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 Bebouts disease, referring to his addictions to alcohol and drugs.
He had opportunities to rehabilitate himself, but its a disease. Its 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 didnt have a disease.
Its not a disease, she said. People say that time and again, but its 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 mans 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 nations research on alcohol addiction, spokeswoman Ann Bradley said.
Its 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 institutes 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 Bebouts 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 clients 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 doesnt 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 doctors 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 wasnt anything that supported it.
Alcoholism is a disease of the mind and the body. It is genetic in origin and it is always fatal if left untreated. For someone to say that it is simply a matter of choice is to speak out of profound ignorance. If it was just a matter of will, AA would not exist. I have been in the recovery community for 14 years. I have experienced the tremendous effort of will required for an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol (or drugs, addiction is addiction) for even a short period both personally and in the observation of others. It is not a weakness moral or otherwise.
It manifests itself as a mental obsession that, even though experience has proven to the alcoholic hundreds of times that to partake is to invite disaster, this time will be different. This is an obsession common to all real alcoholics, there is no exception.
Once alcohol has been ingested, in any amount, the disease then manifests itself as an uncontrollable craving. That craving can only be quenched by more alcohol.
The body of an alcoholic metabolizes alcohol in a different manner than "normies." That is why an alcoholic in the heart of his addiction can consume amounts of alcohol that would kill a normal drinker. I have known people to drink a gallon a day of whiskey day after day. I myself used to drink so much that bartenders used to shake their heads in wonder. I had bartender give me nicknames like Mr. "T" because I would drink 9-12 Long Island iced teas and then get up and walk away without weaving or even appearing drunk.
The problem that people have in calling it a disease stems from the fact that the only long term treatment is a spiritual one, not a pill that comes in a bottle.
Genetics is a complicated matter, and gene expression is often more important that gene possession. There is ample medical evidence that alcoholics have a different physiological reaction to alcohol than non-alcoholics. There is some evidence suggesting (but not proving) that this different physiological difference pre-dates actual alcohol use (i.e. isn't just an after-effect of alchohol consumption by people who were physiologically the same as non-alcoholics before they began consuming alcohol). What is perfectly clear is that regardless of your genetic make-up or gene expression patterns, you will not become an alcoholic if you never start drinking alcohol. Our society would do well to stop accepting alcohol consumption as a normal part of everday life.
Folks the real issue here is the fact the DEFENSE ATTORNEY did not present evidence to establish it is a disease.
The attorney needed to introduce the predicate to show "disease".
This is NOT that controversial. Without the proper groundwork the attorney was essentially arguing effect without cause.
Each case HAS to be tried individually. If this lawyer was challenging the breathalyzer or blood test a expert would be required.
Seriously the attoney could have even moved, written motion to really do it right, for the court to take judicial notice that the DSM has alcholism listed as a disease.
This is a rookie mistake on the lawyers part and now the MSM is going to misrepresent it all over the place.
much of the reason alcholism was declared "a disease" is so insurance could pay for treatement.
This is NOT a disease issue and misrepresented by the MSM. This is the lawyer not laying a proper foundation to his argument.
This is a rookie lawyer error, NOT a bad by the judge.
ANY judge would have made the same ruling for not laying the proper predicate. No evidence, no win.
A FIB (or atrial fibrilation)
I did have ablation done, but about 30% of the time it does not work and I unfortunately fell in that group.
However, the medication has be very effective. I am on Rythmol and nothing else.
FReepmail me if you want to talk further.
I don't think it matters. Giving a common "vice" like this status as a legal defense really ought to be a matter for the state legislature. It's absurd to expect judges to evaluate something like this, when medical experts differ widely, and unfair for the legal result to vary depending upon which judge an accused person happens to land in front of.
More and more behaviors are being found by medical science to have a genetic basis, or some other basis over which the individual can exercise no control. What the criteria should be for accepting such conditions as a legal defense, is a political question. It wouldn't surprise me if medical science soon found a clearly identifiable organic brain disorder that child rapists have, that accounts for their virtually 100% recidivism rate. But it would not automatically follow from such a finding that child rapists shouldn't be convicted and punished for their crimes.
I think the judge made a poor choice of words, but wanted to point out that this woman has a choice whether she wants to deal with her disease or not and she made a poor choice that she will have to pay for.
These are excuses for liberals not to have to be responsible for their actions.
Believe me -- if my circumstances were even just slightly different than they are, I could certainly see myself being an alcoholic. This is precisely why I view it as a behavioral issue more than a "disease."
I'm always amused by the number of people who decide, or seemingly need to believe, they know more about the nature of alcoholism than do scientific researchers and learned members of the American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the World Health Organization. All of which have identified and categorized alcoholism as a disease. Alcoholics didn't declare that to be so, medical and psychiatric organizations did. And they didn't do it because they were trying to "be nice" to alcoholics. They did it because alcoholism fits well within the disease model used across the board. Take it or leave it, like it or not, it is so.
Though the cause(s) of alcoholism have yet to be fully understood by the scientific community, it is considered most akin to diabetes. Causal factors of diabetes have yet to be identified, yet no one ever seems to feel the need to debate whether or not it is a valid illness. Nor do they tend to blame diabetics for being ill. Yes, I'm attempting to illustrate a parallel. And no, it won't be helpful to those whose personal fears about, and resentments towards alcoholism are such that they preclude rational thought.
One last try. I thank God that my dear diabetic friend -- a wise and brilliant man who has been insulin dependent for more than 30 years -- has never felt the need to be smarter, or stronger, or intellectually superior to his disease. Because, of course, he'd be very, very dead.
We sometimes talk about our respective diseases. He knows he'll never be able to successfully control or negotiate with sugar again. In my case, though I've been sober since Nixon was in office, I'll never be able to safely drink again. Is that because we don't live with diseases? No. It's because we acknowledge they exist and choose to stay alive.
I don't have an actual source from that -- I thought it was something that was fairly commonly understood (I seem to recall reading or hearing about it during the 2000 campaign).
Please refer to post #93 - I haven't seen it said better.
See Post #43. The scientific researchers and learned members of many so-called "professional organizations" are often nothing more than political lobbying groups. Many of these groups have a huge financial stake in their "scientific research," and they sold their souls long ago for the almighty dollar.
If you have any doubt about this, just pick a specific topic of interest that has been studied extensively by one of these groups and discuss it with a competent, respected professional who is willing to speak frankly on the subject. You'll be amazed at how many doctors, for example, will privately contradict many things that the American Medical Association presents as medical facts.
The AMA, APA, and WHO are no more competent on this subject than Mothers Against Drunk Driving is about the subject of drunk driving.
Most importantly, I think you cannot limit the discussion to alcohol. If there is a genetic predisposition, it is not to the chemical of alcohol per se, but rather as an "addictive personality." One of the surest signs of an addict is to ask him/her about the first time they tried their drug of choice (alcohol or otherwise). Most people, if they remember at all, usually only remember instances of drug introduction either factually or because of the circumstances (i.e., my Dad gave me a drink at Thanksgiving, or my girlfriend wanted me to try ecstasy on our third date, etc.). But addicts almost always describe a very different experience. First, almost all have very strong memories of exactly when or where they first tried their drug of choice, followed by a reaction at the time akin to "Where has this been all my life!"
This difference is very probably genetic, meaning that some people are more likely to become addicted to drugs than others. In fact, I would argue that most addicts would have become addicted to something even had they not found their drug of choice. However this proclivity is not a disease, in the truest sense of the word. It is a "mental illness," a term that has less to do with disease and much more to do with behavior and self control (wherever that lack of self control or behavior comes from)...
THAT is the point!
The Judge needs to see the evidence BECAUSE she can't take the attorney's word alone at the EVIDENTIARY hearing. Even if the Judge was an MD, the ATTORNEY was supposed to provide the predicate for the conclusion.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ALCHOLISM THIS IS ABOUT PROVIDING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF DISEASE!
If anything the defendant has an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for this lawyer error.
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.