GlassPrisoner

I remember part of the terms of my probation being "you are not to consume any alcohol". The DUI school would randomly test, too.

That said, I can't pretend to know the judges motives. I don't even know what motivates me. I don't really see any message there saying it's OK to relapse. I know relapse doesn't have to be a part of recovery, and that's enough for me. Mostly, what the Judge said to that guy is none of my business

GreenTea

I have to agree with you there...

However, if I were to speculate, it would probably be along the following lines...

The judge probably sees a seemingly never-ending parade of people who have gotten into trouble because of their alcohol use. Probably 90% (or more) of these people simply aren't interested in altering their use habits or in changing their lives for the better. Society provides the judge with blunt tools to use in those cases -- jail time (ruinous to anyone's life), fines, sanctions, restrictions, mandates, etc.

These are all consequences. The psychological message is "...if you keep on doing what you have done, then THIS is what will happen to you... because you have CHOSEN to do what you have done, here is what IS going to happen..."

We all know that "psychological" means simply do not work when dealing with a physiological problem such as alcohol dependence and addiction, (akin to calling alcoholism a "problem of morals"). The mind knows that there's a problem, but the mind doesn't get a vote. We all know about the anguish and the white-knuckles.

It only when a person CHOOSES to make a change -- surrender and own their addiction -- that any progress can be made. Smashing that "right to drink" is at the heart of it (I think). No one can do it for you -- no one can successfully impose it on you. Its something that has to come from the inside, and from within the person themself.

So here's a person who comes before the judge and he shows that, unlike 90% of the other people who appear, he has a genuine desire to make a permanent life change, and indeed has shown through his actions (entering recovery voluntarily) that he is genuine and sincere. The guy is already at a place which the judge's consequence-based (psychological) tools are intended to move him. He's already where the judge wants him to be.

I would speculate that the judge is enheartened by the guy's actions since the arrest and that he wants to encourage him. Rather than being a defiant, "...just tell me what I've got to do to make you go away so I can go get drunk again...", instead the guy is appearing before him in a mode of surrender, (which is what the consequences attempt to teach), already started on a journey of lasting improvement, (which will benefit not only him personally, but also his community and society as a whole).

You come home. Your kid meets you at the door. He tells you that he really screwed up and feels horrible about it. He was messing around in the living room and unintentionally knocked over the TV causing it to shatter. He doesn't talk about his right to mess around in the living room, or how the TV was placed wrong just waiting to be knocked over. Instead, he says he's sorry and that he disposed of the broken television, and further, he already went to the store and bought and installed a replacement using his own money saved up from his newspaper route.

Its an imperfect analogy, I know... But what do you do at that point? Scream and shout and ground the kid for a year and take away his stuff? What are the appropriate consequences? Do you focus on the screw-up, or do you focus on the corrective actions that were taken?

My guess is that judge wants to encourage the recovery behavior. I don't see it as enabling the guy, rather I see it as being supportive -- positive feedback for doing the right thing, (and not wanting the guy to get "crushed by the gears" if he does stumble). It also sends a message to others -- if you have a problem and are truly genuine and sincere about correcting it then this court will work with you. Its probably a fairly safe bet that the judge will be taking a personal interest, if nothing else being on the look-out for the guy to appear in his court again.

Not knowing anything else about the judge and based soley on your question, I would consider him to be a good judge. Rather than pedantically mete out "knee-jerk" rulings in order to get through the dockets, (as if the court were nothing more than a glorifed vending machine), instead the judge is looking at the facts in front of him, weighing them and giving due consideration to the particulars of each individual case. Remember too that society has a vested interest in "reclaiming" its citizenry.

Just my two cents.

leviathon

i guess the point of the discussion is at what point are addicts being enabled versus not held accountable. i know when i got held accountable by the court it changed my life for the better. in this situation the man was a hardcore alcoholic whowas aarested for assaulting his wife while the kids were home. the variation asked for was to allow him now that he is sober to havew contact with his wife. the judge on hi own motion removed an alcoholi prohib the police thougght was necessarybc of their knowledge of his pror history

karlee

"I would speculate that the judge is enheartened by the guy's actions since the arrest and that he wants to encourage him. Rather than being a defiant, "...just tell me what I've got to do to make you go away so I can go get drunk again...", instead the guy is appearing before him in a mode of surrender, (which is what the consequences attempt to teach), already started on a journey of lasting improvement, (which will benefit not only him personally, but also his community and society as a whole)."

I know that had I tooken the steps to recovery that this man took. Then be
ordered by the Judge to not drink..I know that I would slip and drink. One reason is that I would feel that since others would think I would slip. Then why bother trying to stay sober. Second reason is because of being told that I can't do something..

I do believe the judge to be a good judge and was looking at all the facts..
A friend of mine said that what got her sober is that the judge and probation officer
encouraged her for going into rehab by herself..The majority of the people see
don't care and would just continue on. This friend and that man realized they had a problem and are doing/did what they needed to do to solve their problem/s.
My friend did slip up a few times..However, she quickly picked herself up and started
all over again..This is largely because she didn't want to let the judge or probation officer down..They had believed in her enough that she would overcome her issues
by herself and she didn't need them to order her to do so..

leeside

If the man drinks and hurts his wife (that the police probably thought it was neccessary to prevent by prohibiting him to drink due to his priors) then the judge may be held responsible IMO. I dont think the judge is really protecting the mans wife by not prohibiting alcohol especially since he is allowed contact with his wife.

I think it is about protecting the mans wife (and kids) and not about enabaling alcoholics. If this thread is only about enabling alcoholics then I personally dont think that it is enabling but setting up for a relapse.

Music

It's been my experience that alcoholics don't/won't get sober until their lives have become so desparate and unmanagable, that they have no other choice. They either quit drinking and get their stuff together or they end up in prison, the nut house or dead. To say that a judge or anyone else should kiss up to anyone to get them to stop drinking is rediculous. People who drink and break the law, physically assault their spouses, kids or anyone else should pay a stiff price. When someone takes the attitude that they'll stop drinking if conditions are right, their own demands are met, and people treat them nicely should not be taken seriously. They're still trying to run the show as described in the Big Book, pages 61-63.

Tazman53

Telling an alcoholic in recovery that relapse is part of recovery is doing him a disservice.

Here is a guy who has a mental battle already going on in his head to not drink and a judge telling him it is part of recovery to slip!!!! Oh yea that will increase his resolve to not drink with an authority figure telling him slips are part of recovery!

Look some people have numerous slips before they finally get it right, but to tell someone that slipping is part of recovery is dead wrong! If this man is going to stay dry he is going to stay dry even if the judge told him he had to stay dry, if he is going to drink he will drink no matter what the judge says.

The mistake the judge really made could prevent the judge from really throwing the book at him if he gets drunk and beats the hell out of his wife! Why? Well the only thing they can charge him with is beating the hell out of his wife because the judge said it was okay for him to slip a few times in recovery!

If he gets drunk and beats the heck out of his wife I think the judge should have to tell his wife that it was just a slip and part of recovery!

doorknob

If his treatment is being monitored by the court and his counselor is required to report any slips to a P.O., who in turn must give him a probation violation sending him back to court/jail, he will be unlikely to divulge any problems with his sobriety to his counselor, who may have been able to offer more help and guidance to him had she been aware of his troubles. I was in that boat for quite some time.

leviathon

The point is that this fellow didn't ask to have the no alcohol condition removed... heck he wasn't even there, his lawyer was. His lawyer actually suggested to the judge that he had no instructions to apply for that AND that it was not something his client was concerned with. He had already been alcohol free for some three months prior to entering treatment. He just wanted to be able to return home to assist his wife in raising their five kids.

Sorry, but as a criminal lawyer I see about 85% of my cases arising from alcohol and about 10% from drugs (normally trafficking) and 5% fall into an anger management issue or other category. I see that the Court IMO has an obligation to protect society from drunk people causing chaos and harming others. This type of self directed judicial intervention based on what IMO is an ill informed belief of the slip while in recovery following treatment program is unacceptable.

I have client's that actually instruct me to go to court and get this particular judge on the day of their applicatioin so that they can get the no alcohol condition removed because, in their words, "Hey, I am an alcoholic, I can't help myself, I am gonna breach." And this judge actually gives it to them almost without exception.

Its like he seems to miss the fact that the reason they are in the criminal justice system in the first place is because the clients are drunk and do stupid things. They sober up when they end up in jail, are forced into treatment by the courts and/or probation and believe it or not some, though not all, actually stop drinking.

I don't see how lowering the standard and allowing alcholics to accommodate their "disease" is helpful. Perhaps part of hitting bottom for this person is to end up breaching several times on the no alcohol provision and ending up in jail for a period of time so that the message gets through real clear... "I don't want to be in there again, I want to stop drinking to ensure that doesn't happen."

I personally like another judge that we have. He applies what he calls the step principal. He will give the client the benefit of the doubt if he comes to court immediately following arrest and says "Your honour, I am an alcoholic, although I am seeking treatment (list what he is doing re treatment), and I am asking to have this condition removed in case I screw up. He will grant it. Then if the guy screws up, too bad Charlie b/c the second time he comes back for fighting while drunk, or what ever stupidity he got up to, he goes to sit in cells for one week to think about it. When he is released this time the no alcohol condition is reinstated. The next breach is two weeks in jail, then four, each step back into court results a corresponding step up in the punishment.

In short, there are consequences for your actions. He will give them the benefit of the doubt ONCE, after that, it is up to the offender to live with what he has wrought, not society, innocent children or their wives. I.e. I gave you a chance, you took it and abused it. Now you, not society, etc., have to live with the consequences.

Peace, Levi

Mongo

It's unfortunate that the judge is not here to discuss this decision. I assume, being a judge, s/he has some experience dealing with alcoholic offenders.

Ron

leeside

One free relapse is too much. It is the same as one free bite for dogs IMO.

Judges arent allowed to discuss this case while it is still ongoing IMO.

leviathon

This judge deals with alcoholic offenders daily... much as every judge in the north does... it is more of a visible problem in the north. He has also previously worked as defence counsel, probation officer, prison guard, etc. So in short, he has a good understanding of alcoholism. My view is that I believe based on his experience as a probation officer and prison guard (he was actually a warden at one point) he sees the criminal jail system as a totally ineffective way of dealing with offenders and that that political view is affecting his judicial view.

Levi