Recidivism among drunken drivers is a dastardly problem without a simple fix.

But it’s not enough to admit the obvious and then for society to throw up our collective hands and move on. A combination of tougher punishments, better treatment and more conditions for release must be put in place to stop drivers who just won’t stop driving while intoxicated.

Two cases which have left shattered lives locally make the argument better than a page full of statistics about drunken driving.

In 1998, Gale Chapman killed a 16-year-old Poland boy while driving drunk. She eventually served 18 months for drunken driving and leaving the scene of an accident. After her release from prison, Chapman changed her name to Shannon Ross, moved to another part of the state and returned to her habit of drinking and driving. She’s currently serving a six-month sentence for her second operating under the influence conviction.

In 1996, Daniel Asselin was driving drunk when he hit and killed 18-year-old Mark Blanchette of Lewiston. Asselin has a long record of driving under the influence. He’s been barred from driving for almost a decade and is a habitual offender. He’s currently awaiting sentencing on a recent drunken driving conviction in Bangor.

The death of a teenager would be enough to set most people straight. In fact, the consequences of a drunken driving arrest – even without an injury – is enough to keep most people from repeating the crime. The court appearance, the public shame, the financial penalties and the tarnish that follows a conviction for years help drivers wise up to the dangers of driving drunk.

But for some people, as serious alcoholics, nothing gets through. Alcoholism is a disease and the effects of drinking leave people unwilling or unable to make the right choices about driving. They repeat their crime over and over.

As a matter of public safety, we need to focus more attention on repeat offenders. On Sept. 17, a new law will elevate a third OUI conviction to a felony charge. That’s a good place to start. But it doesn’t go far enough. When a serious injury or death is involved, it should be two strikes and you’re out. Every hurdle should be erected to deter the habitual offender, including holding owners responsible if they allow their car to be used by a drunken driver.

But locking up offenders is just the beginning.

We have to realize that alcoholism is a disease that can be treated. We are well aware of the burden placed upon probation officers, but more follow-up work is needed for habitual offenders to ensure they seek mandated treatment and do not drive.

Alcoholism, however, is no excuse. In the end, it’s a personal choice to drink and drive, even if the choice is made while impaired. Like the police and judicial system, the families and friends of drunken drivers have an obligation. Intervening can mean calling the police about a relative who can’t be convinced not to drive.

It might sound like a rat thing to do, but lives are at stake. Given the choice, most people would agree it’s better to risk a relationship than attend a funeral. Too often, however, it’s easier to let the person drive off and hope for the best.

Tackling habitual offenders will take hard work, public resources and toughness. That’s no reason not to do it.