Sentencing repeated

A factor that has been stated as being critical in determining the levels of success that one can attain in management of alcohol or drug use is the levels of acceptance that is offered by the society. Being labeled a convicted felon or criminal does not count as being accepted for it affects the perception one has of an individual and reduce the chances one has for personal development (Nwanna 67). On the other hand, most alcohol users do not do it out of necessity rather it is a 'disease' or an addiction that they have to deal with.

The society has been appreciative of the addictive nature of alcohol and has developed intervention programs that seek to ensure addicts get the best care and are accepted within the society. Sentencing repeated drunken driving cases goes against established approaches to management of problematic use of drugs. It places individuals in position where they feel they are least appreciated by the society and they are thus at greater risk of drug use. This does little to address the situation and eliminate their propensity of using drugs in future. There has been a general increase in the levels of criminal activities within the society.

The reason for this increase are numerous and range from an increase in poverty due to marginalization to imbalances in resource allocation. Correctional facilities have recorded an increase in their capacities with more emphasis being placed on communal work and restorative justice as approaches to reduce the strain that correctional facilities are on (Taylor and Oberman 46). Drunken driving is as rampant as petty theft or drug peddling in urban areas which present a key risk on the effective use of state correctional facilities if these petty criminals are to do time.

There are far more serious crimes that can really find good use of the limited state resources and subjecting addicts to such treatment amount to torture and poor use of national resources. In an era where the US economy is faced with a number of key challenges it is a shame that some could even think of formulating strategies that would lead to subjective allocation of resources (Gill 87). It is worth noting that sentencing of repeated drunken drivers is not only a manifestation of poor resource allocation but amounts to wasteful use of resources considering that the approach is irrelevant to the nature of the problem.

A lot of heat can be generated from a debate on consideration of drunken driving as a crime. On the other hand, the relevance of using the number of times one has been engaged in a crime as a measure of the seriousness of his crime brings about questions on objectivity. The dangers in drunken driving are equal whether the driver is a first time drunk driver or is a routine drunken driver (Taylor and Oberman 89). The differential treatment of first time and multiple offenders brings about a question on the effectiveness of the measures that have been developed to deal with first time offenders.

It is evident that the measure put in place to deal with the first time offenders are lacking thus the need to develop measures for multiple offenders. Development of a different status of drunken driving and punishment approaches does little to deal with the failures of the low levels approaches. By instituting sentencing for multiple drunken drivers, the justice system will have not only accepted the failure or irrelevance of the intervention for first time offenders but also accepted its inability to develop better approaches. This should not be the case for a problem that is of social significance.