What's Better? Treatment? Or Time?

In today's Houston Chronicle, there's an article about drunk driving being called a "pandemic" by some law enforcement officials. Harris County, TX leads the nation's most populous counties in DWIs, according to the information provided. The reason for so many DWIs? One of the main problems I've always pointed at: we live in America. I.E., a huge country, lots of people, lots of land, little public transportation. Plus, what little public transportation there is is concentrated in the major cities with more population per square mile. NYC? Chicago? Boston? San Fran? Public transportation there isn't nearly the problem as it is in places like Harris County, Texas. And anyone who DOES live where public transportation is readily available knows that, in order to save money, public transportation staggers the routes during non-peak hours...like at 2 a.m. when the bars close down. When someone has been drinking and their judgment is impaired (heck, even when judgment is NOT impaired), are people likely to wait 45 minutes at a bus stop, only to get on public transportation? Not so much-many people will take the risk of a crash or a DUI.

Harris County is trying a new approach for first time offenders: treatment instead of time. Rather than throwing the book at the impaired driver, Harris County is requiring convicted drunk drivers to attend classes on alcohol and the effects on the human body AND society. Will this lower DWIs? IIs it a better course of action than giving time to a DWI offender? Good question.

At Missouri State, my criminal justice classes required us to tour the medium security prison in Fordland, MO. This prison has a 40% "rate of return" when the other prisons in the state average 80% (I'm fudging the numbers a bit, but it's close) Why is Fordland so much more successful? Simple: every prisoner there is incarcerated due to his addiction. Yes, maybe the prisoner is in for armed robbery, but he knocked off the liquor store to get money for his crack addiction. So, Fordland makes 12 step programs mandatory with the idea that if the addiction is treated, the prisoner will be less likely to re-commit a crime. Is it working? The stats speak for themselves.

Will Harris County be successful in offering treatment instead of time? This is the $100 million question. I'd love to see those with serious alcohol issues get treatment. Compassion for addicts just seems sensible. Yet, when the addict kills someone due to driving drunk, do we take co passion? Or do we throw the book at him?

Philosophically, is there a difference between the drunk driver who lucks out and gets home safe, or the drunk who gets a DWI, or the drunk that rams his car into an innocent and kills the other person? The same crime has such a wide possibility of different outcomes.

Where does the opinion of your humble blogger fall? Treatment and compassion for first time, non-violent offenders, including ignition locks for a designated number of years. However, if the offender kills or injures someone else, we have to treat that crime like it's (gasp!) a crime-something that seems unpopular amongst many in the public. The usual argument being that DWI is not a malicious crime...but try telling that to anyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver.

These topics can be debated until the cows come home. Yet, you know what was really a pleasant surprise? The comments in the Chronicle from readers. Every comment I read was supportive of being tough on DWI. It seems the tide is starting to change and the public is becoming more and more aware of just how dangerous DWI is. Will we ever totally accomplish this goal of having every driver on the road be sober and alert? Dunno-technology holds the key, but for now, just seeing a proactive approach on the part of government and attitudes of the public is a step in the right direction.