Quote:
“Fellas:
I
have a few small additions or amplifications to your analysis of the NY GSO Guideline.
The
guideline, as you noted, attempts compare CMA to other forms of being
“sentenced” to AA such as being sentenced by their employer,
family, doctor or their own inner suffering. This argument is a
classic false equivalency argument. Noteworthy only in how weak it
is. The main difference between a court and these other motivators is
that the court can impose a time limit. You must go for one year or
more. If you go because of your wife or your boss; you only have to
go for as long as it takes to convince them that you are better.
Additionally, when you go for those other motivators the members of
AA usually quickly pick up on that and inform you that this will only
work if you are doing it for yourself. AA’s today do not bother to
say this to a CMA because they know the CMA has made a choice to go
to meetings FOR someone else other than themselves.
Another
erroneous comparison is when you compare going to a Prison/Jail
meeting or a meeting in a treatment center to having CMA in an
outside meeting. When you attend an institutional meeting you know
what you are getting into. YOU have made the choice to be in a
meeting that may have elements of attendees who are not attending of
their own volition. This is a huge difference to having unwilling
parties forced upon you when you are attending a meeting.
The
guideline states: In most cases, this general outline is followed by
all court court programs for “alcoholic” offenders: Then it goes
on to list several items of protocol for sentencing. I have a problem
with this for two main reasons. One, the protocol is not followed by
“all” court programs. I’m not sure it is followed 100% by any
court program. To what ever extent it is followed is dictated by
budgetary concerns within the agency. Secondly, the phrase
“alcoholic” offenders is very telling. This makes the assumption
that everyone who gets arrested for an alcohol related crime is an
alcoholic. Simply not true. In fact, it just as likely if not more
likely that a criminal will admit to be alcoholic to gain entry to
these programs and get a lighter sentence.
Finally,
the guideline shows a great lack of foresight as to how many CMA’s
the courts would send. They trusted that the court would not be
guided by budgetary strains. The writers seemed to think the courts
would be guided by a loving God as he may reveal himself. The writers
lacked the ability to see that the courts would not only send every
drunk driver to meetings, they would (under the influence of crafty
defense attorneys and their own greed) send wife beaters, marijuana
smokers, shoplifters and even sex offenders.
Please
feel free to use this information and analysis as you feel fit.”
We
would be interested to hear from other AA members with regard to
their own experience and/or observations of the CMA ('chit') system
(good or bad). We can be contacted at our email address here.
Confidentiality assured.
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
Our thanks to this US member for their contribution
