 |
|
Gull |
Posted on 07/29/2005 5:37:23 AM PDT by RobFromGa
|
During a sentencing Thursday in Allen Superior Court involving a drunken driving fatal crash, Judge Fran Gull said alcoholism is not a disease – a comment that contradicts the beliefs of much of the medical field.
Gull later defended her statement, saying she was referring specifically to the case at hand.
Gull, who is one of three criminal judges for the court, also oversees drug court – a program that began in 1997 aims to rehabilitate non-violent offenders with drug and alcohol addictions through 12 to 18 months of intensive supervision and treatment. Participants must take other steps to improve their lives, and if they remain substance free, their criminal charges are dismissed.
Before Gull sentenced Todd Anthony Bebout, defense attorney Mitch Hicks asked Gull to consider Bebout’s disease, referring to his addictions to alcohol and drugs.
“He had opportunities to rehabilitate himself, but it’s a disease. It’s not only a matter of wanting to quit,” Hicks argued. “Well, you are the drug court director, you know.”
Minutes later, while reviewing what she would consider in sentencing, Gull said Bebout didn’t have a disease.
“It’s not a disease,” she said. “People say that time and again, but it’s not.”
Gull continued by explaining that the man had a choice, and his choices led to the death of a woman. She also emphasized the man’s failed attempts at rehabilitation through the criminal justice system over the years, which included counseling, probation and intensive treatment.
Alcoholism is recognized as a disease by both the American Medical Association and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which is responsible for 90 percent of the nation’s research on alcohol addiction, spokeswoman Ann Bradley said.
It’s a disease that involves compulsive use that cannot be controlled until the alcohol or addictive substance is removed, Bradley said.
The symptoms of the disease, according to the institute’s Web site, include craving alcohol, loss of control, physical dependence and tolerance. Those afflicted by the chronic disease can experience withdrawal symptoms, such as anxiety, sweating, shaking or nausea.
Bradley said alcoholism is considered a brain disease and that there are medications available to help alcoholics. The difference between the addiction being a disease and a bad choice is the loss of control over how much one drinks.
When questioned about the comment later in the day, Gull defended her statements made in court. She said her comment was referring specifically to that case only. She said the attorney who brought up Bebout’s addictions invited her to comment about the situation.
“He invited me to consider it as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing,” Gull said. “But there was no evidence to show that it was a disease.”
Gull said she would have considered it had Hicks presented a medical diagnosis to establish his client’s disease. Although she did not ask for such evidence during the hearing or even mention that it was lacking, Gull later noted in a sentencing order that the argument was not supported.
Addiction doesn’t necessarily mean disease, she said, and part of the problem is the lack of consistent information, saying that the topic is still debated among various professional fields.
There are times when Gull has received medical information supporting that an offender has an addiction that has been diagnosed as a disease, she said. In those situations, which do arise in drug court, she orders the offender to follow doctor’s orders and makes that a requirement of participation in the program.
“I very specifically considered what I had in front of me,” she said. “There wasn’t anything that supported it.”
I've been here long enough to understand that opinions flow freely.
My point is that the education one receives in detox/rehab is useful in forming an opinion based on more than the musings of a judge (whom I notice Freepers showering with adoration instead of trashing only because she shares a bias) or the interview of a jock.
This is a crock in my opinion.
You are simply making up a definition of "alcoholic" as someone with an addiction that is unable to quit using willpower. And any addict that is able to quit by themselves is a "heavy drinker". But both are addicts. And both are "alcoholic" in the sense that they cannot choose to control alcohol use like a normal person.
I have been to many AA meetings after I quit for about three months using willpower. Although AA does teach a spiritual method of healing, the majority of the people I have met in those rooms are going to those meetings because of willpower, that is getting them into the car. The other reason they go is because they are now addicted to AA meetings.
He represents the minority of the cases.
My opinion of this judge is favorable because she believes, as I do, that people are responsible for their actions even when drunk or high.
Individuals are responsible for their condition, so they are responsible for the actions that they take when in that state.
Whether or not alcoholism is a disease is semantic in my opinion. It is a condition that some people have and others don't. Alcohol is irrelevant, it could be sniffing glue, or BigMacs or porn.
But for these sufferers of this condition, the only real solution that I have found is abstinence and vigilance against relapse. Many an "alcoholic" has thought he had licked this disease and been captured by the poison again upon relapsing.
It may be physical, it may be psychological, it may be spiritual, but it is up to each affect individual to solve the problem themselves because, unlike high blood pressure, there is no pill that will allow an "alcoholic" to drink normally.
And your experience in this situation is what??
How do you know I DON'T??
there is a difference between a heavy user and a real alcoholic/addict. I too have know "junkies" who have kicked the habit. They quite simply were not real addicts.
They are not real alcoholics. Real alcoholics are incapapble of doing it by force of will.
Glad to see the person elected as final arbitrator of what is real or false hangs around FR with us ignorant folks....(denote HEAVY sarcasm)
Come back and debate when you have educated yourself on the disease.
Let me guess....
You're in the 'rehabilitation' busness!
Sound reasoning.
Repeated drinking to drunkenness is simply a mishandled form of self-medication.
Abstinence from alcohol is merely the first step in the addressing of the underlying problem(s).
The majority that I've met have the will power of a court order.
I nominate that comment for inclusion in the Conservative Hall of Wisdom (if such a place exists).
Kudos Sir !!!
Seeing people who choose to continue to ruin their lives with alcohol or drugs despite of the enabling and coddling powers of rehab or detox facilities (some within my extended family), yet seeing others who finally understand that they are destroying themselves and people around them...they take responsibilty for their actions and stop letting alcohol rule their lives...without believing in the "disease", "genetics" or "allergy" lies that are spewed from medical "professionals." They simply stop drinking altogether or stop drinking excessively. Not to be overly philosophical...but, everything in life is a choice...some day to day...some minute to minute.
So why did they start drinking alcohol?
And how can you be an alcoholic if you have no had a drink of alcohol. Being that alcoholism is "addiction to alcohol", a person who has never imbibed is unlikely to be addicted to a substance they have never used.
But that's just the common sense speaking, perhaps I need have a couple of beers and think it over.
I see your Kudos and raise you mega-dittos.
all you say may be correct but it is irrelevant from the aspect of the court.
The lawyer did not bring out ANY of what you say via some form of evidence. No expert witness, not eve an attempt to have judicial notice.
nothing.
This thread has degenerated off the issue. A judge can only rule on facts which are admitted as evidnced. If none of you points are brought into evidence then the judge is rule accordingly.
IOW if an attorney presents zero evidence and proves nothing, the judge is obligated IN THAT INSTANCE to issue a ruling of "no evidence to support".
Oh, I don't know. The article seamed to be about the kerfuffle over the judge's comment, "It’s not a disease. People say that time and again, but it’s not." And the discussion followed along those same lines.
Suppose the defense attorney had lined up the most effective expert witnesses to present evidence that alcoholism is a disease. Would a plea that says in essence, "yes I was driving while intoxicated, but I'm an alcoholic and since alcoholism is disease, I'm not guilt," stand a chance of winning an acquittal? Has it ever been used effectively?
it USED to. That is why DWI/DUI was changed to a strict liability crime. You no longer need specific intent to kill while drunk. No more I was drunk therefore could not intentionally kill.
I have seen this type of ruling before on other matters and have used the fact opposing counsel failed to bring out any evidence to support their points (when required).
Seriously, the judge could have ruled against the person even if she found alchol was a disease based on provided expert testimony.
I think her comments were more a dig at the sloppy job the attorney did rather than at the science involved.
He could have established alcholism as a disease even by requesting the court take judicial notice of the DSM or something along those lines.
You quit for about 3 months? So, like are you still quit or are you drinking now?
The good judge is probably no better a surgeon than she is qiualified to address this issue. Clearly a case of the kind of juridical madness that leads to painful swelling of the ego.
If you call working a good AA program in the business then yes, if you are implying that I get paid for it no.
"Glad to see the person elected as final arbitrator of what is real or false hangs around FR with us ignorant folks."
Yes there is, as far as alcoholism is, it's called the book of Alcoholics Anonymous. (No heavy sarcasm here)
Just sadness at the profound display of ignorance and self-assured arrogance on display here. I feel like I'm debating on dailyKos. So many experts with so little knowledge.
"The judge did not say alcholism was not a disease, just that the LAWYER did not provide the evidence to support the claim..."
Understood. Though from my perspective, it's astounding that the argument still rages about whether or not alcoholism should have disease status. As is evidenced by the case in question, and the posts on this thread, a large percentage of people absolutely refuse to accept that alcoholism is anything more than "a choice" or "willful misconduct." Which was precisely the attitude towards it that existed during Victorian times, and well before.
Please do not misunderstand. I am by NO MEANS in favor of criminals getting reduced sentences, or being excused from violations of the law on the basis of their alcohol or drug consumption. I loathe that, as a matter of fact. Addiction may or may not be a contributing factor to crime, but it must NEVER be allowed to be an excuse for it. All the same rules that apply to non-addicted offenders should apply to addicts. Period.
At any rate, none of the 'is it' or 'isn't it' debate points are new. The issue was supposed to have been settled decades ago, but it was not. Someday, when the cause and cure for alcoholism is discovered and printed on the front page of every newspaper in the country, I'll wager there will still be people who deny that what is said is so. That's too bad. Because the ongoing stigma and prejudice against alcoholism, it's disease status, you name it, is responsible for a tremendous number of deaths each day. No need to believe me. It's in the stats.
Did they not like themselve before or after they started drinking?
A lifestyle choice? Do you think they got up one morning and decided to become an alcoholic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.