When Rebecca Tiger came to my class to give a guest lecture, one of the most shocking things I learned about was SCRAMx, an alcohol monitoring device that “alcohol offenders” are FORCED to wear by our legal system. This seemed to me a blatant violation of privacy, and a fundamental right to be intoxicated. As strange as it may sound, alcohol is a completely legal substance, and while I understand the government’s need and right to regulate it’s use, prohibiting someone from drinking entirely based on their criminal offenses seems to me a form of discrimination. And I don’t care if it doesn’t pierce the skin, wearing an alcohol monitoring system 24/7 is invasive.
The logic that the criminal justice system uses to justify this punishment is based in scientific, media definitions of addition, specifically, alcoholism, and the belief that the proper treatment for alcoholism is complete abstinence. This makes about as much sense as abstinence-only sex education (which is to say, none). That isn’t to say abstinence can’t work – I personally know people who have felt they were dependent on alcohol in a way that was negatively impacting their lives, decided to get “sober,” stayed sober, and felt it had improved their lives. But the evidence doesn’t necessarily indicate this is the solution for everyone. Then again, maybe the problem is the assumption that a “solution” is needed. What’s the difference between “alcoholism,” “problem drinking” and “binge drinking”? To get back to my original point, why does the criminal justice system play a role in categorizing behavior this way and offering solution-punishments? If a doctor can’t force a patient to wear an alcohol monitoring system (not that I think they should be able to) why can a judge?
It has been recognized that medicalization means “behaviors once viewed as moral failings are increasingly viewed as illnesses.” In fact, such behaviors may be neither, yet our legal system treats “alcoholism” as both a moral failing – something unethical that deserves punishment – and, as a medical problem that requires treatment.
Frankly, I’m a bit shocked that people don’t know more about SCRAMx, and that it’s constitutionality hasn’t been challenged. What do you think?
Leave a Reply