Published: Sunday, January 27, 2008
Time to act on bill to curb DUI reoffenders
As the debate gets hotter over whether sobriety checkpoints should be used to get impaired drivers off the road, a less controversial and far more promising tool languishes in Olympia.
It's as if lawmakers and the governor, who has proposed roadblocks to weed out DUI offenders, were themselves asleep at the wheel. It's time for them to wake up and get behind House Bill 1340, a bipartisan measure that would establish sensible and effective standards for assessing whether DUI defendants have drug or alcohol addictions. The idea is to get them the treatment they need, reducing the chance that they'll reoffend and increasing the chance they'll live more productive lives.
Among the bill's sponsors are Republican Rep. Kirk Pearson of Monroe and Democrat Al O'Brien of Mountlake Terrace.
Currently, most attorneys representing DUI defendants recommend their clients get a required assessment before going to court, and many such screenings simply have defendants self-report their history of drug and alcohol use. Given that denial is a hallmark of addiction, it's a meaningless exercise. But it also makes sense that defense attorneys tend to steer their clients in the direction of providers who set the assessment bar lower than others.
HB 1340 would change that by standardizing DUI assessments. A defendant's word would no longer be enough. A urine screening for other drugs would be required, because research shows that more than half of drunk-driving defendants also have other drugs in their system. A criminal background history would also be provided, so patterns of addictive and/or criminal behavior can be spotted, increasing the chances of effective treatment.
The bill currently sits in the House Appropriations Committee, where it failed to progress last session over cost concerns that appear unwarranted. The state Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse estimated that urinalysis screenings would cost $25 each, but local treatment providers say the true cost is less than $10. So the bill's fiscal note -- about $150,000 a year -- looks to be more than double what it should be. Even the inflated cost didn't justify holding this bill back; the real cost certainly doesn't.
Repeat DUI offenders are an outrage, yet Pearson and others have been pushing this idea since 2003. Standardized drug and alcohol assessment for DUI defendants aren't as visible as drunk-driving roadblocks, but they could prove to be a far more effective public safety tool.
It's ridiculous to be debating sobriety checkpoints when even simple measures for getting offenders the treatment they need aren't being employed. Leaders say they want action against DUI; it's time to show it. HB 1340 should get a hearing, the governor should get behind it and the Legislature should pass it, this session.
It's as if lawmakers and the governor, who has proposed roadblocks to weed out DUI offenders, were themselves asleep at the wheel. It's time for them to wake up and get behind House Bill 1340, a bipartisan measure that would establish sensible and effective standards for assessing whether DUI defendants have drug or alcohol addictions. The idea is to get them the treatment they need, reducing the chance that they'll reoffend and increasing the chance they'll live more productive lives.
Among the bill's sponsors are Republican Rep. Kirk Pearson of Monroe and Democrat Al O'Brien of Mountlake Terrace.
Currently, most attorneys representing DUI defendants recommend their clients get a required assessment before going to court, and many such screenings simply have defendants self-report their history of drug and alcohol use. Given that denial is a hallmark of addiction, it's a meaningless exercise. But it also makes sense that defense attorneys tend to steer their clients in the direction of providers who set the assessment bar lower than others.
HB 1340 would change that by standardizing DUI assessments. A defendant's word would no longer be enough. A urine screening for other drugs would be required, because research shows that more than half of drunk-driving defendants also have other drugs in their system. A criminal background history would also be provided, so patterns of addictive and/or criminal behavior can be spotted, increasing the chances of effective treatment.
The bill currently sits in the House Appropriations Committee, where it failed to progress last session over cost concerns that appear unwarranted. The state Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse estimated that urinalysis screenings would cost $25 each, but local treatment providers say the true cost is less than $10. So the bill's fiscal note -- about $150,000 a year -- looks to be more than double what it should be. Even the inflated cost didn't justify holding this bill back; the real cost certainly doesn't.
Repeat DUI offenders are an outrage, yet Pearson and others have been pushing this idea since 2003. Standardized drug and alcohol assessment for DUI defendants aren't as visible as drunk-driving roadblocks, but they could prove to be a far more effective public safety tool.
It's ridiculous to be debating sobriety checkpoints when even simple measures for getting offenders the treatment they need aren't being employed. Leaders say they want action against DUI; it's time to show it. HB 1340 should get a hearing, the governor should get behind it and the Legislature should pass it, this session.
Comments
(