Legislative debate: Incarceration or treatment for drunk drivers?
By KEVIN McGILL
The Associated Press   4/14/2004, 5:36 p.m. CT

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A 2001 law that forces judges to sentence third- and fourth-offense drunk drivers to substance abuse treatment instead of long prison terms is getting a third look from the Legislature.
Hailed as a breakthrough when it was passed, the law has since drawn fire from prosecutors and some judges, who say the treatment option is appropriate in some, but not all cases.

Last year, lawmakers refused to make any changes to the law. On Wednesday, however, the Senate Judiciary C Committee approved a bill by Sen. Joel Chaisson, D-Destrehan, giving judges more discretion in deciding whether a long prison sentence is appropriate. The bill goes next to the full Senate.

The 2001 law kept the one-to-five-year jail sentence for third-offenders and 10-to-30 years for fourth-offenders. However, it forced a judge to suspend most of the sentence — all but 30 days for the third offense and all but 60 days for the fourth — and force the offender into a treatment program.

Chaisson's bill gives the judge an option, allowing the suspension of most of the sentence and the imposition of treatment, but not requiring it.

Proponents of the 2001 law say it has worked. They cite statistics showing 63 percent of more than 1,400 people sentenced under the law are either in treatment or have successfully completed it.

State Rep. Ken Odinet, D-Arabi, the sponsor of the 2001 law, noted that once someone completes treatment, that person still must finish out their suspended prison sentence under home incarceration; and a relapse into alcohol abuse would mean a return to prison.

www.legis.state.la.us

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

Pete Adams, lobbyist for the state's district attorneys, argued that there is no way of knowing how many of those who go through treatment actually stay sober. He agreed that treatment is a viable option in some cases, but added that some people may not deserve such consideration. He gave as an example a multiple-offense drunk driver who also has a long criminal record.

Odinet and others fear that making a treatment sentence optional instead of mandatory may result in less state funding being approved for treatment — in effect diminishing judges' sentencing options.

Chaisson, the committee's chairman, expressed doubt about that argument. "The state has the responsibility to carry out the sentence, no matter what it may be, incarceration or treatment," he said.

___

On the Net:

Chaisson's bill is SB679 and can be viewed on the Legislature's Web site: