choublak

They have their little sheet of paper with dates and times and have to persuade someone at the meeting to sign it to confirm they attended. Why do courts do this, when it goes against the basic principles of what AA is about?

LadyinBC

Maybe so that they can listen to other stories and maybe, just maybe, they might realize they have a problem if they do have one. They don't lose anything by going.

Dee74

Because this is a discussion likely to impinge upon the Newcomers Forum rule of no recovery method debates, I moved the thread here.

D

drunkyjules

I was thinking about this the other day because I have seen some people come into the rooms obviously pissed off and not happy to be at a meeting.

I was thinking when I got my DUI about 10 years ago I wish I had picked the AA option. I went with the "weekend retreat" because it seemed faster and easier to get it over in one weekend.

Lo and behold I would end up in AA ten years later as my own choice and not court ordered. I think I would have learned more with AA. Maybe not, maybe I just wasn't ready yet.

choublak

I understand what you're saying, but bullying people into AA who don't want to be there is, IMO, probably the worst thing you can do for the AA program.

LadyinBC

It only affects me if I let it. I don't lose anything if this person doesn't want to be there. It only affects the group and program if we let it. I try to leave my judgement at the door when i go to any meeting. I saw alot of this in daytox, people being mandated by the courts to go. Some people were okay being forced to go there and some weren't. If the ones that weren't caused disruption they would be asked to leave the program and that they don't want the judge to hear.

Someone who doesn't want to be there, but can be respectful and at least listen isn't a bad thing.

choublak

But it goes against all the general principles of AA. THEY don't want to be there, and it's an affront to the anonymity of the program.

tomsteve

it may be wise to contact your local probation department and get the answer from them.

tomsteve

they dont have to be there. they have choices.

dotboston

You can also opt for meetings where it's discouraged... Closed meetings.

LadyinBC

I would have agreed with you awhile back. When I first went to AA I wasn't forced by the court, but my daughter and counselor said that I had to do something. I didn't really want to be there when I first went. A big part of me said that I wasn't like these people and I really didn't want to be there. But I still went. I listened and learned. Maybe someone who is forced to go just might do that too.

I see what you are saying, but there are lots of people who go that don't really want to be there. Whom am I to judge why someone is there? I guess that is kind of my point. This is the way I have to look at it. One of the big things I had to do was to learn not to be so judgemental. Believe me I judged a lot of these people when I first went. I can't worry about why someone is there the important thing is that they are there.

I am just speaking for me though.

choublak

Not if they're they're ordered by a judge to go to meetings with little papers that need signing by another participant.

sugarbear1

~Many people have stayed stopped because of those slips.

~Many people involved in the justice system have stayed stopped because of AA and advocate for AA meetings in jails or prisons and advocate for slip signing.

AA in the jails and prisons began as part of prison reform by someone who was informed about AA, not sure if they were a recovering alcoholic or an Al Anon person (it's in some historical archive).

Carlotta

I have mixed feelings about the issue.
On one hand, I am a big fan of AA and I know some people who started their recovery while court mandated.
On another hand, some courts have ruled that mandatory attendance to AA meetings was a violation of people's first amendment.
Years ago I was secretary at a meeting and I would sign the court forms at the beginning of the meeting. Whether people chose to stay and hear the message or not was on them.
The thing is that in many places, AA is the only game in town and there are truly no secular alternatives for those who are not spiritually or religiously oriented.

wellwisher

My mandate was a choice - go to jail, or go to a drinking driver program with a minimum of attending three AA meetings.

Mandated people are usually instructed to go to open discussion groups, not closed meetings. I know I was told that.

awuh1

You always have a choice. There are just consequences for those choices. Being "ordered" to do something by a judge, is a result of a choice also. You don't need to comply.

2granddaughters

I was at a meeting tonight where my friend Lloyd G. celebrated 20 yrs sober.

Lloyd was given the choice by Corrections Canada between 3 yrs AA or 36 mos in prison. He took the AA because he thought it would be easier. He said tonight that about a year in he wished he had taken the hard time because AA was a lot harder than he thought it would be .....

Lloyd does a lot of work in the jails for AA and carries the message well.

Lloyd is glad he was given the choice 20 yrs ago. The opportunity was placed in front of him and he took it. So far .. so good.

All the best.

Bob R

tomsteve

nope, they still have a choice. they can go do whatever they want. they dont have to do one thing the judge tells em they have to do. what they have to do is face the consequences of their actions. they could have opted to sit in jail, but they chose not to.
i was court ordered. 2 meetings/wk for a year. went for a month then made the choice to risk buyin signatures for a beer at the bar. even made the choice to sit at home gettin drunk thumbin through the phone book and signin names myself all drunked up.if i woulda got caught, the consequences for my choices woulda been 6 months in jail.

consequences and choices. we all got em.

LadyinBC

I love the way you make this so simple! It really is when you think about it.

Johno1967

Question from an Australian. We don't have court mandated recovery programs like the States, that I'm aware of (any other Australians who know different, please correct me).
Is AA a choice of the court system or do they say "you must attend an addiction recovery program that is approved by the court and get your attendance record signed until you complete the meetings"? If you don't agree with AA, can you go somewhere else?
I remember meeting an American over here about 20 years ago, he had a buzz cut and I asked if he had been in the Army. He replied "No, the Marines". I was impressed and asked him more because for me at the time, nothing was more hard core than the Marines ( I later went to the states and offered myself up to serve in the USMC but got declined on account of being a Foreign National), my friend later confessed that he had never been in the Marines but in a program that ran at the time where you could spend a year in prison for DUI with assault or undergo a brutal 12 week program run along a Marine disciplinary unit. He chose the 12 weeks and said it was hell. Did it change him? Oh Yeah, the discipline sorted him right out.
Up until the 1970's it was routine for judges to give young felons a choice of jail or the military in the States and Australia, we shipped them to Vietnam. Nowadays it would be unheard of. You probably can't get into the military today if you have a misdemeanor on your record. Its a shame. Shame they don't have it here, it would sort a lot of young people out IMHO. My point is, if the kindly judge is stepping on your sensibilities by suggesting a few meetings instead of time in prison I personally would 'suit up, show up, sit down and shut up". He's being nice and trying to keep people who don't need to be in jail out of jail. Like my "Marine" friend you may actually learn something that will keep you out of jail in the future. Alternative, tell the judge to stick it and get a free pass to jail.