Despite the eminent risk of drunk driving, more and more Americans are getting DUI’s every year. In fact, even here in San Diego, during the Holiday season there were a recorded 510 DUI’s alone last year. These trends are very disturbing considering that 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater) last year. These deaths constitute 31.6 percent of the 37,261 total traffic fatalities in 2008 (NHTSA, 2009). In California alone there were over 200,000 DUI’s in 2008, over a thousand of which resulted in fatalities (CenturyCouncil.org).
Although California is going against the trend of the United States in that its number of drunk driving incidents per year is declining, the numbers are indicative of a serious problem that needs to be solved. Repeat offenders are also a huge problem in facing the problem of DUI’s. In fact, in California alone last year there were over 30,000 second time offender DUI convictions and over 10,000 third and fourth time offender convictions (California DUI factsheet). With such a high incidence of drunk driving cases and an alarming number of repeat offenders it is clear that the current judicial system of dealing with drunk drivers is failing. For this reason the idea of alternative sentencing is very relevant, especially when it comes to dealing with multiple DUI offenders.
Alternative sentencing is a type of sentencing designed to alleviate the problem of prison overcrowding and to provide a different way of monitoring convicted felons during a period of punishment. Far too often than not in DUI convictions there is little middle ground in the type of sentencing a conviction could lead too. Offenders are either incarcerated or they are given routine probation, which sometimes equates with perfunctory supervision. Because seriousness of crime does not fall into two neat compartments, sentencing often falls in one direction or another. It is either too harsh, putting behind bars people whose crimes and criminality do not warrant it, or too lenient, giving routine probation to people whose crimes and criminality deserve stronger punishment or supervision.
These realities have encouraged states to consider sentencing alternatives (or “intermediate sanctions”) that punish but do not involve incarceration. Alternative sentencing like these can play a vital role in helping the recovery of DUI felons. Furthermore, many prisons and some local jails are overcrowded, and resources are constrained. Some advocates argue that sentencing alternatives can alleviate prison and jail crowding at less cost than expanding incarceration capacity and without jeopardizing public safety. Prisons are crowded, partly because in states such as California everyone from first-time welfare cheats to repeat DUI offenders are sent to prison. National statistics show that about half the offenders admitted to prison each year are there for property or public order offenses, not violent crimes (Beck). While nonviolent offenses must be taken seriously, it is not obvious that a prison term is necessary. It is clear that through sentencing alternatives such as SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring) devices and rehabilitation centers such as the La Jolla Alcoholism Recovery and Treatment Center for Sober Living here in San Diego that we can help alleviate the problem of drunk driving and repeat offenders.
Another form of sentencing alternative for repeat drunk driving offenders that many states are beginning to utilize is SCRAM. SCRAM is the first alcohol testing system to utilize the science of Transdermal Alcohol Testing in order to determine a person’s blood alcohol content. SCRAM measures the amount of alcohol that migrates through the skin, a predictable result of alcohol consumption, in order to determine a subject’s BAC. The nature of trandermal testing is passive, so subjects don’t know when testing is scheduled to occur of how often they will be tested each day. Transdermal testing eliminates the need for supervision at the time of testing or travel to a testing center. Subjects maintain normal daily routines and monitoring agencies can ensure that subjects aren’t manipulating testing schedules or ignoring a request for testing. Although many people might argue that such devices are unconstitutional, I am sure that many drunk-driving offenders would take this option as opposed to jail time.
Furthermore, among repeat offenders there is a very high incidence of mental illness or drug addiction which further lends itself to the idea that repeat offenders should be given the option of alternative sentencing including rehabilitation through programs like that offered in La Jolla. A recent study has shown that alcohol may not be the only problem for repeat drunk drivers. More than half of DUI offenders also suffer from at least one mental illness in addition to a drug or alcohol-use disorder. The study found almost 60 percent of those with two or more DUI convictions reported experiencing major depression, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder or posttraumatic stress disorder over their lifetime.
The study consisted of people convicted of at least two DUI offenses in the past 10 years, and 40 percent had three or more DUI arrests. The majority of both men and women reported having at least one psychiatric disorder, as well as alcohol- or drug-abuse or dependence. Women had higher rates of depression than men and were more likely to suffer PTSD.
“People who deal with drug and alcohol abusers need to understand there are often other disorders that need to be dealt with as well,” said Sandra Lapham, M.D., M.P.H., principal investigator of the study. “That’s why we need to screen repeat offenders for multiple disorders. The offender should be viewed as a unique person with a unique set of issues. If they include psychiatric problems, these should be treated along with drug and alcohol issues.”
Lapham is director of the PIRE Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She says the data suggests DUI evaluations by the courts and treatment programs should include psychiatric screening and assessments.
The study participants were part of a three-year program called Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants Intensive Supervision Program (DISP) developed by Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon. The volunteer program requires intensive probation; close monitoring and built-in punishments and rewards, in exchange for reduced jail time.
“The results of this study should encourage the courts to develop a more comprehensive approach to dealing with the hard-to-treat drinking driver,” says Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Eric J. Bloch.
“Assessing the mental health of a DUI offender will help us choose the program that will reduce the chance of a re-offense.” It is very clear that far too often the intentions of drunk driving offenders are judged only on the surface and that mental illness and addiction often go overlooked regarding repeat offenders. For this reason not only does alternative sentencing curb jail time and the costs of incarceration, but its programs that offer rehabilitation provide a far more comprehensive approach to solving people problems in conjunction with drunk driving.