Drinking While On Probation: What's the Big Deal?

[rageaholic]

I know someone who has gotten in a little bit of trouble with the law (DUI) and they have been on probation (no it's not me).  One of the conditions are that they have random testings for drugs alcohol to see if they were using.  Well, they failed one of their alcohol tests and are due back in court.  Knowing the judge (who from what I've heard, is a real asshole), he's probably going to jail for this. 

And when I stop to think about it, why?  I understand being punished for drunk driving.  Drunk driving is stupid, dangerous, and puts others at risk.  I'm not going to defend it such a thing.  But what I don't understand is being punished for just drinking, something that only affects the user.  Yeah, I know, the government feels they have the right to tell us what we can and can't put into our bodies (War on drugs aka the biggest waste of money ever), but even from that standpoint, drinking is still legal under most circumstances.  It's driving while drunk that's a big no no.  This person already lost their license as punishment, so why the need to control their drinking?  And how the hell does threatening to put them in jail help the person? 

[Ironchew]

You answered your own question. We are a nation that thinks up increasingly harsh punishments for using illicit substances that are way less harmful than alcohol, after all.

My guess is there's an incentive for the private prison industry to incarcerate as many people as possible.

[niam2023]

Because he has proven he cannot be trusted.

He has already endangered numerous lives, including his own, while driving drunk. There are numerous extremely bloody cases of DUI, including one right in my home town where said driver went flying through the windshield and ended up mangled so horribly they had to cover him with a blanket of some sort, and one of the cops was vomiting.

A drunk person who has established that with a car they are a danger to themselves and others cannot be allowed to drink further, because soon enough, they will find other ways to be a danger to themselves and others. As we see on America's Dumbest "X Y or Z", cars are entirely unnecessary for drunks to endanger themselves and others. There are many other ways for that to happen.

Thusly, a person who has endangered themselves and others while on a substance cannot be allowed to partake in said substance, given they have proved to the law that they are unable to be trusted while on it. I am not willing to allow someone the liberty of using a substance if they have proven already that they are unstable and unable to be trusted while on it, and thus a possible danger to the community around them.

[Yla]

If he had been on probation for any other crime, I'd agree completely (with the OP).

But for a DUI? I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable that as part of a probation, one demands that he not only stays on this side of the line, but keeps 1m distance from it, too.

[chitoryu12]

Because he has proven he cannot be trusted.

He has already endangered numerous lives, including his own, while driving drunk. There are numerous extremely bloody cases of DUI, including one right in my home town where said driver went flying through the windshield and ended up mangled so horribly they had to cover him with a blanket of some sort, and one of the cops was vomiting.

A drunk person who has established that with a car they are a danger to themselves and others cannot be allowed to drink further, because soon enough, they will find other ways to be a danger to themselves and others. As we see on America's Dumbest "X Y or Z", cars are entirely unnecessary for drunks to endanger themselves and others. There are many other ways for that to happen.

Thusly, a person who has endangered themselves and others while on a substance cannot be allowed to partake in said substance, given they have proved to the law that they are unable to be trusted while on it. I am not willing to allow someone the liberty of using a substance if they have proven already that they are unstable and unable to be trusted while on it, and thus a possible danger to the community around them.

Pretty much this. Not unlike banning someone who's been committed of a firearms-related crime from being allowed to own guns.

[rageaholic]

Because he has proven he cannot be trusted.

He has already endangered numerous lives, including his own, while driving drunk. There are numerous extremely bloody cases of DUI, including one right in my home town where said driver went flying through the windshield and ended up mangled so horribly they had to cover him with a blanket of some sort, and one of the cops was vomiting.

A drunk person who has established that with a car they are a danger to themselves and others cannot be allowed to drink further, because soon enough, they will find other ways to be a danger to themselves and others. As we see on America's Dumbest "X Y or Z", cars are entirely unnecessary for drunks to endanger themselves and others. There are many other ways for that to happen.

Thusly, a person who has endangered themselves and others while on a substance cannot be allowed to partake in said substance, given they have proved to the law that they are unable to be trusted while on it. I am not willing to allow someone the liberty of using a substance if they have proven already that they are unstable and unable to be trusted while on it, and thus a possible danger to the community around them.

Pretty much this. Not unlike banning someone who's been committed of a firearms-related crime from being allowed to own guns.

That makes sense, though I still think just banning them from driving would suffice. 

[chitoryu12]

Because he has proven he cannot be trusted.

He has already endangered numerous lives, including his own, while driving drunk. There are numerous extremely bloody cases of DUI, including one right in my home town where said driver went flying through the windshield and ended up mangled so horribly they had to cover him with a blanket of some sort, and one of the cops was vomiting.

A drunk person who has established that with a car they are a danger to themselves and others cannot be allowed to drink further, because soon enough, they will find other ways to be a danger to themselves and others. As we see on America's Dumbest "X Y or Z", cars are entirely unnecessary for drunks to endanger themselves and others. There are many other ways for that to happen.

Thusly, a person who has endangered themselves and others while on a substance cannot be allowed to partake in said substance, given they have proved to the law that they are unable to be trusted while on it. I am not willing to allow someone the liberty of using a substance if they have proven already that they are unstable and unable to be trusted while on it, and thus a possible danger to the community around them.

Pretty much this. Not unlike banning someone who's been committed of a firearms-related crime from being allowed to own guns.

That makes sense, though I still think just banning them from driving would suffice.

There's a very, very small amount of places in the world where that wouldn't be essentially sentencing the person to homelessness and poverty. Reliable, effective, easily accessible mass transit with a decent amount of stops is actually the exception in the world rather than the rule, and is pretty much entirely exclusive to large urban environments like Los Angeles, Tokyo, and New York City. In a lot of areas, especially the entire state of Florida, having a vehicle is vital to being able to get anywhere in a respectable amount of time.

To give a personal example, I live in a middle-class area in the Orlando urban sprawl. The bus system is infamously slow, to the point where a 15-20 minute car trip can take 2 hours by bus and include a transfer halfway through. Even if I took the bus, the nearest station (as well as the nearest gas station/convenience store) is a mile away from my house down a featureless road, nothing but suburb entrances, trees, and suburb walls lining the sidewalk. Many suburbs sprawl out so much that you need to travel 4 miles simply to get to a commercial zone.

And this isn't some random podunk town off in Idaho, and it's not a rural area. It's just regular urban sprawl and suburbs on the edge of a major city. Even within the "official" Orlando area, mass transit is very small and only efficient in the immediate downtown area. Florida was simply designed for cars, with walking and bicycles being an alternative to owning a car or a method for underage children to get around.

Banning someone from driving for a DUI would make their lives almost unreasonably difficult, and at a minimum would likely cause them to lose their job due to difficulties showing up to work on time.

[The Illusive Man]

And when I stop to think about it, why?  I understand being punished for drunk driving.  Drunk driving is stupid, dangerous, and puts others at risk.  I'm not going to defend it such a thing.  But what I don't understand is being punished for just drinking, something that only affects the user.  Yeah, I know, the government feels they have the right to tell us what we can and can't put into our bodies (War on drugs aka the biggest waste of money ever), but even from that standpoint, drinking is still legal under most circumstances.  It's driving while drunk that's a big no no.  This person already lost their license as punishment, so why the need to control their drinking?  And how the hell does threatening to put them in jail help the person?

This entire second paragraph literally ignores the addictive nature of addictive substances. The attempt to control the drinking behavior is a stop-gap measure because addictive substances destroy a person’s ability to function and cognate. Effectively, a vehicle is considered a weapon. A person unable to control his or her vehicle poses a persistent and unique danger to self and others.

[QueenofHearts]

And when I stop to think about it, why?  I understand being punished for drunk driving.  Drunk driving is stupid, dangerous, and puts others at risk.  I'm not going to defend it such a thing.  But what I don't understand is being punished for just drinking, something that only affects the user.  Yeah, I know, the government feels they have the right to tell us what we can and can't put into our bodies (War on drugs aka the biggest waste of money ever), but even from that standpoint, drinking is still legal under most circumstances.  It's driving while drunk that's a big no no.  This person already lost their license as punishment, so why the need to control their drinking?  And how the hell does threatening to put them in jail help the person?

This entire second paragraph literally ignores the addictive nature of addictive substances. The attempt to control the drinking behavior is a stop-gap measure because addictive substances destroy a person’s ability to function and cognate. Effectively, a vehicle is considered a weapon. A person unable to control his or her vehicle poses a persistent and unique danger to self and others.

As someone who has worked through alcohol dependency, I agree with the nature of the law. It makes no sense to take someone who drives under the influence and say, "we're going to punish you, but allow you to continue drinking which got you into this situation."

Not to mention, the real problem with criminal law is that politicians craft it and they have different values. Some will focus more on the law as serving utility principles, some want harsher punishments, and others will want a rehabilitative goal in mind. When you have a hodgepodge of values coalescing in the most disjointed fashion, you have these problems.

The purpose of DUI laws is to reduce DUI. Some see DUI as an illness, an extension from alcoholism and seek a cure. This is the cause for the alcohol abstinence principles. Others see DUI as a voluntary action and seek punishment in the form of jail time. There is no underlying philosophy to our laws, but a combination of values which at times don't meet up well. (And by "problems" and "don't meet up well" I mean purely on an person-by-person basis).

[mellenORL]

Typically, a first time DUI offender has actually driven drunk many, many times and simply lucked out. The person knows they are driving drunk, but think they "can handle it". Part of the ego inflation that chronic alcohol consumption engenders over time, for some, or the fatalism of depressive alcohol abusers ("If I wreck and die, good riddance").

In both scenarios, consideration for others is near to zero. Even with a ban on driving, and impounding their car, if they continue to drink, they continue to have skewed thinking from the brain chemistry problems of alcohol abuse. I've known 2 people over the years who drove their spouses car drunk while their license was suspended after a DUI conviction and driver re-education programs.

I would actually support that DUI offenders, if evaluated to have a chronic drinking problem, be put on mandatory Antabuse (disulfiram) injections as a condition to keep their licenses.