Alcoholic deserves the Darwin Award
OCTOBER 2004
Amazing Antics: Stories of Alcoholism-Driven Behaviors
An addict relapses, tragedy occurs and the misbehaviors reach their logical extreme.
Story from This is True by Randy Cassingham, with “tagline:”
“SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE: Leah Kravochuck met James Ivinskas at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, and a few days later went on a date for Valentine’s Day. “For some reason they went out that night, and they drank and drank and drank,” says her lawyer, Stuart Lippe. Since both were drunk, it’s hard to say what happened, but Ivinskas was killed by Kravochuck when she ran him over with her car. Twice. When arrested, she tried to bribe the police officer, offering $5,000 and sex if he would let her go. While awaiting trial on charges of aggravated vehicular homicide and DUI — her fifth — she was caught under the influence of drugs. Twice. Judge Judith Kilbane Koch sentenced Kravochuck to eight years for Ivinskas’ death, and three more for the attempted bribery. Lippe called the sentence “totally ridiculous.” (Cleveland Plain Dealer) …So true, but it’s hard to believe her lawyer wanted her to get 20 years too. Twice.
The attorney, in calling the sentence “ridiculous,” is doing what defense attorneys are often paid to do: enable. While I agree with Randy’s implication that the girl should have gotten 40 years (re-read that tagline if it didn’t make sense — Randy is being facetious), it’s obvious that the law failed: it should have enforced abstinence long before the fifth DUI. If she had been shown the way to abstinence and sobriety, she might not have relapsed, killed someone and attempted bribery to get herself off the hook.
Ivinskas’ death was senseless. Most alcoholics in recovery are decent, hard working and respectable. Believe it or not, this is probably true of Kravochuck as well. The problem is that the law allows the person convicted of DUI to drink. Drinking leads the addict to believe he or she is invincible. The feeling of invincibility impels them, again and again, to get behind the wheel of a car while legally under the influence.
Some favor Prohibition. (If you don’t think that some prefer this failed method, take a look at the War on Drugs. It is Prohibition; only the names of the drugs have changed.) I do not. Most people can use drugs safely, including the drug we call “alcohol.” The problem is, a few cannot. For these people only, Prohibition is necessary. Should it be imposed after the first DUI? The second? How should it be imposed? These are questions I’m not yet prepared to explore (but will at some point in a book on public policy and alcoholism). However, I suggest that such restrictions be imposed on people who have proven to society by their behaviors that they cannot be relied upon to safely use, sometime before the fifth DUI. And, it should be as certain a prohibition as the law can enforce.
(“This is True” is copyright 2004 by Randy Cassingham, used with permission. See http://www.thisistrue.com for free subscriptions.)