.

Repeat DUIs Could Mean 10-Year License Suspension

Is this fair? Take our poll then tell us why or why not.

Effective since the start of the New Year, Californians who are convicted of DUI three or more times could have their license suspended for up to 10 years.

Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, authored the bill and eight others that were signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2011.

"Unless you injure or kill someone, your license could only be suspended for three years," Hill said of existing laws. Hill found that there were more than 300,000 DUI offenders with three or more convictions that were allowed to drive on California roadways.

"I thought, 'This is crazy,'" Hill said. The new law allows a judge to punish a repeat DUI offender with a suspension of up to 10 years after a third conviction.

According to Hill's office, if every judge utilized the 10-year license revocation in the new law, more than 10,000 repeat DUI offenders could be taken off the state's roadways every year.

Hill said he hopes the new law will help improve the safety on the roads for all Californians.

—Bay City News

Take our poll then tell us what you think of the new law in the comments.

James January 05, 2012 at 01:25 AM
Here's what you need to do with Drunk Drivers... Saw off their Limbs and hook em up with Disabled Shuttles. Problem Solved! You think a repeat DUI Offender is going to allow a formality such as a License suspension to deter them? People drive Drunk Daily, a lot of them don't even have Licenses.... Not trying to be Negative here, it's just a Reality. I mean if these Coke Addict Lawmakers are going to ensure they take ALL of our rights away, why not be fair and target those who actually break these so called Laws and beat their ass? Sounds Harsh right? an Injustice! But it's the only thing that's going to keep Drunks off the road.
Roman January 05, 2012 at 01:38 AM
Create more laws to break and over punish for non violent crimes is how we keep our jails overcrowded. They need the excuses on how to build more jails and take away from education. The new American way! DUI is wrong but 10 years, give me a break.
Raphael January 05, 2012 at 03:29 AM
3 dui's should result in a life time ban of driving
Albert Rubio January 05, 2012 at 03:46 AM
I think you abandoned the 'Coke Addict Lawmakers' line too quickly. That is where the real problem is.
Albert Rubio January 05, 2012 at 03:56 AM
Why a lifetime? what will it solve? Many acknowledge being overly tough on crime does not solve anything. For example, Incarceration rates are off the charts. We have been allowing it for far too long and it is too costly. Most incarcerations are drug related which means they are victim-less crimes. These kind of laws are the product of moralistic and fanatical minds that think laws can reform people and create Utopia. These reformers should first try to reform themselves. "The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property." - Bastiat
Timothy Swenson January 05, 2012 at 05:47 AM
Albert, what would you suggest that we do with someone that does not obey common sense, does not obey the law, and continues to drive and drive, after being caught repeatedly? The DUI is only victimless if the person does not hit someone. Every DUI has the potential for serious injury and mostly not to the person doing the DUI. I have no idea what you mean by the statement "These kind of laws are the product of moralistic and fanatical minds that think laws can reform people and create Utopia." Most crimes are against the morals of most people. Is that a bad thing? I would say that getting people that ignore the risk that they can pose on others as protecting persons and property.
Albert Rubio January 05, 2012 at 06:54 AM
>"Albert, what would you suggest that we do with someone that does not obey common sense, does not obey the law, " 1.The law will continue to penalize repeat offenders. The law does not let them go free. They will continue to have to repay damages, have wages garnered if necessary etc. 2.victimless crimes were in reference to drug use or possession. 3. I don't advocate driving under the influence. I am saying that such persons should be stopped when doing it and are already liable for for damages done. The comment 'moralistic fanatatical minds' refers to people who think that increased laws will make the perfect society. This eventually distorts the purpose of government and destroys a free society. Such people are always trying to find some new harsh law to pass. " I would say that getting people that ignore the risk that they can pose on others as protecting persons and property." The problem is that this can be made to mean almost anything and will be construed to remove more individual rights, putting all 'persons and property' in danger. Ultimately, most people put their faith in an authoritarian state and do not realize how that dooms a society and the benefits of freedom are never to be compromised. I can suggest "Economics in one Lesson" By Hazlitt and 'the law' by Bastiat to give practical examples why this is true
Voice of America January 05, 2012 at 07:37 AM
taking away their license doesn't accomplish anything. They will simply end up in the welfare system or prison because they will either drive without a license or not be able to get to work. How about make it harder for them to access alcohol. Tag their license so that it is illegal to sell them alcohol and have bartenders and retailer randomly card people regardless of how old they look.
Tim H. January 05, 2012 at 08:07 AM
I got a DUI 15 years ago. I ahd to community service, pay a fine, pay a lawyer, and lost my lisence for 6months. Lesson learned. I think that these new laws should applie after the 2nd DUI, not the 3rd.
Tim H. January 05, 2012 at 08:10 AM
I got a DUI 15 years ago. I had to do community service, pay a fine, pay a lawyer, do DUI classes for 18 weeks, and lost my llicense for 6months. Lesson learned. I think that these new laws should applie after the 2nd DUI, not the 3rd. IMO.
gato pelon January 05, 2012 at 04:16 PM
Roman.....over punish for non violent crimes is how we keep our jails overcrowded. Non Violent Crimes. Are you for real?? It's only non violent as long as they don't kill somebody. Then that changes everything. Why give them that chance ever again! Anybody who's gotten three DUI..... DOESN'T GET IT! They should go to jail for 10 years plus and have a life time ban on their drivers licence! Walk or take the bus for life!
gato pelon January 05, 2012 at 04:24 PM
This law should be expanded to include drivers who continue to use a cell phone and text while driving! Three violations of texting or using a cell phone 10 years in jail!
Mona Taplin January 05, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Drunk driving kills and injures innocent people every day of the week. Three DUI's should result in house arrest and loss of license for good. But let's say someone in the house,- let's say wife, parent, sibling or child- calls the police the minute you get in your car to drive drunk that person would be spared a jail sentence but license would be marked in some way to indicate drunk driver. Alcohol and car sales require ID and can't be sold to offender with marked license. Still break the law, then create an outdoor jail where offender is chained by the ankle so he/she can only move a certain length away from their tent, and out of reach of anyone else.
Thomas Clarke January 05, 2012 at 05:07 PM
First conviction for Drunk Driving, texting while driving, cell phone usage while and driving while distracted should include lifetime loss of driver's license, forfeiture of all vehicles, and permanent registration as a distracted driver, similar to Megan's Law. Drink, do not drive.
Mona Taplin January 05, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Thomas Clarke, I think you are right except I would make it the 2nd conviction. If you don't learn the first time it's time to be taught a real lesson. Years ago my sister in law discovered who really pays for drunken drivers fines, payments for damages, etc. She and her children did, both financially and emotionally. She was partly responsible for their plight because she continued to stay with this man who valued booze over all else. At one time he sold their family car for $2.00 to a gas station owner. He very reluctantly gave it back to her. Still she considered it to be her husband's car. A short time he had an accident on Newark Blvd. This resulted in a loss of car insurance. CAA wrote a big DO NOT INSURE memo on his records. She also could not buy auto insurance until after he died. She could have prevented the trauma dumped on her and their 3 children by refusing to allow him to stay after several promises of "never again" following very expensive drunk episodes. Repeat drunk drivers are a very difficult problem to deal with, and the problem worsens when someone repeatedly picks up the tab for them. They are called enablers. Enablers are not victims. They are willing participants. The children in such families are the victims.
Tim January 05, 2012 at 09:24 PM
If you are permanently losing your drivers license and no longer allowed to own a vehicle, why would you need to register as a "distracted driver" when you wouldn't be allowed to be a driver at all?
Raphael January 05, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Ever lose a loved one due too a drunk driver? That will end all discussion...there are over 3000000 persons with 3 or more dui's
Albert Rubio January 06, 2012 at 03:49 AM
it does not end the discussion at all. It is bad reasoning. The proposed cure is worse than the disease. As a refutation, i'm reminded of a similar kind of case where the father who lost his little girl in a shooting last year. He said, " This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative" He didn't jump on the ban all guns bandwagon.
Albert Rubio January 06, 2012 at 03:58 AM
Everybody wants to rule the world. It is indulgent Authoritarian Conceit.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something