DUI listings not a real deterrent

Weighing in on the DUI issue again, I take readers back to December

2001 when the Daily Pilot published the two letters of mine that

follow.

Under the headline of “Why print DUI arrests, but no other

offenses?” I wrote the following:

“Would the Daily Pilot please offer some thoughtful explanation

that would justify the practice of systematically publishing the

names of persons arrested for driving under the influence, and little

or no exposure to those arrested for other offenses.

“Your almanac section of the paper tells us only that they are

innocent until proven guilty, but we already knew that. I would hope

that your reasons don’t include some third-grade psychobabble that

the public exposure could motivate them to curtail their alcohol

abuse. It may or may not.

“Perhaps you could rotate the exposure on a monthly basis. In

January, you publish the names of those arrested for white-collar

crimes. Let’s give those sleazeballs 15 minutes of fame. February can

feature child molesters arrested, and where space allows, red-light

runners.

“Everybody gets to be embarrassed, or no one does. Choose one.”

This letter was followed by an Editor’s Note that stated the Daily

Pilot publishes the DUI arrests because it’s an offense that can lead

to deaths. (No mention of “deterrence” ... which is your current

position.)

That editor’s note prompted me to write a follow-up letter that

you published as your Letter of the Week.

My second letter read as follows:

“I’m sure the Daily Pilot won’t allow me to nag them forever

regarding their systematic publishing of names of persons arrested

for drunk driving to the exclusion of other offenses. In my recently

published letter, I had asked for a “thoughtful explanation” to

justify the practice. The editors note under my letter explaining

that it’s because DUIs can lead to deaths is embarrassingly shallow.

If that were the sole reason, then we would see other lawbreakers’

names published. Red-light runners endanger lives, big time, but you

have no system for embarrassing them in print.

“Let’s face it. Isn’t there a moralistic tone when we speak of

drunks? Many DUI arrestees are addicted to alcohol, a substance that

impairs their judgment. If newspaper editors support the theory that

alcoholism is an illness, then it isn’t a moral issue.

“Soccer moms, students, and other users of residential streets who

storm through intersections under the influence of nothing more than

an attitude problem and the self-absorbed belief that the whole world

is about them are more deserving of having their morality questioned.

“So keep on publishing your list of those accused of DUIs if you

must. Just try getting honest about why you do it.”

So now, in December 2003, the debate fires up again. I don’t want

to get carried away by my own views, but as a 30-year attendee of

12-step programs, retired from 25 years of employment in hospital

rehab programs, and former member of the board of directors of the

Orange County Chapter of Alcohol and Drug Dependence, I’ll risk an

opinion and hope it carries some weight.

If the DUI arrestee is an alcoholic, and not all are, then I would

wager that the name in the paper is just as apt to trigger more

drinking that deter it; more apt to drive them deeper into their

illness, than recuse them from it. Granted, the DUI gets the offender

into the system, the courts, rehab, AA, DUI school and they, and the

whole community, benefit.

But don’t flatter yourselves, Daily Pilot editors, you are not

part of the recovery process. If alcoholics were deterred by getting

embarrassed, they’d only get drunk once. Trust me.

GARY E. DRIES

Costa Mesa