Prison not only option for offending alcoholics
UNDERSTANDABLY, magistrates get frustrated at the repetitive appearances before them of drunk and disorderly cases, often with associated petty theft charges. In the case reported in the Guernsey Press on 29 October, the accused was handed a 14-week prison sentence, 12 weeks of which were for the theft from a shop of £3.49-worth of beer. I make no comment on the appropriateness of the sentence for the theft, but do wish to comment on the wider issue of the court's response to the problem of alcoholism.
It is important that the court distinguishes between the Friday-night drunk and the alcoholic. While the short sharp shock of a prison sentence may be just the wake-up call that the former needs, it is of very doubtful benefit to the alcoholic, especially when it has been tried repeatedly and it has failed repeatedly.
In this case and since committing the offence, the accused had remained sober for 36 days, helped by attendance every evening at meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. Sustained sobriety had enabled him to hold down a job with the States Works Community and Environmental Projects Scheme. These achievements will have engendered a growing self-worth, essential to continued recovery.
In prison, apart from a once-weekly AA meeting there, he will lose the daily support and encouragement of new-found friends in AA and of his AA sponsor. He will not have before him the powerful influence of role models, nor will he be able to voice his fears or share his feelings with others who have the same illness and therefore understand.
It was clear to the court that the offending behaviour was entirely a consequence of the accused's alcoholism. Counsel argued that sending her client to prison would serve no purpose.
Other sentences, in the community, were available and a sentence that built on the progress already made would surely have been preferable. A willing commitment to continue attending AA, with whatever supervision and monitoring the court thought necessary, either by the court itself and/or by the Probation Service, suggests a good starting point.
AA encourages newcomers to attend 90 meetings in 90 days and its programme of action provides a platform for sustained recovery.
There is also the matter of cost. Prison is hugely expensive.
A report published recently by the Guernsey Alcohol Advisory Service shone a light on the high costs in both economic and social terms of alcohol misuse in Guernsey. Many of these costs, though obviously regrettable, are unavoidable; others are discretionary.
Sentencing alcoholics to a prison sentence not only incurs a high discretionary cost, in this case more than £10,000, but is also of doubtful value for money. This cost is about the same as providing a place at a full-time residential rehabilitation treatment centre which, in the case of the alcoholic who accepts his illness and is willing to take steps to recover, is surely a better option than prison.
Or, there is Alcoholics Anonymous. AA comes at no cost. It is completely free. And it works.
These are the personal views of the writer who, as a member of AA, remains anonymous.
Alcoholics Anonymous as an organisation holds no views on outside issues.
NAME AND ADDRESS WITHHELD
