How many DUIs before losing driver's license for good? (1 Viewer)

[matttyl]

Caught a quick blurb this morning on I believe the Today show of people with multiple DUIs still allowed to drive. They had one guy with something like 15 or 20! I understand different states have different laws on the subject, but if there were to be one universal law on the topic - how many DUIs should it take before you lose your driver's license for good?

 

[avoiding injuries]

For good? 4

 

[TLEF316]

2.

 

[matttyl]

Yes, for good - no chance of getting it back. Maybe have another side rule of losing it for 5-10 years after a certain number, and then losing it for good with another strike.

 

[Scoresman]

1, maybe 2 depending on the circumstances of the first.

I've been piss drunk many times and each time I still had the common sense not to drive. If I can do that, everyone else should be held to the same standard.

 

[NutterButter]

You get one chance to screw up. If you don't learn you're lesson from that you're never going to learn.

 

[[icon]]

1 = 1 year

2 = 3 years

3 = 10 years

4 = Life

IMO.

With the legal limit being .08, anyone voting for 1 or 2 is kinda silly. On any given weekend evening I'd wager 50% of the traffic on the roads is within spitting distance of the legal limit.

Now you want to make a tiered system? .15+ is 2 strikes you're out? Sure. But with it at .08, no way.

 

[Brony]

You get one chance to screw up. If you don't learn you're lesson from that you're never going to learn.

Hypothetically, if someone got one at 17 and the other at 20, then they're out for the rest of their life? I know that I've learned plenty since the time I was a teenager.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This is a tough call for me. I'm not a fan of the current DUI laws. You rarely see fatal accidents where the direct cause was someone at .09 BAC. So I'm not really in favor of permanently removing the ability to drive for someone who has a few but isn't really impaired, and does that a few times. If you talk about people repeatedly busted at .12 or higher I would say 4 is a good number.

 

[matttyl]

1, maybe 2 depending on the circumstances of the first.

I didn't know how to get into that - as not all DUIs are the same. Yes, in each you are over some set limit - but you could be just over that limit or 2-3x that limit. You could be stopped without "incident", or you could cause multiple fatalities.

A guy I went to high school with was driving drunk, hit a car on the side of the highway that was changing a flat - killed 3 family members. The father of the family wasn't hurt as he was changing the tire, and obviously witnessed it. He then took out a tire iron and nearly killed my high school classmate with it - who's still in jail on manslaughter charges. For him, doesn't matter if he has a driver's license or not, he can't use it. That's a different situation than a guy who blows a .08 who gets stopped at a checkpoint on the way out of the bar's parking lot.

I'm just assuming that all DUIs are the same for this question, though.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I like [icon]'s post and agree although I would say there would be instances where 3 might be the case in a relatively short amount of time (such as three in a year).

 

[fantasycurse42]

3 strikes and you're out.

 

[matttyl]

1 = 1 year

2 = 3 years

3 = 10 years

4 = Life

IMO.

With the legal limit being .08, anyone voting for 1 or 2 is kinda silly. On any given weekend evening I'd wager 50% of the traffic on the roads is within spitting distance of the legal limit.

Now you want to make a tiered system? .15+ is 2 strikes you're out? Sure. But with it at .08, no way.

Great answer. Thank you.

 

[NutterButter]

You get one chance to screw up. If you don't learn you're lesson from that you're never going to learn.

Hypothetically, if someone got one at 17 and the other at 20, then they're out for the rest of their life? I know that I've learned plenty since the time I was a teenager.

What do you suggest?

 

[Foosball God]

You get one chance to screw up. If you don't learn you're lesson from that you're never going to learn.

Hypothetically, if someone got one at 17 and the other at 20, then they're out for the rest of their life? I know that I've learned plenty since the time I was a teenager.

If you knew you might lose your license for life you'd probably take a DUI a lot more seriously.

 

[[icon]]

I like [icon]'s post and agree although I would say there would be instances where 3 might be the case in a relatively short amount of time (such as three in a year).

I wouldn't be opposed to "skipping a step" if you get a DUI while already serving a suspension for a DUI... That's clearly an individual with a problem.

I'd also like to revise to include mandatory substance abuse treatment:

1 = 1 year + Level 1 Substance Abuse Class (8 hour class for a weekend or two)?

2 = 3 years + Level 2 Substance Abuse Counseling (few hours one weekend a month during the suspension)

3 = 10 years + 1-2 week inpatient detox and counseling program

4 = Life

 

[eoMMan]

I'd say 2 or 3.

1 is definitely excessive if we are talking about life.

 

[StrikeS2k]

You get one chance to screw up. If you don't learn you're lesson from that you're never going to learn.

Hypothetically, if someone got one at 17 and the other at 20, then they're out for the rest of their life? I know that I've learned plenty since the time I was a teenager.

What do you suggest?

I like Icon's suggestion of a tiered system. So the third would be 10 years. That would get a 20 year old past that period where they're most likely to continue this behavior and hopefully after 10 years they'll appreciate the privilege enough not to drive drunk again.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Probably wouldn't support a lifetime ban at all. Maybe an indefinite ban where you lose it for 2 years minimum then can appeal every year to get it back if you've shown you've gotten your alcohol problem under control. A lifetime ban seems excessive.

 

[NutterButter]

You get one chance to screw up. If you don't learn you're lesson from that you're never going to learn.

Hypothetically, if someone got one at 17 and the other at 20, then they're out for the rest of their life? I know that I've learned plenty since the time I was a teenager.

What do you suggest?

I like Icon's suggestion of a tiered system. So the third would be 10 years. That would get a 20 year old past that period where they're most likely to continue this behavior and hopefully after 10 years they'll appreciate the privilege enough not to drive drunk again.

I like that system as well. If the concern is kids acting recklessly up until a certain age, maybe bump the first time penalty up a few years so they can't get behind the wheel again until that irresponsible stretch in life; not that that ends at 20. I did more drunk driving in my early twenties than I ever did in my teens.

 

[Fat Nick]

I'm torn on this. I voted 3. I feel like 1 or 2 is excessive. You get an "oops," and then maybe 1 legitimate "f-up," but the 3rd one is a trend.

The reason I'm torn is I've seen what not having a drivers license can do to someone. (NOT trying to minimize the damage that 1 drunk driver can do. It's just a tough balancing act) I had a guy who used to work for me at the cell phone store. He was in his mid 30's, and recovering from addiction (alcohol and drugs). He basically spent most of his 20's in a drunk/drugged state, and was arrested for DUI multiple times, hit-and-run (of a parked car, not a person), and lots of other things. His license was suspended for 8 years when I hired him. At that point, he'd been clean for 2 years, and basically he begged me for a job. He was very up-front. He said that he had a ton of court fees and fines, and a suspended license. Getting a job to actually pay off the fees was next to impossible. He owned a little scooter that he could legally drive to work. Even in the winter, that was how he rolled.

It was sad because he was a good guy who made a lot of bad decisions when he was young that he couldn't ever get over. He had turned himself around and was basically an AA/NA advocate and very active with helping others, but he couldn't get out from that shadow. I don't honestly know how someone could have ever paid off the fees he owed and held down a job with no license. I later found out that he unfortunately relapsed, and got arrested for shoplifting and ended up hanging himself in the holding cell. Sad.

 

[jonessed]

Probably wouldn't support a lifetime ban at all. Maybe an indefinite ban where you lose it for 2 years minimum then can appeal every year to get it back if you've shown you've gotten your alcohol problem under control. A lifetime ban seems excessive.

I agree. If you strip someone of their car for life you are setting up an incredible hurdle. There has to be a review process for those that have shown they can get things under control.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Probably wouldn't support a lifetime ban at all. Maybe an indefinite ban where you lose it for 2 years minimum then can appeal every year to get it back if you've shown you've gotten your alcohol problem under control. A lifetime ban seems excessive.

A lifetime ban for somebody who has 6-10+ DUIs "sounds excessive"?

These people exist.

They are likely to continue driving even if they don't have a driver's license, but there is no reason they should be able to have one.

 

[[icon]]

Probably wouldn't support a lifetime ban at all. Maybe an indefinite ban where you lose it for 2 years minimum then can appeal every year to get it back if you've shown you've gotten your alcohol problem under control. A lifetime ban seems excessive.

I do like the idea of a "parole" type of system in place for those that legitimately DO "figure it out" and make progress.

I'm torn on this. I voted 3. I feel like 1 or 2 is excessive. You get an "oops," and then maybe 1 legitimate "f-up," but the 3rd one is a trend.

The reason I'm torn is I've seen what not having a drivers license can do to someone. (NOT trying to minimize the damage that 1 drunk driver can do. It's just a tough balancing act) I had a guy who used to work for me at the cell phone store. He was in his mid 30's, and recovering from addiction (alcohol and drugs). He basically spent most of his 20's in a drunk/drugged state, and was arrested for DUI multiple times, hit-and-run (of a parked car, not a person), and lots of other things. His license was suspended for 8 years when I hired him. At that point, he'd been clean for 2 years, and basically he begged me for a job. He was very up-front. He said that he had a ton of court fees and fines, and a suspended license. Getting a job to actually pay off the fees was next to impossible. He owned a little scooter that he could legally drive to work. Even in the winter, that was how he rolled.

It was sad because he was a good guy who made a lot of bad decisions when he was young that he couldn't ever get over. He had turned himself around and was basically an AA/NA advocate and very active with helping others, but he couldn't get out from that shadow. I don't honestly know how someone could have ever paid off the fees he owed and held down a job with no license. I later found out that he unfortunately relapsed, and got arrested for shoplifting and ended up hanging himself in the holding cell. Sad.

Great posting here.. sad story but an excellent example.

 

[NutterButter]

I'm torn on this. I voted 3. I feel like 1 or 2 is excessive. You get an "oops," and then maybe 1 legitimate "f-up," but the 3rd one is a trend.

The reason I'm torn is I've seen what not having a drivers license can do to someone. (NOT trying to minimize the damage that 1 drunk driver can do. It's just a tough balancing act) I had a guy who used to work for me at the cell phone store. He was in his mid 30's, and recovering from addiction (alcohol and drugs). He basically spent most of his 20's in a drunk/drugged state, and was arrested for DUI multiple times, hit-and-run (of a parked car, not a person), and lots of other things. His license was suspended for 8 years when I hired him. At that point, he'd been clean for 2 years, and basically he begged me for a job. He was very up-front. He said that he had a ton of court fees and fines, and a suspended license. Getting a job to actually pay off the fees was next to impossible. He owned a little scooter that he could legally drive to work. Even in the winter, that was how he rolled.

It was sad because he was a good guy who made a lot of bad decisions when he was young that he couldn't ever get over. He had turned himself around and was basically an AA/NA advocate and very active with helping others, but he couldn't get out from that shadow. I don't honestly know how someone could have ever paid off the fees he owed and held down a job with no license. I later found out that he unfortunately relapsed, and got arrested for shoplifting and ended up hanging himself in the holding cell. Sad.

Great posting here.. sad story but an excellent example.

But this sounds like a guy that conceivably would've received a lifetime ban under your system. Some people you just can't reach.

 

[Keith R]

Eh, revoking a person's DL privileges for life is not the panacea it appears to be, just as denying undocumented residents DL privileges does more harm than good.

People will still drive whether they are revoked/denied DLs or not. What will happen though is that they will be unable to get insurance, so suddenly there are a higher percentage of drivers without licenses OR insurance, and that's not good for anyone. And yes, driving with a revoked license is (usually) a charge that carries mandatory jail time, but actual revocation is so hard to prove in a court of law that it almost always gets lowered to a lesser charge with time served.

 

[[icon]]

But this sounds like a guy that conceivably would've received a lifetime ban under your system. Some people you just can't reach.

Yep.. and that's a flaw in that approach. I think important components are:

• Forgiveness for youthful indiscretion

• Escalating penalties

• Incorporation of substance treatment to help fix the root problem

• Doesn't cripple someone without being a last resort.

• Plan in place to identify those who have fixed the problem and reward the progress

The goal here is to toe the line between minimizing drunk driving casualties, while not completely ruining people's lives unnecessarily. Not saying it's never necessary... but that's why it's a balancing act, IMO.

 

[Brony]

You get one chance to screw up. If you don't learn you're lesson from that you're never going to learn.

Hypothetically, if someone got one at 17 and the other at 20, then they're out for the rest of their life? I know that I've learned plenty since the time I was a teenager.

What do you suggest?

Something a little more lenient than "you get one chance to screw up."

I like Icon's tiered thing.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Probably wouldn't support a lifetime ban at all. Maybe an indefinite ban where you lose it for 2 years minimum then can appeal every year to get it back if you've shown you've gotten your alcohol problem under control. A lifetime ban seems excessive.

A lifetime ban for somebody who has 6-10+ DUIs "sounds excessive"?

These people exist.

They are likely to continue driving even if they don't have a driver's license, but there is no reason they should be able to have one.

Yes. And if they show they aren't able to recover from their problem, they don't get their license back under my system anyway. If they're getting busted for DUI while their license is suspended, guess what they aren't getting back at their next appeal? But someone who is a a #### up in their 20s who finally figures it out and gets his act together can get his back once he's shown he can put in the work.

 

[Da Guru]

1, maybe 2 depending on the circumstances of the first.

I've been piss drunk many times and each time I still had the common sense not to drive. If I can do that, everyone else should be held to the same standard.

3 strikes and you are out.

In my 20s I drove drunk all the time as did all my friends.. and we never even thought about it. Just went out and drank whatever and then went home. Looking back it is hard to believe I never got a DUI nor did I know anybody that got one. Now I am paranoid to drive if I have 2-3 Lite beers.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Probably wouldn't support a lifetime ban at all. Maybe an indefinite ban where you lose it for 2 years minimum then can appeal every year to get it back if you've shown you've gotten your alcohol problem under control. A lifetime ban seems excessive.

A lifetime ban for somebody who has 6-10+ DUIs "sounds excessive"?

These people exist.

They are likely to continue driving even if they don't have a driver's license, but there is no reason they should be able to have one.

Yes. And if they show they aren't able to recover from their problem, they don't get their license back under my system anyway. If they're getting busted for DUI while their license is suspended, guess what they aren't getting back at their next appeal? But someone who is a a #### up in their 20s who finally figures it out and gets his act together can get his back once he's shown he can put in the work.

Okay. Between your post and Keith R.'s I see some good arguments.

I think the whole DUI system is pretty screwed up. [icon] has made some really good points about that. Legally treating somebody at .08 the same as somebody at .15 is ridiculous, for example. And there is a lot about the system, in this state anyway, that seems more oriented around revenue maximization on fines than it is on prevention, rehabilitation, etc..

 

[Fat Nick]

But this sounds like a guy that conceivably would've received a lifetime ban under your system. Some people you just can't reach.

Yep.. and that's a flaw in that approach. I think important components are:

• Forgiveness for youthful indiscretion

• Escalating penalties

• Incorporation of substance treatment to help fix the root problem

• Doesn't cripple someone without being a last resort.

• Plan in place to identify those who have fixed the problem and reward the progress

The goal here is to toe the line between minimizing drunk driving casualties, while not completely ruining people's lives unnecessarily. Not saying it's never necessary... but that's why it's a balancing act, IMO.

I think the last two bolded items are really key. In the case of the guy I knew, those were the two that he struggled with. Basically, 90% of the stress in his life after he got clean revolved around how to make enough money to live, and pay off his court fees from 5-10 years ago. That's enough stress to make anyone have issues, much less someone with a history. He basically received no leniency from the court, financially, or in terms of suspended license, despite a track-record of turning it around.

I'm convinced that the stress over money is what ultiamtely led to his relapse. I lost contact with him after I sold my stores, so I don't know for sure, but he was the first person to show me that they system is kind of flawed for the criminals too sometimes.

 

[ChainsawU]

I tend to stick to the wagering thread. Nice job justifying drinking and driving at eleven o'clock in the morning. Abhorrently disgusting.

 

[ChainsawU]

How about you don't drink and drive. Thanks.

 

[rockaction]

I tend to stick to the wagering thread. Nice job justifying drinking and driving at eleven o'clock in the morning. Abhorrently disgusting.

Yeah, you do. You're great in that thread.

But it's weird how a gambler can't figure out that there are tiers and levels to impairment. Even MADD originally started as a .20 organization, and then has resignations when it realized it was in bed with insurance companies and legislators that brought it down to .08, which is about one drink.

 

[Zow]

Incredibly state specific. Will also possibly depend on BAC and class of charge.

 

[rockaction]

Incredibly state specific. Will also possibly depend on BAC and class of charge.

I think it became a normative question rather than a factual one. Or I could be wrong.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Nice job justifying drinking and driving at eleven o'clock in the morning. Abhorrently disgusting.

Where did this happen?

 

[rockaction]

Nice job justifying drinking and driving at eleven o'clock in the morning. Abhorrently disgusting.

Where did this happen?

The movement from .08 to .15 in [icon]'s post. But I still don't think it's abhorrent, frankly.

 

[Apple Jack]

The tiered approach is long overdue. Treating all DUIs the same is absurd. A lot of people are absolutely fine to drive at .08. It's like the mandatory minimums nonsense. Or weighing the paper for acid busts.

 

[CBusAlex]

I tend to stick to the wagering thread. Nice job justifying drinking and driving at eleven o'clock in the morning. Abhorrently disgusting.

Agreed. The absolute earliest you should be drinking and driving is 12:30.

 

[Apple Jack]

I tend to stick to the wagering thread. Nice job justifying drinking and driving at eleven o'clock in the morning. Abhorrently disgusting.

Agreed. The absolute earliest you should be drinking and driving is 12:30.

I was thinking 12:13. 12:12 definitely abhorrently disgusting.

 

[SlaX]

I believe it's 3 in NC. That may have changed, though.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

at any answer above 1.

Well he didn't kill anyone so let's give him another chance? WTF!?!

While I was in the military I saw the UCMJ going from basically laughing at DUI's, to demoting and discharging everyone over the rank of E4. One chance only and you get put out on the streets.

Ok, maybe 2 dui's if this is the scenario.

You and your buddies are at bar watching some sports, and you are drunk at this point thinking that you have a ride home, or can use UBERtaxi. The President comes on the tv interrupting the game, and goes on to say that everyone needs to get home ASAP, and we are being attacked like 9/11 again. You jump in the first car you see and drive.

Anything less than the above scenario. You get 1 chance only.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

What are the penalties for a DUI in Oklahoma? 1[SIZE=10.5px]st[/SIZE] Offense

2[SIZE=10.5px]nd[/SIZE] Offense

3[SIZE=10.5px]rd[/SIZE] Offense

Jail

5 days to 1 year

1 to 5 years

1 to 10 years

Fines and Penalties

Up to $1,000

Up to $2,500

Up to $5,000

License Suspension

30 days

6 months

1 year

IID** Required

No Yes

Yes
Lookback Period: 10 years (Period of time that prior DUIs are relevant for sentencing. Also known as a “washout” period.)

**Ignition Interlock Device

what a joke, 3 DUI's and you still can get your license back after some time? WTF?!?!?!?!?

 

[StrikeS2k]

at any answer above 1.

Well he didn't kill anyone so let's give him another chance? WTF!?!

While I was in the military I saw the UCMJ going from basically laughing at DUI's, to demoting and discharging everyone over the rank of E4. One chance only and you get put out on the streets.

Ok, maybe 2 dui's if this is the scenario.

You and your buddies are at bar watching some sports, and you are drunk at this point thinking that you have a ride home, or can use UBERtaxi. The President comes on the tv interrupting the game, and goes on to say that everyone needs to get home ASAP, and we are being attacked like 9/11 again. You jump in the first car you see and drive.

Anything less than the above scenario. You get 1 chance only.

How many speeding tickets until you revoke someone's license permanently?

 

[[icon]]

at any answer above 1.

How many speeding tickets until you revoke someone's license permanently?

or "Texting while driving" tickets?

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

at any answer above 1.

Well he didn't kill anyone so let's give him another chance? WTF!?!

While I was in the military I saw the UCMJ going from basically laughing at DUI's, to demoting and discharging everyone over the rank of E4. One chance only and you get put out on the streets.

Ok, maybe 2 dui's if this is the scenario.

You and your buddies are at bar watching some sports, and you are drunk at this point thinking that you have a ride home, or can use UBERtaxi. The President comes on the tv interrupting the game, and goes on to say that everyone needs to get home ASAP, and we are being attacked like 9/11 again. You jump in the first car you see and drive.

Anything less than the above scenario. You get 1 chance only.

How many speeding tickets until you revoke someone's license permanently?

at any answer above 1.

How many speeding tickets until you revoke someone's license permanently?

or "Texting while driving" tickets?

They have a new "texting while driving" law. But, it isn't a primary reason to pull someone over. Only can be ticketed after you are pulled over for another violation.

You can have up to 10 points over 5 years before your license is suspended. Speeding is 3 points, but 2 points drop off over 12 month period if no other violations occur.

 

[StrikeS2k]

at any answer above 1.

Well he didn't kill anyone so let's give him another chance? WTF!?!

While I was in the military I saw the UCMJ going from basically laughing at DUI's, to demoting and discharging everyone over the rank of E4. One chance only and you get put out on the streets.

Ok, maybe 2 dui's if this is the scenario.

You and your buddies are at bar watching some sports, and you are drunk at this point thinking that you have a ride home, or can use UBERtaxi. The President comes on the tv interrupting the game, and goes on to say that everyone needs to get home ASAP, and we are being attacked like 9/11 again. You jump in the first car you see and drive.

Anything less than the above scenario. You get 1 chance only.

How many speeding tickets until you revoke someone's license permanently?

at any answer above 1.

How many speeding tickets until you revoke someone's license permanently?

or "Texting while driving" tickets?

They have a new "texting while driving" law. But, it isn't a primary reason to pull someone over. Only can be ticketed after you are pulled over for another violation.

You can have up to 10 points over 5 years before your license is suspended. Speeding is 3 points, but 2 points drop off over 12 month period if no other violations occur.

More people die from distracted driving and speeding than ever did from drunk driving. Why would we treat those any differently?

 

[matttyl]

Probably wouldn't support a lifetime ban at all. Maybe an indefinite ban where you lose it for 2 years minimum then can appeal every year to get it back if you've shown you've gotten your alcohol problem under control. A lifetime ban seems excessive.

So does 15-20 DUIs, which a few people in the story I saw this morning had.