How NZ encourages repeat drink driving

Obviously, not everyone who drinks and drives has a drinking problem. But many do. For someone who does have a drinking problem, poor decision-making is almost inevitable. The offender’s ability to think clearly is impaired by the continued abuse or dependence on alcohol. This impaired capacity was highlighted by a potentially amusing story reported in the NZ Herald in November, 2008. A woman in Hastings who had been drinking got into her car to drive home and on the way home, she got a flat tyre. In her inebriated state, she dropped in at the local police station to ask for help. Not surprisingly, the police smelt alcohol on her breath and she was subsequently charged with drink driving.

This case illustrates that for some drinkers, the cognitive capacity for sensible decision-making is largely non-existent. They’re drunk when they make the decision to drink and drive. However, when it comes to sentencing, judges should have no such excuse. But it seems that when it comes to addressing the underlying problem, many judges seem to make equally poor decisions. They repeatedly fail to order 95% of drink drivers to attend an assessment to find out if they have a drinking problem.

This process is not confined to drink drivers. There are over 200,000 convictions in New Zealand each year for all offending – 80% to 90% of it alcohol and drug related. However, judges order only about 5% of all offenders who appear in Court to have an alcohol and drug assessment.

At the same time, New Zealand has some of the weakest penalties for drink driving in the western world. In Australia, Britain and Canada (and many states in the US), a 1st drink driving offence incurs a minimum disqualification period of one year. In New Zealand, the minimum is only six months for the 1st and 2nd conviction; a mandatory one year disqualification is only imposed for a 3rd offence. In Australia, a 2nd or subsequent offence incurs a minimum of three years disqualification. In Canada a 2nd offence leads to a two year disqualification. In Britain, drink drivers get three years for a 2nd offence.

Also, these other countries generally require drink drivers to attend counselling or treatment for their drinking problem before getting their drivers licence back. In New Zealand, 95% of drink drivers automatically get their driver’s licence back at the end of their period of disqualification - without even being assessed to see whether they have a drinking problem. One is inevitably led to the conclusion that the government and judicial system have little interest in rehabilitation and little commitment to dealing with the underlying causes of offending. In fact, our system does so little to stop drink-drivers from drinking or driving that it ‘enables’ this kind of offending to continue.

In the meantime, politicians, media and the public are outraged that drink drivers continue to re-offend and the perpetrators are labeled as ‘bloody idiots’. However, if we do nothing but blame the individual offender, we avoid examination of the system which allows this to happen. When drink drivers appear before our judges time and time again and our judicial system consistently fails to compel such people into treatment, one might conclude that we actually have an idiotic system, as well as plenty of bloody idiots (drink drivers) in the system.

Roger Brooking is Clinical Manager ADAC Ltd - Alcohol & Drug Assessment & Counselling

© Scoop Media