Drying out drunk drivers
Arnold "Jay" Jackson III and Tawanda L. Jackson were killed by a drunk driver on Illinois Route 255. Dawn Majors | Post-Dispatch
The St. Louis community was rocked by two shockingly similar car crashes last month. The crashes killed five people, destroyed two families and were caused by drunk drivers with multiple prior arrests and convictions for alcohol-related offenses.
Time after time, Newton Keene of Spanish Lake and Donald Canterbury of Granite City had skated from punishment or other serious intervention. Time and again they were returned to the road until others paid the price for their weaknesses — and the weaknesses of the system that let them get away with it.
The community rightfully is outraged. Why does this sort of thing keep happening?
The answers are complex and have a lot to do with imbalances in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors trying to cope with complicated cases of violent street crime, narcotics sales and child abuse usually don’t give top priority to traffic offenses, even drunken-driving cases that don’t involve injury or death.
People charged with such offenses, on the other hand, have a lot to lose. They hire top defense lawyers.They are more than willing to pay steep fines to keep a conviction off the books and keep their licenses.
What’s more, prosecutors and judges may not be fully aware of the dangers a driver poses. Prior arrests and convictions don’t always appear in criminal databases. Records systems in traffic cases differ from state to state and may not be fully centralized or computerized even within a state.
Early warning signs of drunken-driving tragedies thus can fall between the cracks — through miscues, misinformation, missed opportunities, and misplaced leniency.
Prosecutors say that even when courts throw the book at offenders, sending them to jail or prison, as soon as they get out, they’re right back in the bars and taverns and right back behind the wheel, drivers licenses or not.
There is a better way. Some courts in Missouri have created special DWI courts. They are based on the premise that routine punishment, even serious jail time, does little to keep repeat drunken drivers off the road. Protecting the public requires that these cases be treated differently.
If you drive drunk and wind up in a DWI court, you get mandatory, long-term, closely supervised treatment for alcoholism or other substance addiction.
DWI courts aren’t “diversion” programs. They’re not a vehicle for avoiding a criminal conviction or jail time. Rather, they are part of the criminal sentence handed down by a court after the conviction of a repeat offender.
Missouri has a model DWI court in Greene County, one of just four that serve as national training centers. Commissioner Peggy Davis, who administers the program, says offenders must complete a minimum of 18 months of state-sponsored treatment for alcoholism or substance abuse, during which the court constantly stays involved.
Offenders are supervised by two full-time probation officers. Offenders must appear in court at least once a week for the first three months of their sentence. They are subjected to random urine tests — as often as three times a week. Failure to comply means a minimum of 24 hours in jail.
A $2,000 fine is part of the program, except it’s called a “fee,” and it’s plowed back into the program to pay for the services of a social worker.
In St. Charles County, Prosecutor Jack Banas says there’s been very low recidivism among the approximately 300 drivers who have gone through the DWI court there. Jail time, he says, often proves to be an “empty promise” because it doesn’t treat the underlying problem.
It’s time for all the judicial circuits in Missouri and Illinois to try this approach. Judges, prosecutors, state bar associations and state lawmakers should be held accountable for making it happen. Chronic drunk drivers are a threat to public safety, driven by a disease that can be broken only by long-term treatment and tough judicial oversight.
For the most part, this sounds like a good idea. But here’s the real problem: So long as municipal prosecutors can bargain away a DUI charge in exchange for a hefty fine, those who can afford it will be able to avoid the inconvenience of long-term supervised sobriety.
A friend of mine did a year in jail for DUI’s. After he got out, he promptly got another one but the jails were so crowded, he got off with five months. Silly but true and it’s even more proof that jail isn’t the answer. I’d agree with your scenario more if it included breathilizers on ignitions, ankle bracelets with GPS locaters and substance sensors along with a computerized center to keep tabs. The only part I don’t agree with is the probation officer part where they pop into your house in the middle of the night to see if somebody was drinking. That’s pure fascism and totally unacceptable. Commiting one crime to prevent another is stupid.
Although I agree with the merits of applying the practices of the DWI court in Greene County, I am unable to connect the dots to the specific cases of Mr. Keene and Mr. Canterbury. You state in the first paragraph that both men had “multiple prior arrests and convictions for alcohol-related offenses,” the question then becomes “Why did authorities fail to either apply proper procedure, or maintain (follow up) proper procedure?” This appears to be the secret to Greene County’s success. Later, you state, “They hire top defense lawyers.They are more than willing to pay steep fines to keep a conviction off the books and keep their licenses.” This is not “Lets Make A Deal.” I don’t care if they’re willing to rotate my tires or move my weight set, all convictions should be permanently and accurately recorded. We do not allow defendants to pay a steep fine to avoid a murder conviction, why do we allow it for this? Your editorial continues, “Prosecutors say that even when courts throw the book at offenders, sending them to jail or prison, as soon as they get out, they’re right back in the bars and taverns and right back behind the wheel, drivers licenses or not.” If that is the case, don’t let them out… ever. This may seem harsh to some, however fatal car crashes are likewise equally harsh.
I personally feel that people should be free to enjoy any beverage, alcoholic or not, before or even while they are driving. However, the consequences for driving impaired, as a result of alcohol, senility, medication, or distraction, should be severe and automatic. Driving is not a right, but expecting a modicum of safety while driving is a right. And like all rights, it needs to be zealously protected. Mr. Keene and Mr. Canterbury are at fault for the accidents and the fatalities they caused. However, the justice system is equally at fault for creating an environment that allowed these tragedies to take place.
The commander’s argument rests on a utter fallacy: that a stiff enough penalty will prompt the would-be offenders to “think twice.”
Think TWICE? C’mon.
You’re lucky if they think ONCE.
And how likely is that in a car, after the container is open?
If the goal is public safety, the proper focus is on prevention. And that means NO open containers in motor vehicles.
The Greene county system sounds good. It might be interesting to look at the financial side of it. Is it cheaper to do all these things (forced rehab, monitoring, etc) than lengthy jail time? If jail is cheaper, you can bet that’s what will happen in most places.
Unfortunately, most of our drug/alcohol laws lack a serious understanding of the nature of addiction, and what works to stop it. As has been pointed out, throwing someone in jail to “dry out” doesn’t accomplish a darned thing for the long term. It would be interesting to see what the long term stats of the Greene County program might be say in 5 or 10 years.
I logged in to express thanks to the P-D Editorial Board for this excellent commentary today. I have been researching the Keene case, which is incredibly discouraging, but I hadn’t heard of the model DWI court in Greene County you described. So that gave me a little hope.
Your closing paragraph talks about holding judges, prosecutors and state officials accountable. I agree, but who’s going to do that? I’d encourage everyone commenting here, or even just reading this, to do something.
You hold people accountable by calling them out. If we don’t, they won’t.
Jim Van Hook, Dorsey, IL.
Judges and Prosecutors don’t get any money when they send a driver to jail. If they give him a big fine they make all the money. Which is why they don’t really want to know the drunk drivers history. That way when the drunk driver goes back out and kills someone they can claim they didn’t know.
it’s all about the money. all this monitering is done by contracters. breathalizers, ankle bracelets. all this is a charge per week or month. it’s never across the board, the rich get off. granted, the stupid need to be hammered. how, i don’t know.