I read the headline as was prepared to be outraged at the disproportionate sentence. Then I read the article. Locking him up for twenty-five years will save lives - not least of all his own. (Though why the hell he couldn't just stay at home and quietly drink himself to death without harming anybody else....)
Yeah. I can think of several alternatives that are probably better - and UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS HELL, WITH GOOD REASON. Because they fail completely at the general case of "someone other than this guy"
I dunno, "treat the addiction that is the source of this problem" seems like a viable route to at least attempt. I see no mention of attempts at rehab.
Unfortunately the court can't sentence you to mandatory rehab. They *can* suspend your sentence conditionally, with the condition being that you attend rehab, but because this is conviction #8 he's run afoul of mandatory sentencing laws.
If guilty, he MUST be incarcerated. If incarcerated, it MUST be jail, because the court can't incarcerate you in a rehab facility.
If he's declared not guilty for reasons of insanity, to be detained at Her Majesties Leisure (or the local Queen-less equivalent), he in fact can be "incarcerated" with psychological care. Which I think actually might be more appropriate at this point - I'm not sure outpatient "rehab" is enough.
One would think that, even in the "great" state of Texas there'd have been some sort of addiction counselling and rehabilitation work done after at least one of the other 7 arrests. If so, I think after offense #8 we're allowed to conclude that it just ain't gonna work.
-- Steve isn't usually a fan of big jail terms, but sometimes they really are the only vaguely-workable solution to an ugly and dangerous problem.
Usually after your 3rd, there's the key breathalyzer and meetings you have to attend as part of your probation. This is odd that it's gone on so long. I think that county is about to get an eye aimed at them when this news spreads.
First/second offenses are misdemeanors and you have to attend DWI Education class to get your driver license back. Third offense is a felony and you have to attend DWI Intervention class to get your driver license back. Jail and fines and rehab are optional. Drug charges can also result in driver license suspension and you have to take the drug offense education program class to get your license back. Minors in possession of alcohol also get to take a class to get their licenses back.
Chances are this guy has taken all the classes (unless some of the charges were driving on a suspended license!). 8 DWI = he is not interested in/capable of rehabilitation or being sober. I think it's a crazy sentence, but it might actually be the best thing in this instance.
ETA: And also, Comal County are hardasses when it comes to law-n-order.
It could be that long-term alcoholism has wrecked his brain to the extent that he now no longer has any concept of consequences; damage to some areas of the brain can do that. In which case, he simply cannot hold the idea of "If I drink too much, bad things will happen". That could be why the rehab and the classes didn't work. If so, locking him up is the only (humane) solution.
I'm not worrying about therapy, I'm worried that he was capable of drinking something on the order of 8.5l of beer, getting a BAL of "keep away from open flames", and still being able to walk and talk, let alone put a key into the ignition of a car.
It's not the therapy which is going to be the problem, it's going to be drying him out without killing him outright.
this got me thinking of testing whether this was true. Sadly wikipedia has informed me that BAL is a direct percentage, so .44 means .44% ethanol. which I suppose makes sense if I'd have thought about it for more than a second. Sadly I'm pretty sure that won't catch fire.
Though now I'm considering doing the experiment where I try to light 10%, 20%, etc up to 80% ethanol (which I know burns) to see where the cutoff is. Which leads me to consider whether it would be better to attempt that today, when fewer people are likely to be in lab, or next week some time, when there would probably be someone around to put me out if I caught myself on fire. hmmmm. You know, I think I saw a box of those tiny beakers in the supply cabinet too....
If I recall correctly, it's about 100 proof (which is 50% alcohol). The number varies a little based on temperature of the beverage and how long you've let it sit, generating a little cloud of alcohol fumes above it.
Considering that the dumbass in question didn't learn to stop drinking and driving at any point before the previous seven DWI convictions, I daresay that suspending his license wouldn't have stopped him either.
you're probably right, but i wonder if not having a license or a car might've had some impact before it got to this... then again, drunks are hazards to themselves and others in lots of ways besides cars. just seems like a few of the more basic steps could've been taken.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-22 09:23 pm (UTC)If you cut him, he would have bled beer.
Or, to put it another way, he would fit right in in the Northern Territory.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-22 09:45 pm (UTC)Locking him up for twenty-five years will save lives - not least of all his own. (Though why the hell he couldn't just stay at home and quietly drink himself to death without harming anybody else....)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-22 09:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-22 10:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-22 11:15 pm (UTC)If guilty, he MUST be incarcerated. If incarcerated, it MUST be jail, because the court can't incarcerate you in a rehab facility.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 05:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-22 11:17 pm (UTC)-- Steve isn't usually a fan of big jail terms, but sometimes they really are the only vaguely-workable solution to an ugly and dangerous problem.
There is
Date: 2012-11-23 12:07 am (UTC)This is odd that it's gone on so long. I think that county is about to get an eye aimed at them when this news spreads.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 12:33 am (UTC)First/second offenses are misdemeanors and you have to attend DWI Education class to get your driver license back. Third offense is a felony and you have to attend DWI Intervention class to get your driver license back. Jail and fines and rehab are optional. Drug charges can also result in driver license suspension and you have to take the drug offense education program class to get your license back. Minors in possession of alcohol also get to take a class to get their licenses back.
Chances are this guy has taken all the classes (unless some of the charges were driving on a suspended license!). 8 DWI = he is not interested in/capable of rehabilitation or being sober. I think it's a crazy sentence, but it might actually be the best thing in this instance.
ETA: And also, Comal County are hardasses when it comes to law-n-order.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 01:06 pm (UTC)If so, locking him up is the only (humane) solution.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 12:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 12:59 am (UTC)It's not the therapy which is going to be the problem, it's going to be drying him out without killing him outright.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 04:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 02:37 pm (UTC)this got me thinking of testing whether this was true. Sadly wikipedia has informed me that BAL is a direct percentage, so .44 means .44% ethanol. which I suppose makes sense if I'd have thought about it for more than a second. Sadly I'm pretty sure that won't catch fire.
Though now I'm considering doing the experiment where I try to light 10%, 20%, etc up to 80% ethanol (which I know burns) to see where the cutoff is. Which leads me to consider whether it would be better to attempt that today, when fewer people are likely to be in lab, or next week some time, when there would probably be someone around to put me out if I caught myself on fire. hmmmm. You know, I think I saw a box of those tiny beakers in the supply cabinet too....
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 05:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 06:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-24 12:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-25 04:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-26 03:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 05:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-23 03:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-24 12:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-25 04:19 am (UTC)