Court-ordered AA meeting attendance ?
 

In another thread, started by 4llison, people were discussing the pros and cons of court-ordered AA meeting attendance.
Maybe we should respectfully discuss this issue in this separate thread?

About 30 years ago, I was ordered to attend 6 AA meetings.
I did.
At that time, I denied being an alcoholic.
About 20 years later, about to loose everything that I hold dear, I voluntarily phoned the AA help line and walked into the first meeting that I could get to.
Today, we have a happy family life and I am a respected member of our village community.
I still go to AA.
I enjoy our meetings.

So, those 6 AA meetings planted a seed.
I knew where to go when I finally decided to do something (other than covertly drink) about my alcoholism.
I now appreciate the legal system that "forced" me to go to AA before I was ready.

I read that some are challenging the constitutionality of forced attendance to what they claim are religious meetings.
Having several sober members in our area who remain staunch atheists and still attend AA, I do not see how our meetings can be characterised as religious.

Of course there is the view that we were never "forced" to attend AA.
In my case this is technically correct.
I was given the choice of community service, AA meetings, etc. as an alternative to a custodial sentence.
I chose not to go to prison.

Then there are those who either signed their slips themselves and didn't bother with meetings or left at the beginning of the meeting after the Secretary initialled their slips.
Not much force was brought to bear on them; on any of us, in actual fact.

At the time, I viewed my AA attendance as simply a part of my punishment for drink driving.
But, I am ever so grateful now, that I was given the experience.

It would be most interesting to hear, not just opinions, but other alcoholics' experiences with court ordered AA attendance.
Or perhaps you have reasons to resent others, that may not be alcoholics (yet), coming to your meetings?

This is a controversial, often hotly debated, issue -- even within AA.
So, please, lets try and abide by the spirit of unity outlined in the sticky thread above.

I can make a great argument for both view points but after 5 years in AA I still don't know which is right. I have seen forced attendance get people sober. I have seen forced attendance be counter productive

Is the discussion to be framed in the context of the constitutionality of courts ordering citizens to attend or participate in extralegal organizations en toto, or AA specifically?

Because a discussion of the 'effectiveness' of AA attendance would I think go beyond the rules of the forum.

Where's sheriff D when you need him :)

There's an old AA joke that goes: There's this guy who's in court for his fourth DUI. The judge says, "ok Mr. Brown, I see you're here for your fourth DUI. I sentence you to 90 days in jail or one AA meeting." There's a long period of silence until the judge says, "I need your answer Mr. Brown." Mr. Brown says, "Hold on judge, I'm thinking about it."

No one is FORCED to go to an AA meeting, at least to my knowledge. They're always given a choice....jail, or AA. If a person is really anti-religious and is serious about his convictions, there's no decision to be made. The answer is JAIL. So, the religious/constitutionality of the subject is a non-issue to me. Some old timers don't like people in their meetings who don't have the "desire" to stop drinking, or don't want to be there. To them I'd just ask, "how many people who come to AA for the first time really want to be there, or really have the desire to stop drinking?" Who knows? So why should I try to be the judge in the matter. I've signed plenty of papers from the court and I always do it with a smile and a "keep coming back" message.

Most companies now days give a person with a drinking or drug problem a choice or being fired or going to treatment. The choice is plain. Is there a "constitutional" question here? I don't think so! I really don't care how people come to AA, and be completely honest, I really don't care how many people stay in AA. Even the Big Book says John Barleycorn is the best convincer. It's not up to me to care one way or the other. I do care whether or not I'm in AA and that's all that counts to me.:herewego

Music
How do you square the notion of no force? The judge seemingly has the power to offer two alternatives, if force is not in the equation there would be three and the citizen could simply reply" Why thank you and I choose neither, my hat ,my good man(to the bailiff) if you please"

I remember volunteering myself to group therapy and there was more than a few court ordered ppl there and all they done was laugh be rude etc

I was going voluntary some got thrown out i stayed and finished not 1 of the ppl from a c/o seemed interested at all and hardly turned up

Got my meditation techniques from them so i didn't lose out they did a shame really

Court ordered AA a sure sign your drinking is out of control.

I had six months in AA before the court mandated me to attend. In my case, perhaps the seed was already planted.
If a person attending a meeting via the courts, I've no objection to it.
Who knows what might open a person's eyes to their drinking problem!

I'm not going to debate the point with you. The fact is, there is a choice. Jail or AA. Pure and simple. If there is any force involved, it's in the mind of the person who's having to make the decision.:herewego

You seem to be unclear on the definition of that term 'forced attendance'. You keep using that term, I do not think it means what you think it means.

These are now much more than claims and challenges since they have been upheld on appeal. These rulings you refer to have established legal precedent, and have in effect become law.

I was offered the choice of jail or rehab then meetings after my third trip to court. Saved my Bacon. We in AA can only carry the message, we can't make anyone get sober, they have to want it. One sure fire way to hear that message is at a meeting.

The point is , regardless if one believes that xyz program is 'a' or 'the' way to recovery sobriety, should being a drunkard be illegal? ( the offenses of DUI, DWI, public drunkeness ect notwithstanding)

I think it's somewhat simple.
Attending AA/NA meetings ("forced" or otherwise) is worth a try.
Definitely better than jail in my experience.

Being an alcoholic isn't and shouldn't be illegal. People are not be mandated to AA or treatment or wherever for being alcoholics. They have presumably been convicted an offense committed as a result of their abusing alcohol.

-allan

I completely agree. Surely if we live in a free world it is ones own decision if they want to be an alcoholic.

I can also see why people are questioning the constitutionality of forcing people into AA. At the end of the day, it is a pseudo religious program (in my opinion), I'm not an American but surely this violates ones right to chose any religion/belief they see fit.

No one is saying being alcoholic is illegal. Crimes committed while intoxicated however, are illegal. Maybe the answer is to take AA out of the picture and just sentence these drunks to 5 years for the first DUI without parole. See how that flies. No decision, no foul.:herewego

Maybe a topic for another discussion, but in my experience I never made decision to become or ever wanted to be an alcoholic. I did eventually make a decision to do seek help.

-a

I doubt many people at all 'wanted' to become an alcoholic. I think this ultimately boils down to the disease/self responsibility debate which I will leave for another topic :)

Yeah, we agree on your first point. The courts appear to be taking AA out of the picture. I'm going to research if they are offering an alternative to AA. Interesting discussion.

-a

........Look, its an anonymous program, all Mr B. has to do is get his buddy at the house party to sign his slip and he can drink away the night and pass out and hop in his car and drive to the next party. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that "con". People go to AA for all sorts of reasons, for their wife, for their kids, for their work, to get their job back, pick any reason. In order to live a life of sobriety YOU MUST GO FOR YOURSELF!

A guy I sponsor, lost his wife and baby son in a head on involving a drunk driver. I have no sympathy, even though I should have been busted myself, for anyone who drives drunk these days. They know possible consequences and being alcoholic is absolutely no excuse. To me it's the same as someone carrying an illegal weapon and "accidentally" shooting someone. I can hear the judge now. 10 years or a lifetime membership in the NRA.:herewego

I disagree -- the person convicted of the crime is facing a sentence of jail time. The judge then offers that person an alternative to jail which gives them a choice. "My hat, my good man (to the bailiff) if you please" is not an option. If it is unconstitutional to "mandate" offenders to AA and the normal sentence is jail time, then that is what the judge should sentence them to with no option of "door number 2".

You can choose to do the jail time, that is always an option no matter what.

On another note, I was at a meeting in a large metropolitan area and low-and-behold a couple Sheriffs where in the room with a few women wearing prison greys.

Gh
In one sense I agree, no door number two.
That comes from a stance that sees criminal punishment in a punitive and retributionary light.
Continuing this debate I think would bring it in the light of arguing the effectiveness of AA in particular and the idea of treatment in general , which I think would run afoul of the spirit of the rules of the forums.

Yeah I thought about it after I posted and I can understand the argument that when the judge offers treatment as an alternative to jail why does it have to be AA? I assume it's because A) it's the most well known and widely available recovery method, and possibly more important is B) it is free and doesn't cost the city, county, state anything to send an offender to AA versus providing rehab/treatment services.

I guess on another note we are talking about the American system, where it is much harsher on the punishment of minor crimes.

Some people will go to great lengths to avoid the term alcoholic.

Drink themselves to death, suicide, years in prison possibly.

The denial is truly astonishing.

I think, seek help or jail, is reasonable. AA is not religious, that is just an avoidance tactic by those who will not face up to them selves.

Society deserves protection from mentally impaired & alcohol impaired people who have their heads squarely up their own backside.

.....What about drug impaired people?

I don't know... So many different drugs. Many are relatively harmless to society as a whole.

Pot smokers don't tend to crash and bash, ectasy same thing.

The drug issues are so multi faceted.

Ice, pcp, amphetamines abuse can cause society a lot of issues when people eventually become mentally impaired, psychosis and paranoia etc.

So complicated though, it deserves it's own thread

My uncle was court ordered in his early 20's after he got in trouble. He is almost 70 and hasn't drank since. My brother has been court ordered multiple times and drank the whole time he went. The only time anyone is able to get him not to drink is if he has court ordered pee tests and he knows if he fails it he goes to jail. Worked for my uncle but not my brother. Why AA though? Is there no choice between different programs? Can it be jail or choose from other sobriety groups?
Isn't the real complaint that AA is a religious based program so people are being forced to participate in a religion?
OK I am just going to throw this in here and back away slowly.
The Courts, AA and Religion | AA Agnostica

It doesn't matter what you or I think about AA. The point here is that the legal system does not agree with us. AA IS religious, according to Courts of Appeal from the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits. Court mandated attendance, which means go to AA or go to jail, has been found to violate first amendment rights.

"It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise." This has been found to include government coercion to attend AA.