Why are courts still sentencing people to AA meetings?
I see a criminal justice system taking the lazy way out.
Welcome to Ask a Sober Lady! This is a reader-supported publication. All the posts are free, but paid subscriptions allow me to keep writing them. If you’re in a position to upgrade your support, please consider doing so. Either way, I’m happy you’re here!
Last week, a court in Mono County, California, made headlines for doing something courts all across the country do multiple times a day: sentence someone to mandatory Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to avoid jail time for a substance-related offense. The defendant was The Sixth Sense actor Haley Joel Osment; in April, authorities arrested him at a ski resort for public intoxication and cocaine possession. Osment’s fame—and a body cam recording of him using “an antisemitic slur” during his arrest—made an otherwise unremarkable arrest the stuff of headlines.
In theory, the motivation behind sending “drug and alcohol offenders” to 12-step meetings instead of jail is good. Whether or not you have a strict belief in the disease concept of addiction, it’s fair to classify severe substance use disorders as medical conditions that often require some medical, mental, and/or behavioral health intervention.
The good news is that putting people in jail because they have a medical condition is pretty unpopular with Americans. Sixty-seven percent of Americans support treatment over incarceration for people with substance use disorders; the majority also support reducing criminal penalties for possession and use of illicit drugs. The bad news is that it still happens on a daily basis.
One of the ways the criminal justice system has attempted to shift away from incarcerating people with addiction is by sentencing individuals to treatment or mutual aid groups in lieu of jail time. Sometimes, this means sentencing people to mandatory inpatient treatment (which is an even thornier issue, but that’s a different can of worms for a different day); more often, the court mandates the defendant attend 12-step meetings for a certain period of time.
What questions do you have about substance use and addiction recovery? What would you like to see me cover in the newsletter?
In Osment’s case, in addition to therapy, he’ll have to attend AA meetings three times a week for the next six months. I don’t know the particulars of his case—it may be that he chose AA over other recovery programs. That said, those of us who’ve attended AA meetings know that a court mandating AA attendance is a common occurrence. Inevitably, as a 12-step meeting winds down, someone announces that they’ll be signing court cards should anyone need to prove they attended. Presumably, Osment will do this as part of his diversion program and keep the incident off his record.
Most often, debates around mandatory AA attendance center around the First Amendment and religious freedom. A slew of lawsuits have argued that it’s unconstitutional to force someone to attend a program that’s centered around God (albeit “as you understand Him”) or go to jail. Although plenty of people (myself included) have experiences with the 12 steps that are more spiritual than religious, I think coming down on the side of unconstitutionality is probably right. It’s one thing to voluntarily enter a program in which you conceptualize your own nondenominational version of God and quite another to be forced into that position because the alternative is prison.
But that’s not the main reason I’m staunchly anti-mandatory AA meeting attendance. Instead, it’s for the following reasons:
AA’s program is predicated on the belief that its effectiveness comes from voluntary participation. It seems odd to mandate attendance at meetings of an organization that fundamentally believes everyone should attend voluntarily.
An overwhelming body of evidence suggests that the people who have the best outcomes in AA are the people who are there voluntarily (and conversely, those who have the worst outcomes are the people who are there involuntarily).
AA is not the only program that is free and widely accessible, which makes it all the more ridiculous that the criminal justice system is so lazily over-reliant on it.
It’s probably not a great idea to be cavalier about doling out sentences that courts have repeatedly concluded are unconstitutional.
I realize that there are people who got sober because they were mandated to attend 12-step meetings, connected with what they heard, and are prime examples of the best-case scenario. But that’s not enough to sell me on the idea. I also know people who got sober in prison, and I don’t think anyone who has studied the issue would argue that prison is therefore a reasonable and effective treatment for addiction.
Study after study has shown that people who are mandated to treatment or a mutual aid group for substance use are often the least likely to participate in or elicit meaningful benefits from that intervention.
One study argues this boils down to “the 4 Rs: reluctance, rebellion, resignation, and rationalization.” The authors write, “This phenomenon is a normal reaction to compulsory treatment, as people are likely to resist their loss of freedom and independence.” In other words, people don’t like being told what to do. This is especially true when it comes to 12-step meetings, which are an acquired taste that some people simply never acquire.
It doesn’t have to be this way, and many courts have found that it shouldn’t be this way. AA is not the only free, widely accessible program. SMART Recovery and LifeRing Secular Recovery are both free, secular alternatives to AA. Why don’t courts give offenders the option of choosing one of the three programs? Or let them try all three and decide if they want to keep going with one or more of them? The court would still be mandating an intervention, but it’s at least giving the offender some choice in the matter. And it seems like it would be equally little skin off the court’s back, seeing as they’d pretty much do what they’re already doing: referring the person to a free third-party program that allows the court to wash their hands of the “problem” unless that defendant lands in court again.
Despite the many successful court battles over this issue, it’s still exceedingly common for people to be sentenced to 12-step meetings. Those who have religious objections to the sentence can find some guidance at this link. However, I wish courts would do more to offer these alternatives without requiring the defendant to take action. Not just for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that people want choices. If you want someone to feel like they’re taking agency in their recovery, you have to give them opportunities to exercise that agency. Because when the only other option you’re offered is prison time, it’s not much of a choice at all.
This was a bit of a soapbox post; I know not everyone agrees, and that’s okay! I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
Send questions and feedback to askasoberlady@gmail.com. By sending a question, you agree to let me reprint it in the newsletter with your name redacted or changed. Emails may be edited for length or clarity.
I’m not a doctor or mental health professional, so my advice shouldn’t be construed as medical or therapeutic. You are free to take or leave it.
I love your writing and have no intent to criticize the general premise, but provide my own perspective.
Because I occasionally handle criminal cases for friends and family, I have found as a practical matter that judges would happily consider other forms of recovery. AA is just the "go to" because it exists in (nearly) every city and has a significant footprint in the cities with the judges handing down the sentences. Most (but not all) judges have addressed this type of sentence with the attorneys and alternative options could be addressed. I cannot tell you how often the fact that a defendant with means enters a pricey rehab and this (often unauthentic) act persuades the Court to consider a lesser sentence. AA is free, and (often) is viewed as an alternative to a rehabilitation program.
I just want to thank you for the thoughtful words. My own experiences echo so much that you presented.