Over the past few months, jail overcrowding has become a much discussed issue not only here in Middlesex County, but also throughout the Commonwealth and in cities and towns nationwide. Many concerned citizens have offered opinions about this ever-growing problem and have suggested what they think we should do with our inmates at a time when our prisons are bursting at the seams.
One recurring suggested solution is that Sheriffs, such as myself, should simply release the drunk driving offenders presently populating our county jails who are, in the opinion of some, "taking up" precious bed space. Some have said that if we let these "non-violent" criminals out, then there would be no overcrowding issue because limited jail space could then be used for the true "violent" offender.
In my opinion, this premise is not only flawed, but also extremely dangerous. First, it is flawed because recently enacted tough on crime statutes require imposition of mandatory minimum jail sentences for repeat operating under the influence offenders and prescribe that drunk drivers cannot be released early. Accordingly, as a matter of law, their early discharge should not even be a part of our debate of how to relieve overcrowding.
Second, and more importantly to me not only as Sheriff, but also as father, husband, and tax paying citizen, even though these tough new laws forbid the release of drunk drivers prior to their serving a mandatory minimum sentence, common sense says that they must be jailed for their offenses! The description of drunk drivers as "non-violent" criminals sends a fatally wrong message. DRUNK DRIVERS ARE VIOLENT CRIMINALS and our failure to recognize this fact compounds the problem. As long as we continue to say that drunk drivers should be treated differently than the felon wielding a gun, a knife, or a bat, we will continue to encourage the outrageous and recidivist behavior of drunk drivers.
Alcoholism may be a sickness, but it must be stressed that getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated is a crime--and a violent one at that! When operated by an individual under the influence, a car is immediately transformed into a two-ton weapon of destruction. The offender who chooses to drive drunk is engaging in a crime of violence no different than arbitrarily shooting a gun, wildly slashing out with a knife, or swinging a bat in anger. Do we not insist that the latter group of offenders be kept behind bars? Why not insist the same for the drunk driver?
Creative intermediate sanction programs such as those implemented in California, whereby OUI offenders are "jailed" in their homes with electronic bracelets and allowed to drive only to and from work after passing an electronically monitored at-home breathalyzer test make some sense in terms of reducing raw numbers in our prisons. In such states, it seems that policy-makers have decided that bunk space should be the primary dictator of their penal policy. While bunk space is important, I believe, as Sheriff, that the safety of the public must transcend all other considerations. The moment we make a distinctin=on, as they appear to have done in California, and treat OUI offenders differently than violent street thugs, we implicitly sanction and condone their criminal behavior and, thus, endanger our communities.
As if the grim history of drunk driving statistics were not enough to support the proposition that drunk drivers must be treated as violent offenders, the tragic and wholly preventable murder on the side of a New Hampshire roadway of a ten-year-old innocent named William Wilk by a repeat drunk-driving offender underscores why there must be no distinction for OUI recidivism. As the father of a ten-year-old boy (also named William), I was profoundly moved by this horrific accident and outraged by the inadequate response of a criminal justice system that had not only allowed the accused to compile a host of previous OUI offenses, but had also allowed him to walk away from a prior manslaughter conviction with a mere "slap on the wrist." WASN'T ANYBODY PAYING ATTENTION? If this obvious recidivist criminal had received the message the first time he was convicted on OUI charges that he would be treated like any other violent offender and jailed, perhaps young William Wilk would be alive today. Instead, our entire region must now weep not only for the preventable suffering visited upon the Wilk family, but also for the obvious defects in the criminal justice system which allowed it to happen.
As Sheriff, I will obey the law and not release repeat drunk drivers to relieve prison overcrowding. Simply put, I will not have the blood of innocents on my hands. As a family man, I will continue to fight for public recognition of repeat drunk drivers for the violent menaces they are. We must treat OUI offenders like all other violent offenders. They must not only be jailed, but kept there!!!
Get your own Free Home Page