Last night I attended an AA meeting with a friend who has had attendance imposed on him as a condition of being granted home detention instead of a gaol sentence for repeated drink-driving offences.
Given how common it is for our courts and our parole boards to make AA attendance a condition of non-custodial sentences for offences which have been committed under the influence of alcohol, I wonder to what extent the goals, the spirit, and the effectiveness of AA is being eroded by its membership base comprising an increasing number of people who do not meet the only requirement for membership,
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.
but who are there simply to avoid incarceration.
There is no doubt that directed attendance at AA is an extremely cheap method of forced intervention for governments world-wide, and presumably at least some of those people whose initial attendance is compulsory go on to work the programme and achieve long-term sobriety, but does the “involuntary” membership base change the nature of the organisation to the extent that it becomes less effective for those whose membership of AA is entirely self-directed?
If the meeting I attended last night is in any way typical, then I suspect that court-directed attendance has to some degree diminished the importance of the one, common goal which once bound all AA members together - a desire to stop drinking.
Look, the reason AA members go to AA is to stop drinking themselves. If their efforts to help themselves also help someone else that is just a bonus but it really isn’t part of the deal. Those people who are members in the sense of “having a desire to stop drinking” are, if anything, helped by the denial they see in those who are at the meeting under duress.
AA members are used to seeing lots of people circulate in and out of meetings as they get dried out and think they can now handle it only to discover that they can’t.
Compulsay attendance is not problem to AA members unless they let it be one because AA isn’t an instructional program but rather is a self-help program and a support system for those who want one.
For the group, however, it can be a very draining experience. I’ve attended groups which were essentially overrun by people either in rehab or ordered by the court, and who were either forced to “close” (that is, only people with the desire to stop drinking can attend), find new space to accommodate the newcomers, or, in the case of one meeting I attended, ask the Intergroup to intervene. (In the latter case, the eating-disorders patients of a local rehab had been attending an AA meeting, and the group asked Intergroup to send the director of the rehab a letter expressing the concern that people sharing about their eating disorders was not in keeping with AA’s singleness of purpose, and that if an OA meeting was not available at that time, that the rehab should start one.) And in some cities, there are court liaisons that work with the courts to educate judges and probation officers, and to make sure that we’re not being used as a “scared straight” tactic or an educational program.
I personally don’t care why someone is at a meeting. There are people from whom I’ve gotten a great deal, even if it’s only an example of what not to do.
For the group, however, it can become quite a burden.
Also as a side-note, Many courts order folks to get signed papers showing they have attended the required meetings. I have found that the majority of signatures look like this “Jim C., Mary R.”, since anonymity is a major part of AA. This does nothing to confirm someones attendance. I believe that it boils down to the “group concience” whether forced attendees are permitted. As in everything that is created by individuals, that has any success rate, the government normally can’t stand to sit idly by and not presume to know how to best properly use it. My personal feeling is that if you don’t have the desire to attend, stay the hell out of the way of people who take sobriety seriously and know that they need to be there. Just my 2 cents.
What is needed is the “serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
These are alcoholics and can’t be expected to act sensibly until they have finally hit whatever is their personal bottom. And that might not be until they either die or kill someone else.
sexyou–I don’t know how it is in Iowa, but around here each legitimate chapter has a specific stamp for marking and initialing in an attendees book. That’s not to say that these things don’t get faked, but it makes it harder.
As to whether it’s bad for the group, I’m not an AAer, so I wouldn’t presume to answer. But I do know that compulsory attendence does nothing for those it is forced upon unless the willingness to change is already present. In which case, they probably would have sought out help without having to be threatened with jailtime first.
I don’t doubt that last part. Some of the AA “graduates” I’ve encountered actually believe that all drinkers are alcoholics in denial. They can be quite smug about it sometimes. This is all anecdotal remarks, of course.
I can’t help but wonder a few things about the court-ordered appearances. First of all, part of the 12-step program is believing in a higher power than yourself, which sounds like promotion of some generic theistic power or new age mumbo-jumbo. Secondly, IIRC people are sometimes so ordered when they’ve committed a drunk driving offense. Drunk driving does not necessarily have anything at all to do with alcoholism, you could commit that offense the first night you ever drink a drop, and with the ridiculously low .08 BAL standard in some states that might mean two beers. How is AA an appropriate judicial remedy for that?
Furthermore, the judicial preference for AA may not be fair to alternative programs. AA teaches people to consider themselves powerless over alcohol. There are programs that disagree with that, feeling it’s dangerous to think along those lines and such thinking brings about a good chance of the “off the wagon” binge that occurs to many former AA members. There are some programs that tell people they are not powerless, that they can exercise power over alcohol, that abstaining from ever consuming even a drop of alcohol again isn’t necessary. I recall hearing of one prominent rival to AA that felt this way, I’d look for a cite if it became important, though I imagine somebody is familiar with it.
A slight hijack here…I had a close family member who had a drinking problem. Said FM absolutely hated AA and the dependence on a “Higher Power.” FM found another alcoholic program known as Rational Recovery. (You can do a search on the net and find them.) RR worked for FM.
So my question is…if a court orders a drunk driver to attend AA, is that a case of the gov’t sanctioning a religion? What if you are an atheist? You don’t believe in a Higher Power. Wouldn’t a sentence to attend AA be a violation of your Constitutional Rights?
Especially if the choices are attend AA or go to jail?
I’m not going to contribute to any debate about the validity of AA’s underlying assumptions and the basic structure of their programme - there are plenty of websites out there if people want alternatives to the “disease” model of alcoholism or other addictions.
AA, however, is free - which makes it very attractive from a judicial/governmental point of view. It’s something which people can be directed to attend without cost being an issue for for government, health insurers, or the attendee. Its sheer pervasiveness also makes it extremely accessible for the majority of people.
I have many concerns about the judiciary directing people to attend programmes of any kind which are delivered outside of a professional context and which are not subject to scientific review, whether or not those programmes have a religious foundation - but the reality is that professionally devised and supervised programmes intended to bring about behavioural change cost money, and lots of it.
There are certainly non-12 step programmes around for alcoholism and other addictive behaviours (Moderation Management is another), but they are rarely as well known to the judiciary or as accessible to those being directed by the courts (or their employers) as AA.
Interesting article. I would have to assume that this wasn’t a first offense unless maybe felony drunk driving, i.e. an accident of some kind, possibly even with injuries, was involved. I would be surprised if jail was the indicated sentence for a first offense without aggravating circumstances.
It is a committed (no pun intended) atheist who would choose jail over sitting in a few meetings, but then it takes all kinds, I guess.
Incidently, I think most religions contain a large element of con, both of self and others, God is a fantasy thought up by primitive people to account for what they couldn’t understand, and openly tell others that the “higher power” is not needed for me but in 20 years I’ve never felt unwelcome in an AA meeting.
Good point. also, in the first 100 to get sober With Bill W and Dr. Bob was an atheist of the first order. Stayed sober too.
I have seen a few who have stayed sober from being sent by ‘da judge’.
Lots of ways to stay sober. Pick one, just don’t tell me that what works for me does not work. That kinda makes ya look stupid. Specially if you are not an alcoholic.
Around here no one cares much if the sheets are signed by real people and the folks stay for a meeting or not. Getting sober in ANY program is for people who want it, not those who need it.
If a person feels strongly about it, make them change the law and the judges ideas. AA did good for folks before this started and will do fine after it stops, if it stops.
If the only meeting a person can get to is being messed up for there by being 100 to 2 of treatment and court ordered folks, well, grab a coffee pot and start another meeting. How it has been done for 65+ years.
The fact that AA is free does make it attractive from a gov’t point of view, but in my experience (as a former parole officer), that attractiveness is outweighed by the disadvantages. There is no way to verify attendance at AA meetings. Sure, someone can bring a signed sheet, but I have no way of knowing whether it’s real (And in the NYC area, there must be thousands of AA groups, so even a stamp won’t help). There’s no way to find out what’s going on- with an actual drug or alcohol program, I’ll find out information such as the the client is resistant to the idea that he/she can’t drink a beer with lunch (or that beer counts as alcohol), or is showing up smelling of alcohol. I have no real objection to AA or other twelve step programs,and would certainly encourage someone who was involved in or who had completed an actual program to attend meetings if they wanted to, but in a criminal justice context, it’s simply not enough by itself.
doreen, I agree about the lack of opportunity to evaluate a client’s progress. I also think that some of the time such directives by courts or probation/parole officers are thinly disguised “twelfth stepping”.
My friend’s crime was not getting drunk - getting drunk is not against the law. His crime was driving while drunk, and doing so on multiple occasions. While his drinking habits might well be a health or moral issue, it’s his DRIVING habits which the justice system has a problem with and which are in dire need of modification.
The minute he’s finished his home detention he will start drinking again (or he’ll find ways to drink while on home detention), and he won’t have attended a single hour of counselling or other intervention which addresses his driving habits. At the very least, I believe he should have had to attend the morgue and a rehabilitation centre where victims of traumatic car accidents are slowly and painfully rebuilding their lives at LEAST as often as he is obliged to attend AA meetings.
I don’t object to twelve step programmes per se either, but I think they are often used as a cheap, convenient “catch-all” solution to problems our justice system is ill-equipped to deal with.
don’t know what you mean by “twelfth steping” , but
around here conditions of parole (and I assume probation and house arrest) are not restricted to not committing crimes or even things that are related to the conviction. It is not at all uncommon for someone with a robbery conviction to be required to attend drug or alcohol treatment, not be permitted to drink alcohol, not be permitted to be in a bar, to be required to support his or her children,to have a mental health evaluation. Part of the purpose of parole, home detention etc. is rehabilitation as well as punishment.
I’m not going to say your friend is an alcoholic ( because I have no idea) but I do want to say two things:
Your friends problem (as opposed to his crime) is not just his driving habits. It’s the combination of his drinking habits and his driving habits. If he changes either one, he won’t be driving drunk.I don’t know about Australia, but in most of the US, a non-drinking life is a lot easier than a non-driving life (lots of places don’t have good public transportation).
The fact that you suspect your friend may find a way to drink on home detention suggests to me that on some level, you believe he has a drinking problem. As I said to many parolees who protested that they were not alcoholics " I don’t know if you are, but the fact that you can’t or won’t stop drinking, knowing you may be jailed for it, means you at least have a problem "
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
The Twelfth Step of AA, from which the term “twelfth-stepping” springs. I have no problem whatsoever with people who’ve found AA beneficial to them “carrying this message” to others at a personal level; I have a problem with those same people using the powers of their professional positions to direct others to attend AA (or other twelve step programmes) while their own involvement in those organisations remains undeclared (as it must under the AA Twelve Traditions).
Yes, my friend is a problem drinker (it’s a moot point whether he fits the official definition of “alcoholic” and if so whose official definition he fits). And yes, part of both his punishment and his rehabilitation should address that issue.
It is fairly common here for people under non-custodial court orders to be directed to attend a variety of programmes (anger management counselling or drug abuse counselling, for instance), but AA is the only one I can think of where there is no evaluation carried out before, during, or after participation. It’s the “Hi Opal” or court ordered diversions, in that attendance is often directed whether or not it’s appropriate, whether or not there is a more appropriate option available, and whether or not a far more comprehensive programme is needed.
Even worse, AA seems to be used by the judicial system as a de factodetox, treatment, and rehabilitation programme - something AA itself has never claimed to be. I suspect the increasing tendency of the judicial system and employers to cast AA in that role quite often changes the dynamics of individual chapters of AA to the extent that those who are there voluntarily because they have a personal desire to attain sobriety leave because their individual need for support in attaining that goal is not being met.
From where I sit (I’m studying for a degree in Criminology and one of my primary areas of interest is recidivism), if we are serious about one of the aims of the justice system being rehabilitation, then AA attendance should be only one part of an overall package - right now, far too often, it is the only step towards rehabilitation which is directed, placing a burden on AA for which it has not asked and with which it is ill-equipped to cope.
There is nothing like that here in California. Certainly not in NA, which also get’s it share of court ordered attendee’s. What usually happens is that when the donation basket(which covers meeting expenses, and the rest pays for literature and other stuff) they put their court card in the basket. The meeting leader (a different person every time, usually chosen just before the meeting) or the meeting’s secretary will sign it. The attendee will pick it up later. Sometimes the cards are never picked up.
I’ve known a couple of people who have stayed clean after being court ordered to attend meetings. Just a couple. They can be compelled to attend, but not to become members. And you are a member when you say you are.
I don’t much like the idea of being ‘sentenced’ to meetings, but if it helps one person get clean…but I don’t think it would be very effective. There’s a saying, “the program isn’t for people who need it, or deserve it, it’s only for people that want it”. Meaning if you don’t want to get clean, you’re wasting your time. Someone may get the desire to get clean from compulsory attendence. It’s possible, I quess. But it seems unlikely.
My take on it exactly. My ex was one of the compulsory attendees–when he couldn’t find someone to fake his stamps–and it did zero for him. He was a junkie, not an alcoholic, and all going to meetings with other forced-to-attend users did was give him a few new hook-ups.