The Problem: The Repeat DWI Offender
By: Jeffrey Sauter
Eaton County Prosecuting Attorney
"Over the course of ten years, I have found that the residents of our county approve of our efforts to deal with the underlying substance abuse."
I’ve been called a risk-taker … and much worse. In my 25 years of prosecution,
the last 18 as the elected prosecuting attorney, I have believed in individual
accountability and
punishment. I have
also been skeptical
of new government
programs which
promise, in glowing
words and politically correct
phrases, to “prevent” crime.
To me, government is usually best
described by the phrase “when all is said
and done, thereis
usually more
said than
done.”
We started our first drug
treatment
court-usually called a
sobriety court, because we focus on OWI
cases-over ten years ago. I’m a big supporter of the drug treatment court approach, but I didn’t always feel that way. When it was proposed that we start a drug treatment court, I was skeptical. But, I didn’t voice my concerns immediately when I learned that our team had to attend national training, because when you’re from Michigan you don’t say anything to put a winter trip to
Los Angeles at risk.
At the national training, I worried that
I was being asked to support another
concept designed to insulate criminal
defendants from the consequences of
their own behavior. Our team planned
to see if drug
treatment court
principles could
be applied to
drunk drivers.
But I did not
want to agree
to something
that increased
the risks to the
public; it was
essential that
our sobriety
court would not
offer diversion, but would require a
conviction on the offense.
I am glad that I listened with an open
mind, because the trainers, drug
court judges and other professionals
answered my concerns. Like any
experienced prosecutor, I was familiar
with substance-abusing defendants and
the frustrating regularity with which they
re-offend. I also understood that incarceration and fines had not reduced
the incidence of drinking and driving, but
I wasn’t ready to embrace a theory of
justice based on a feel-good hope that
treatment would work.
Treatment providers are proud
of their methods, but most will
admit that treatment sessions
do no good if the offender
isn’t there. I learned that drug
treatment courts are more
effective than treatment alone because
the court coerces the offender to attend.
I also liked the sound of immediate
consequences for any violations. That
concept balanced my initial discomfort
with “rewards” being given out in court immediate consequences are possible because drug treatment courts require
frequent “review hearings” with the
judge. The probation agents and
treatment providers communicate
about the offender’s progress or failures
so the judge personally knows what is
going on during the review hearing.
That incentives or
punishment would
be meted out
without the usual
delay appealed to
my commonsense
belief that lessons
are best learned that
way: immediately.
.jpg)
The last concept
that helped sell me
on drugtreatment
courts was the team
approach. I liked
that the various
participants in the
court would have
a say about the
procedures to be
used.
While I support drug
treatment courts,
I do not suggest
that every thing
goes smoothly or
that the tension between judge
and prosecutor,
or prosecutor and
defense counsel, is
eliminated. Without
intending to point a finger, I have learned
that some team members sometimes
consider themselves more equal than
others. To be fair, I have undoubtedly
caused the other team members a good
share ofaggravation over the years,
and nothing good comes easily. A team
approach requires work, a commitment
to the team, and a willingness to
consider problems from the perspective
of others.
When we started our sobriety court in
1997, I knew that I was taking a risk.
Prosecutors, of course, are supposed to
be “Tough-On-Crime”, and every elected
prosecutor knows that the next election
cycle could bring a challenge that he or
she is “soft” on drugs or drunk drivers.
This is the stuff that keeps us up at night.
But prosecutors are also supposed to
be smart and are expected to make
effective use of limited resources. I
had taken the tough, punishment-only approachfor years, but limited jail and
prison space in Michigan had reduced
the actual available incarceration for
drunk driving. That meant that a drunk
driving defendant could not be removed
from the road for any meaningful length
of time.
Moreover, while probation agents
were well-intentioned, their caseloads
were too large to monitor probationers
closely. All things considered, I decided
that the greater risk was in not trying a
new approach.
And, over the course of ten years, I
have found that the residents of our
county approve of our efforts to deal
with the underlying substance abuse.
I believe that our effort has been a
success. I’m not suggesting that every
case has been a success. But, overall,
I believe that as a result of our program,
a number of participants have returned
to productive lives at work, and returned
to relationships with children and other
family. What skeptic could disagree
with that?
