This program makes complete sense to me. From where I sit the financial consequences of the error in judgement is far more a deterent for the first time offender than time in jail. If they mess up again then through away the key by all means.
I had the exam same thought when I read that. Every society has to have jails, but let’s be honest about their track record when it comes to rehabilitation and deterring future crimes. First time offenders just need a wake-up call, so I’m open to any program which does that.
I also think the program is a good idea if it’s for first time offenders (if there is no injury or damage caused). From the article it appears these offenders are only given a 72-hour sentence. The only difference is they are actually getting some treatment as opposed to sitting in a cell taking up space doing nothing productive. Sort of the same idea as community service but this provides some offence specific knowledge. MADD should be taking this as an opportunity to do impact statements etc.
Organizations like MADD only seek vengeance and retribution. They have never tried to work with the people who simply made an error in judgement. For a first offense in a case where there are no injuries or anything abnormal, this makes perfect sense.
A lot of first time offenders have never been exposed to a rehab-type situation. This could be an eye-opening, learning experience for those who have a problem, but have never considered it.
On the other hand, it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. In many jurisdictions, there isn’t much of a choice. If the offender turns down the 3-day rehab option, the judge will tend to give a longer sentence, citing a lack of concern/repentance on the part of the offender. In other words, they refuse to get help. So, the offenders tend to choose the rehab. Cha-ching!
This program makes complete sense to me. From where I sit the financial consequences of the error in judgement is far more a deterent for the first time offender than time in jail. If they mess up again then through away the key by all means.
“There is no science to show that sentencing convicted drunk drivers to serve time in a hotel helps to stop repeat offenses,” Duerr said.
That is a pretty lame statement. Show me the science that says convicted drunk drivers who serve time in jail DON’T repeat offenses.
I had the exam same thought when I read that. Every society has to have jails, but let’s be honest about their track record when it comes to rehabilitation and deterring future crimes. First time offenders just need a wake-up call, so I’m open to any program which does that.
I also think the program is a good idea if it’s for first time offenders (if there is no injury or damage caused). From the article it appears these offenders are only given a 72-hour sentence. The only difference is they are actually getting some treatment as opposed to sitting in a cell taking up space doing nothing productive. Sort of the same idea as community service but this provides some offence specific knowledge. MADD should be taking this as an opportunity to do impact statements etc.
Organizations like MADD only seek vengeance and retribution. They have never tried to work with the people who simply made an error in judgement. For a first offense in a case where there are no injuries or anything abnormal, this makes perfect sense.
A lot of first time offenders have never been exposed to a rehab-type situation. This could be an eye-opening, learning experience for those who have a problem, but have never considered it.
On the other hand, it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. In many jurisdictions, there isn’t much of a choice. If the offender turns down the 3-day rehab option, the judge will tend to give a longer sentence, citing a lack of concern/repentance on the part of the offender. In other words, they refuse to get help. So, the offenders tend to choose the rehab. Cha-ching!