of or after substantial jail sentences) on those who are most at risk and most likely to benefit from treatment courts;
- get past the severity debate and understand that what's really "tough" on crime reduces crime -- and that severity works for some and not for others;
- measure the performance of prosecution and sentencing by success in public safety -- and not by points in ideological debate
Michael Marcus, circuit court judge, Multnomah County
http://www.smartsentencing.com
-
That sounds well reasoned out, to me.
-
When we were in high school my lifelong best friend (26 years and counting) was in a terrible head on collision with a drunk driver. She nearly bled to death at the scene and her legs had to be rebuilt through many surgeries. I spent a month visiting her in the hospital every day after school and years pushing her around in a wheelchair to all our activities. We wanted the drunk driver to fry and didn't feel that the 2 years he got was enough. So now it's pretty strange for me to be on the other side of a tragedy like this. And so amazing to me that my friend has been so supportive of us. I asked her why and she said because it's different when you actually know the person, and that she's seen the sincere change in Jeremy since the accident.
What conclusions to draw from all this irony? I have no idea, other than it has to really hit home for anyone to pay attention to drunk driving and the consequences and the ripple effect it creates. When you hear about a DUII driver on the news, and you don't know the person, your reaction is likely to be much more judgmental than if it's someone you actually know and love. And I think a lot of us know someone with a DUII, or someone who just hasn't been caught yet. It's an everyman sort of crime and sadly, as long as people and cars and intoxicants exist, I think this problem will continue to tear apart families like it has mine.
No one would want to take a flight knowing the pilot had been drinking right? What if he wasn't really drunk--just had one drink at the airport bar before the flight? Then he gets into the driver's seat of a huge metal machine that has the potential to kill people. Then is even just one drink okay? Well, it's the same thing as a car. People don't realize they are driving around in dangerous weapons and that many other lives are in their hands.
-
The system handled Mr. Jordan the first time he broke the law is not at fault. It is not the responsibility of the Government to teach people how to use good judgment.
Mr. Jordan may be an outstanding guy, but on at least 2 occasions now he CHOSE to drink and drive, and the results were a direct reaction of HIS actions.
70 months in jail is fine, I think is shows great audacity of Mr. Jordan to blame a system for a decision he made.
-
"It is not the responsibility of the Government to teach people how to use good judgment."
We legislate morality in many areas of our lives and once we make those Laws why would we not teach people those laws and also teach effective ways to live within those laws?
Frankly, I think children ought to be taught our laws as they make their way through their elementry and primary schooling, after all, there is an old saying, "ignorance of the Law is no excuse". And our Laws are the backbone of our social contract negotiated and legislated over many years, even centuries, of how we agree to live with each other responsibly. It just makes sense to teach kids those laws so that they know what is expected of them and what is not expected.
At the least, we ought to teach what good judgement is in the light of each of our laws along with what bad judgement is regarding putting oneself in jeopardy of the law.
-
I relate to Jeremy I was a 5time duii the last being in 2001 or 2. I have been to impact panels been to class after class and it is a joke.
the truth is the punishment is so the state can make jobs and money. The leaders in my classes cant lie to me Iam sober and know a drunk and drugy when I see one.
Under age drinkers really need to be hit hard. Im not sure of the statistic but know it is really high on those who have been caught drinking early in adolesents will reaffend. My question is this does the state care really about the death of those killed in car accidents from drunk drivers. I don't think so. My thought is those who make rules and laws only sided with MADD because they could see the return. My last duii cost over 30,000
-
It doesn't matter if we start summarily executing people on site for driving under the influence, it is not going to stop the problem.
At what point do we realize that "getting tough" has no effect on crime and only wastes tax money. Is it really that hard to think up innovative solutions that do not involve law enforcement?
An episode of BBC's "Top Gear" highlighted a service in Britain that provides drivers. You call the service before or after you go out, they send someone on a small moped that fits in a trunk, the person drives you home, and rides his/her moped on to the next job.
There, that's one idea. I'll bet we could solve the problem of DUI if we turned on our brains and stopped electing politicians that promise to solve all of our ills by criminalizing everything.
-
That is an interesting idea. Who pays the moped driver? Do the alcohol companies pay for it?
-
They were sketchy on the details because it is a car show where the hosts do "stunts" like race RVs on a race track, chase a Land Rover with a battle tank, etc. The hosts spent a night driving people just to see what kind of cars they drive, quiz them about how much they know about the cars, and to see how easy it is to ride, disassemble, and reassemble the mopeds.
But, it was a very interesting idea. I am pretty sure the people had to pay for the service like a taxi. But, I would imagine that it had several advantages over taxis. Mainly that it was your own car, they probably made it easier to make reservations, the pricing was probably more sane, etc.
Really, though, the details are inconsequential. What's important is that it was a group of people trying to think of the problem in terms of what motivates people to drive after drinking instead of just thinking about punishments.
I'm sure we can't actually stop drunk drivers all together. It may sound insensitive to say this, but we have to accept a certain amount of danger in driving. We really need to realize, though, that "getting tough" does not help at all.
-
My wife's only sister was killed in a drunk driving collision 5 years ago. Her dad has been arrested for DUI over three times and is still a practicing alcoholic. It seems a sad irony.
I wish drunk driving laws were tougher. My father-in-law has only spent a night in jail, even after high speed chases where he endangered many lives. He was able to get a hardship license to drive to and from his job, and for his job. That just seems ridiculous to me, as many alcoholics drink on the job.
The bottom line is that we are all individuals, and some people will respond to treatment, and others won't. If a person isn't ready to give it up, they won't. The state is charged with figuring out how to deal with thousands upon thousands each year. That's quite a demand. I know people that diversion has helped and others that it's done nothing for.
If you take someone's life or severely injure them, you are the only one responsible. If we are not responsible for our choices, who is? Maybe the state could've offered Jeremy Jordan a more effective diversion than he got, but maybe he could've just been a decent human being on that night and either surrendered his keys or chosen to not drink since he couldn't control the amount he consumed. He could've taken a taxi, called a friend or family member, called a towing company, etc. Mr. Jordan is the one who committed the act. He is the one who is responsible.
-
I do think that, as a society, we are focussed on punishment rather than responsibility. Because of that we also seem to feel that, once the sentence is over, then the person should be allowed to move on, which effectively means, get over it.
Maybe we should focus more on responsibility for your actions. I think a sentence of "you caused perpanent damage, so you will be permanently responsible" is way more of a deterrent that what we have now.
-
Good idea, except it does not work. Florida's 10-20-Life law has not stopped gun crime even though it makes people that even slightly injure someone with a gun nearly permanently responsible for that crime (25 years to life).
http://news.ufl.edu/2006/01/10/three-strikes-law/
-
Trying to punish people into good behavior is very ineffective.
It is far better and more effective to encourage people into good behavior prior to the time that they will be tested.
-
My mother-in-law regularly drinks and drives. She's been involved in minor accidents, but nothing where the police have been involved. I have called the police to ask what I can do. I was told that even if I called 911 and reported that someone I knew to be drunk was driving, they still could not pull her over unless there was another reason to do so. They said the best thing to do was to take away her keys. That seems to be putting all of the responsibility on those around the problem drinker, instead of where it belongs. Is it my responsibility to follow her around every evening?
-
After experiencing the diversion program following a DUI two years ago, I found that the whole program was a business. There are a lot of private pockets being lined with this particular program. The process leaves the criminal system and moves into the private arena of counselors determining your financial future based on some rather vague reasoning and then a private program that meets with groups of people that have been dumped out of the system.
The experience was sobering for me, but the program was just a gimmick to empty pockets and play a game of "gotcha." The people in my group were multiple offenders and primarily were there to do what it took to get their license returned.
The sessions were run by a substance abuse counselor that knew he had a captured audience that was paying a weekly fee to be there. There were random tests but the main emphasis appeared to be doing your time on Saturday classes and paying a hefty fine.
I am aware of the procedure now and never want to experience that embarrassment again, but my reaction to how this was operated led me to believe that the program was faulty. The victim panel I attended was sobering and was an effective deterent for me.
-
I dont drink and drive ever 25 yrs ago my best friend was killed by a drunk driver,her husband & his sister I have been a single mom& feel that my responsibility as a parent meant that any problem that i would have would hurt my child as well just an absolute choice
-
During my 18 years as a member of AA, I have routinely watched court ordered men and women of all ages attend meetings to get their proof of attendance slip signed. In most cases, these first time offenders pass on the opportunity to share. The few who do share amost always fail to see alcohol as a problem in their lives. Instead, for them, the problem was getting caught.
AA meetings are filled with members who drove drunk countless times during their drinking careers, Some were caught (sometimes multiple times). Some were not. It is the lucky and rare person who realizes they have a problem with alcohol before they have caused great damage to themselves and others as a result of their drinking.
-
Australians once treated DUI as carelessly as many Americans now do but the governments did not wait for a culture shift - they brought one about very successfully by introducing random breathalyser tests. These were initially resented by Australians but then embraced because people finally realized the errors of their thinking. In America the typical attitude towards such measures would be how dare you take away my freedoms. Ridiculous response. Instead it should be how dare you want to retain the right to drive drunk and kill and maim others! We are forced to wear seat belts for good reasons - both to save us from ourselves and others and to save the wider community the added costs of looking after us after an accident. It is time such 'freedoms' were done away with - including the right to drive and talk on a phone or worse still text or even worse drive drunk and phone or text at the same time. How about some commonsense my fellow Americans! And how about a lack of cowardice from the legislators and the courts over stopping impaired driving! The introduction of random breathalizers down under led to a dramatic reduction in accidents, deaths and injuries.
-
As a researcher for the cause and effect of human behavior concerning the problem of the men or women who are drinking in excess; we must dig MUCH deeper into the reason why they engage in this behavior. The reasons can reach all the way to the embryonic stage. Our system is not equipped or funded to be more socially engaged. Education is the only solution going back to pregnant women, because they program their embyos before they are born by their own activities, sorrows & conflicts & environment. clfpdx.
-
I encourage you to also consider studying religions that use fear, the attitude that "you have to put the fear in kids early", or the King Solomon injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child".
People and children who live under regimes of fear develop many different mental strategies and behaviors to escape from or cope with that regime of fear, and alcohol and or drugs are some of the strategies used.
And that is the problem with trying to punish people into good behaviors too.
-
Back in the 1950s and 1960s there was an attitude in business that you had to be able to hold your liquor, you would take a client out to dinner and the next day one or the other would be expected to brag that he drank the other guy under the table. They would try to make the other guy lose his senses and sign an agreement in which he was the loser.
And in dating there was a saying "Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker", the attitude that the guy would try to get the girl drunk enough to, well, "put out".
Those old attitudes are disrespectful of oneself and the others and I hope that they have changed.
I have no idea of what the attitudes are now.
-
In Washington State, people convicted of DUI are usually required to attend AA meetings, or similar support groups with religous overtones. This is something I experienced and I felt like the court was forcing me ascribe to spiritual path. Does that sort of thing happen in Oregon?
-
I don't know about Oregon, but I do know it is a popular punishment in Florida. After researching AA, I would like to see it shutdown.
-
I think drinking establishments need to get more proactive by possibly establishing a policy whereby a glass of water is served with every drink. I tend to ask for one when we go out to have a beer simply because I do not appreciate hangovers. The point is I have to ask for it. Water should be readily available - like in your face or on the table. Drinking makes me thirsty and a cold glass of water tastes good and helps rehydrate me. Also, there is a non-profit organization called Ride-On that is slowly growing their network to provide a service that will pick you up at the bar and drive you and your car home for $10.00. Since it's a non-profit, sponsorship by different establishments plus fund raising is their sole support at the moment. I agree with those who feel that we need more of a cultural shift in order to really make a difference with this. Look what's happened with smoking. It took awhile but it did change.
-
What legal responsiblity do bars and nightclubs have to abide by not over serving alcohol to customers or knowing a customer is leaving drunk?
My brother-in-law was killed by a drunk driver, but the driver wasn't arrested until days later. So, he couldn't be charged with driving drunk. However, the driver was seen at several bars just prior to killing my brother-in-law. Yet, the bartenders were tight-lipped about their involvement.
-
My son said dad if you want me to not do drugs and drink. Its not good to tell us about them it creates curiosity. Tell me about Jesus.... (9years old)
-
So ignoring things makes them go away?
-
Josh, the DA from Clatsop County, just criticized Arwen Bird's position against punishment by saying that too many people have to live with consequences of DUI "for ever." Did he even listen to Arwen Bird? She's paralyzed as a result of a DUI crash - someone else's choice - and you only get one body in each lifetime, so I'm pretty sure she'll be living with that reality, "for ever," as well. His comment is just a reflection of the power of anger and vengence, and the way that anger and vengence lead to a punishment that ignores the realities of survivors - -
-
The injury of anyone by a drunk driver is a terrible thing. But this isn't exactly about responsibility as such, it is more about how to stop it happening. No one has said how you can be responsible for something, in the way we generally think of responsibility, if you cannot possibly be thinking clearly at the time you get into the car to drive it. If you are too drunk to drive properly, then you must also be too drunk to know any better? I suppose we don't need to stop people from getting into cars and driving drunk we need to stop them from getting drunk in the first place. But how could we ever do that?
Much of the world drinks, even much of the intelligent world drinks---it is considered normal. So it isn't much of a surprise that when man invented the automobile the capabilities or scaling up, turned a drunk man into a powerful weapon of mass destruction.
I think the whole thing is an ethical mess that I can't figure out, because if you go by what I wonder about above, then you come out with Alcoholism being a disease, and people should be treated as if they have a disease, but this creates the terrible problem of: what about people who aren't alcoholics but as a one-off get into a car drunk and kill someone. Are they more responsible because they don't have the disease of alcoholism? But the alcoholic is less responsible because they have a full fledged disease? That is why I think this must not be about responsibility or punishment as such, but more about preventative solutions to stop it happening.
-
If someone commits a crime under the influence of alcohol, shouldn't they lose their 'right' to purchase or receive alcohol? How to enforce? Perhaps with an 'alcohol endorsement' on your driver's license.
-
That is an interesting idea, a license to use a recreational drug. I can imagine having to take classes before getting a license to use, in which all aspects of that use are studied, the law, appropriate amounts to use, the effects, the dangers, etc.
-
the example you are using , did this guy graduate kindergarten with a barely passing grade?
Come on - what he did was stupid - this show might more constructively challenge notions about the need for an intelligence test in order to be licensed to do many things, more than just surgery or structural engineer - not just a skills test, but intelligence -
this particular guy has no real sense of responsibility - that indicates an immature intelligence at best
there are so many reasons to argue against his whining, and so many reason s to argue for a state's initially forgiving attitude to first time action that leads to crime - that is, action taken in gross social or personal irresponsibility with a consequence quite severe -
this guy is another whiner - there are folks who shouldn't be allowed to do anything until they stop whining - if one has something to complain about, it is best to do it forthrightly, not sneaking around the sympathies of mommy's apron or making tiresome mewling noises
However, this does assume there is a well formed adult presence and example to be seen and learned from
If over-imbibing is a sickness, a malady, an affliction: then that state indicates there are some certain things those people who have that should not do, and if they continue to do those things, to the danger of self or those around, then s/he must be restrained from that behavior until they can restrain themselves- please continue to next comment
-
if a reliable study were done, i believe it would indicate strongly that those of lower intellectual development are those who cause most physical violence and/or damage while involved in social inebriation, drunkenness
-rather than a few drinks that lighten the load of a long day, they spill the load - were i to make a better metaphor et c of it -
we are looking at a problem and not dissociating certain elements from the heap of a problem,
in other words, you have discussed a compound problem and you were questioning it as if it were cut all from one cloth; disobedience and punishment, which as it turns out, is a strong enhancement to those bad habits among those who cannot/do not learn to think it out beforehand more often eventually
specific to alcohol/intoxicants-
personal chemistry, to the extent at least that it can be shown and proved,
mental-capacity - easy to push a small/underdeveloped mind off balance, what is a test to some minds is a mortal blow to others
12-step is most effective on those who are basically superstitious, and this comes either from an incapacity for comprehending the extent of knowledge, or a lack of will to do the same
please continue reading to next post
-
we have an age of majority: with a fair system of "state of intellectual majority", a state that most can attain, some with more effort than others, but fair mental effort- something like this it seems to me is a more aware approach to the variety of problems that this issue really brings up.
Certainly my 'suggestions' bring up a host of civil rights questions - as it should, and it will be the intelligent who are capable of addressing these problems most fairly (and as certainly, only if they themselves are intelligent enough to be fair to the larger society and not only themselves and/or their partisans)
-
Judge Marcus is exactly correct. Please view his post and think about how we as voters can positively contribute to the safety of our communities by advocating for and approving funding for treatment courts as well as policies that promote individualized consideration of cases. Treatment courts are the way forward in criminal justice.
One-size-fits-all prosecution and sentencing schemes seem efficient but are, in fact, a waste of time and resources. Talking tough is vastly different from being effective.
Thank you for the post Judge Marcus.
-
I am now listening to your Think Out Loud show on Drunk Driving. Here are a few opinions I have about this subject matter:
* People handle alcohol differently. Some people have the switch that goes off at any given moment. Some people can drink all night and never seem drunk. I think there should there be different punishment judged on the basis of their coherency and reason for being pulled over.
* I think that cops, in my experience generally have an abuse of power and are always seeking for any reason to target you for fault. If you have had a drink and you are still under the legal alcohol limit but very close, they still will try to get anything out of you to get you into trouble. I think cops should be trained to be more reasonable in their convicitions.
* I also am glad for our punishment laws for those offenders who deserve them.
* Society needs to come up with better solutions for the matter such as providing more public transport, making more bike only lanes, and having more free services available for drunk driving transport.
-
I think that treatment and punishment are very important part of preventing DUII's but I think that we should also provide an alterative other than a 60-100 dollar cab ride. Why can we not have the public transit run the main bus and max lines? Most main lines run until midnight. We could just extend until 2:45 AM. Think about how many lives we could save, no matter the cost. When I have traveled in Europe public transit was an option at all hours. We cannot stop people from driving drunk just with the treatment and punishment. We must provide and alterative along with punishment and treatment.
-
Comments are now closed.
This is a topic that hits home; I've lost four friends to drunk drivers, most recently two musicians in the Eugene Symphony. One of my closest friends recently got her 1st official DUII; unbelievably she talked her way out of her first. Also, I've spent time in 12-step meetings and have heard many a person required to attend meetings absolutely not care about what they potentially might have done. These folks in addition to my friend are focused one their inconvenience, not what might have happened. And I can't convince them otherwise. It's true, people are going to do what they do without thinking of the consequences until sadly they feel the impact of their actions. I doubt Jeremy would have changed his life around with a stiffer 1st time penalty. It's like smoking; collectively we KNOW it's wrong and potentially dangerous to others, it's nothing new. Honestly I'm not sure what the solution is other than cars that recognize the driver who then must breathe into a tube to test alcohol level in order to run. We'd all have to do it, and it would have to recognize cheaters. Would we be willing to do that? signed, brentwood darlington.