[Stardust]

FRANKFORT - National Transportation Safety Board officials on Tuesday morning urged Kentucky lawmakers to strengthen efforts to curb drivers with high blood-alcohol content and those who are repeat drinking-and-driving offenders.

Their remarks were made during a press conference streamed on the Internet from Washington, asking lawmakers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to make highway safety improvements in the areas of seat belts, drunk driving, booster seats for young children and graduated licensing for young drivers.

In recent years, Kentucky legislators have passed a primary seat belt law, required young children to be in booster seats and required teen drivers to undergo a graduated licensing program.

But Kentucky was targeted during the press conference as needing to enact more of the NTSB's 11 recommendations to curb hard-core drunk drivers.

Those 11 initiatives include conducting frequent sobriety checkpoints, imposing tougher penalties for those arrested with a blood-alcohol content of 0.15 percent or higher and using vehicle sanctions such as vehicle impoundment.

NTSB member Mark Rosekind said there were 10,839 alcohol-related driving fatalities in 2009.

"That is a staggering number, and it is completely unacceptable," he said.

In Kentucky, 132 of the 656 fatalities between Jan. 1 and Nov. 14 involved the suspected use of alcohol, according to a recent release from the Kentucky State Police.

The NTSB estimates that 70 percent of all alcohol-related fatalities are caused by hard-core drinking drivers.

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/201...iving-laws

[Hoot Gibson]

FRANKFORT - National Transportation Safety Board officials on Tuesday morning urged Kentucky lawmakers to strengthen efforts to curb drivers with high blood-alcohol content and those who are repeat drinking-and-driving offenders.

Their remarks were made during a press conference streamed on the Internet from Washington, asking lawmakers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to make highway safety improvements in the areas of seat belts, drunk driving, booster seats for young children and graduated licensing for young drivers.

In recent years, Kentucky legislators have passed a primary seat belt law, required young children to be in booster seats and required teen drivers to undergo a graduated licensing program.

But Kentucky was targeted during the press conference as needing to enact more of the NTSB's 11 recommendations to curb hard-core drunk drivers.

Those 11 initiatives include conducting frequent sobriety checkpoints, imposing tougher penalties for those arrested with a blood-alcohol content of 0.15 percent or higher and using vehicle sanctions such as vehicle impoundment.

NTSB member Mark Rosekind said there were 10,839 alcohol-related driving fatalities in 2009.

"That is a staggering number, and it is completely unacceptable," he said.

In Kentucky, 132 of the 656 fatalities between Jan. 1 and Nov. 14 involved the suspected use of alcohol, according to a recent release from the Kentucky State Police.

The NTSB estimates that 70 percent of all alcohol-related fatalities are caused by hard-core drinking drivers.

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/201...iving-laws

Aside from interstate highways, Kentucky's traffic laws should be none of Washington's concern. Kentucky alread has some pretty tough drunk driving laws and there comes a point when tougher laws accomplish nothing.

[Wildcatk23]

Aside from interstate highways, Kentucky's traffic laws should be none of Washington's concern. Kentucky alread has some pretty tough drunk driving laws and there comes a point when tougher laws accomplish nothing.

I think kentucky DUI laws are a joke. Would love to see the laws be enforced and drive a harsher punishment.


http://destinyshope.com/index.php?option...Itemid=182

Vision for Destiny’s Law is to help reform our DUI laws.
Driving is not a right it’s a privilege.

[Hoot Gibson]

I think kentucky DUI laws are a joke. Would love to see the laws be enforced and drive a harsher punishment.


http://destinyshope.com/index.php?option...Itemid=182

Vision for Destiny’s Law is to help reform our DUI laws.
Driving is not a right it’s a privilege.

The penalty proposed for a first offense DUI is insane. I sympathize for the surviving family members of any drunk driving victim but mandatory jail sentences for all first time offenders is no answer.

However, I agree that serial offenders (more than 2 or 3 offenses) should lose their driving privileges for life. That is punishment enough. If people are caught DUI after having their license suspended or revoked, then I support very stiff sentences. Imprisoning alcoholics who have not maimed or killed anybody is not going to reform them.

I also oppose mandatory substance abuse programs for offenders, especially if the state would be footing the bill. People have to want to kick bad habits and forcing them into programs is a waste of time and money. Get them off the roads, YES, but do not throw more taxpayers' money down a rat hole on programs that do not work.

Above all, though, regulating driving is a state responsibility. Kentuckians are capable of deciding who should and who should not be allowed to drive on Kentucky highways.

[Wildcatk23]

The penalty proposed for a first offense DUI is insane. I sympathize for the surviving family members of any drunk driving victim but mandatory jail sentences for all first time offenders is no answer.

However, I agree that serial offenders (more than 2 or 3 offenses) should lose their driving privileges for life. That is punishment enough. If people are caught DUI after having their license suspended or revoked, then I support very stiff sentences. Imprisoning alcoholics who have not maimed or killed anybody is not going to reform them.

I also oppose mandatory substance abuse programs for offenders, especially if the state would be footing the bill. People have to want to kick bad habits and forcing them into programs is a waste of time and money. Get them off the roads, YES, but do not throw more taxpayers' money down a rat hole on programs that do not work.

Above all, though, regulating driving is a state responsibility. Kentuckians are capable of deciding who should and who should not be allowed to drive on Kentucky highways.

Until the alcoholic ends up taking someones life? Driving while being under the influence is reckless and insane. Anyone who does it has no regards for other human life and should be held to stiffer punishment. Every time someone drinks or drives there not only putting there lives in danger but your family and mine. And if they do it once their more than likely to do it again.

[Hoot Gibson]

Until the alcoholic ends up taking someones life? Driving while being under the influence is reckless and insane. Anyone who does it has no regards for other human life and should be held to stiffer punishment. Every time someone drinks or drives there not only putting there lives in danger but your family and mine. And if they do it once their more than likely to do it again.

And if we lock every American up, there will be no crime except in prisons. A 17-year old who blows a 0.08 BAC should not be locked up for 10 days in jail for a first offense. Repeat offenders should be dealt with harshly, but we do not have unlimited resources to put drunks in prison 2 to 5 years and provide months on end of "counseling" for them.

[OrangenowBlue]

There is no mandatory jail sentence of ten days for a first offense. It is 2 to 30 days with usually the mininum for first time offenders with no prior criminal history. 4 days for someone that committed another violation or crime while under the influence. I am also unaware of the state footing the bill for counseling. There needs to be changes to the law because 75% of DUI's in Eastern Kentucky are drug related, not alcohol. The laws protect the druggie and that needs to be changed as they need to develop a better system to determine drug levels and what is acceptable if they are prescribed medication. Most police officers will tell you that alcohol related arrests, primarily DUI's, have decreased due to the rampant increase in the use of drugs. I do believe that dry counties are part of the problem as it puts more people on the road driving further distances to purchase their drinks. Every time a we/dry election comes up, the religious community(not all but usually a vocal one) uses false statements,doctered statistics and lies. Stating crime will increase and people that normally wouldn't drink would "magically" become alcoholics. I know from experience, that many of these "fine" citizens would keep alcohol in their home for personal usage all the while they were out protesting the vote. I am glad that common sense is prevailing as Whitesburg, Paintsville, and Harlan have voted to become wet

[hawg laig]

In Kentucky the DUI offender is responsibile for all of the cost associated with their required evaluation and treatment. There is a small portion of state money (collected form DUI fines) set aside every year to pay for those who cannot pay the fees. When in counseling if they make no progress or do not attend they are reported as non-compliant to the court and the Judge can have them arrested.

Drugged drivers now are presumed guilty. All medicines that could impair your driving ability has a warning on the label; if you take it and are pulled over you are considered impaired regardless of the amount. If the legislature tries to set "levels of impairment" it will open a can of worms. Judges will be determining who was impaired and who was within normal levels.

The biggest issue I see in the state is inconsistent enforcement by the courts. Some offenders go to jail, some go to treatment and some offenders walk. If you want true change make the judges accountable for those folks they let walk. If the judge lets them off on a 2nd or 3rd DUI and they kill someone while driving drunk then the judge should be held responsibile, then they might take DUI serious.

[CandyKane]

The penalty proposed for a first offense DUI is insane. I sympathize for the surviving family members of any drunk driving victim but mandatory jail sentences for all first time offenders is no answer.

However, I agree that serial offenders (more than 2 or 3 offenses) should lose their driving privileges for life. That is punishment enough. If people are caught DUI after having their license suspended or revoked, then I support very stiff sentences. Imprisoning alcoholics who have not maimed or killed anybody is not going to reform them.

I also oppose mandatory substance abuse programs for offenders, especially if the state would be footing the bill. People have to want to kick bad habits and forcing them into programs is a waste of time and money. Get them off the roads, YES, but do not throw more taxpayers' money down a rat hole on programs that do not work.Above all, though, regulating driving is a state responsibility. Kentuckians are capable of deciding who should and who should not be allowed to drive on Kentucky highways.

Couldnt agree more. Dont get me wrong, I would love to see people under the influence off the road, but I also think putting them in a program is an easy way out. Theyre going to agree to that to decrease jail time. When theyre out, its back to old ways.

Why waste the money? Some people really do want help, and those programs are a wonderful thing and have changed many lives. Cant get rid of something that does good, its just completely up to that person or not if they want help. Cant let some poor decisions hinder that of someone who really wants help.

[Wildcatk23]

And if we lock every American up, there will be no crime except in prisons. A 17-year old who blows a 0.08 BAC should not be locked up for 10 days in jail for a first offense. Repeat offenders should be dealt with harshly, but we do not have unlimited resources to put drunks in prison 2 to 5 years and provide months on end of "counseling" for them.

They deserve no counseling. Let them serve there time. Well when u let one 17 year old walk away while driving under the influence that leaves the door open for other teens to do the same.

[Hoot Gibson]

There is no mandatory jail sentence of ten days for a first offense. It is 2 to 30 days with usually the mininum for first time offenders with no prior criminal history. 4 days for someone that committed another violation or crime while under the influence. I am also unaware of the state footing the bill for counseling. There needs to be changes to the law because 75% of DUI's in Eastern Kentucky are drug related, not alcohol. The laws protect the druggie and that needs to be changed as they need to develop a better system to determine drug levels and what is acceptable if they are prescribed medication. Most police officers will tell you that alcohol related arrests, primarily DUI's, have decreased due to the rampant increase in the use of drugs. I do believe that dry counties are part of the problem as it puts more people on the road driving further distances to purchase their drinks. Every time a we/dry election comes up, the religious community(not all but usually a vocal one) uses false statements,doctered statistics and lies. Stating crime will increase and people that normally wouldn't drink would "magically" become alcoholics. I know from experience, that many of these "fine" citizens would keep alcohol in their home for personal usage all the while they were out protesting the vote. I am glad that common sense is prevailing as Whitesburg, Paintsville, and Harlan have voted to become wet

The 10-day reference was to the proposed draconian Destiny Laws that Wildcat linked. Look at some of the rehab and incarceration costs associated with it. If a 90 day drug rehab is mandated and a person loses his license and job (or is an illegal alien), then somebody besides the offender will be paying the bill.

[Hoot Gibson]

They deserve no counseling. Let them serve there time. Well when u let one 17 year old walk away while driving under the influence that leaves the door open for other teens to do the same.

Three-time offenders should lose their privilege of driving in Kentucky for life period. If they are subsequently caught driving without a license, then they should be incarcerated for a very long time. I have no problem with treating repeat offenders harshly but long prison terms should be a last resort or the consequence of maiming or killing another human being while DUI. It is nuts to treat a first offender like a hardened criminal with a zeor-tolerance law. I personally do not think that kids should be allowed to drive until they are at least 18, BTW.

Depriving repeated drunk drivers of a Kentucky driver's license would either drive such people out of the state if they are able and willing to hold down jobs or put them on the welfare roles. Chances are, if they are not willing to relocate for work, they are already drawing a government check.

I realize that many people who push for costly, ridiculously punitive DUI laws have lost loved ones to drunk drivers, but most crimes have victims or potential victims. There is a qualitative difference in the driving ability between somebody who is caught driving barely over the legal BAC a couple of times and somebody who is so far gone they can drive the wrong way on an interstate for a mile or two without realizing that something is wrong. A night in jail is a pretty sobering experience for a young adult with a clean driving record and no previous brushes with the law.

[Amun-Ra]

KY's entire justice system is a joke and corrupt in every county. Untill we fix it at the county level how do we ever expect to fix things at the state level.

[Bob Seger]

KY's entire justice system is a joke and corrupt in every county. Untill we fix it at the county level how do we ever expect to fix things at the state level.

Amen. Sit on the jury and you will see exactly what a circus it really is.

[Bob Seger]

Three-time offenders should lose their privilege of driving in Kentucky for life period. If they are subsequently caught driving without a license, then they should be incarcerated for a very long time. I have no problem with treating repeat offenders harshly but long prison terms should be a last resort or the consequence of maiming or killing another human being while DUI. It is nuts to treat a first offender like a hardened criminal with a zeor-tolerance law. I personally do not think that kids should be allowed to drive until they are at least 18, BTW.

Depriving repeated drunk drivers of a Kentucky driver's license would either drive such people out of the state if they are able and willing to hold down jobs or put them on the welfare roles. Chances are, if they are not willing to relocate for work, they are already drawing a government check.

I realize that many people who push for costly, ridiculously punitive DUI laws have lost loved ones to drunk drivers, but most crimes have victims or potential victims. There is a qualitative difference in the driving ability between somebody who is caught driving barely over the legal BAC a couple of times and somebody who is so far gone they can drive the wrong way on an interstate for a mile or two without realizing that something is wrong. A night in jail is a pretty sobering experience for a young adult with a clean driving record and no previous brushes with the law.

Unfortunately all it takes is just one offense to take an innocent victim's life. It could be my son/daughter/wife the next time so I guess I am a little more hard core on this subject, because alcohol and driving is such a highly publicized no-no. It doesn't take a very educated person to know the dangers and consequences of driving impared, so in that respect I have very little sympathy or compassion for even a first time offender. Like someone else mentioned, perhaps some of these judges should be held personally accountable for allowing some of these multi-repeat offenders to get back behind the wheel. I have heard of fatalties caused by someone with as many as 7 or 8 drunk driving offenses. That is what makes one question the whole justice system.

[TheRealVille]

I'll partake of alcohol quite a bit, but you will never see me behind the wheel with more than one beer in my system. No exceptions. I say, people can drink all they want, just stay home, or get a room where you are drinking. There is no excuse.

Hoot, it just takes one time drunk behind the wheel to kill or maim someone. Really, all you care about is money out of your pocket, not the victims.

[Hoot Gibson]

I'll partake of alcohol quite a bit, but you will never see me behind the wheel with more than one beer in my system. No exceptions. I say, people can drink all they want, just stay home, or get a room where you are drinking. There is no excuse.

Hoot, it just takes one time drunk behind the wheel to kill or maim someone. Really, all you care about is money out of your pocket, not the victims.

It also takes one distracted teenager texting on a cell phone to kill or maim somebody. Should they be dealt mandatory 10 day jail sentences the first time that they are pulled over? Drunks make sober, conscious, deliberate decisions to take their first couple of drinks but by the time they get behind the wheel their judgment is impaired. That does not excuse their behavior and it should not diminish their punishment but some people present a serious danger to other drivers (and pedestrians) everytime that they make a conscious decision to text or talk on a cell phone while driving. Others manage to talk (but not text) on cell phones and not weave in and out of traffic as if they are DUI.

My point is, there are varying degrees of danger presented by distracted or impaired drivers and I do not like seeing power taking away from juries and judges to determine appropriate sentences for the offense. We all know when stiff zero-tolerance laws with mandatory sentences are passed, those with money and political connections tend to have their cases dismissed entirely. As much as I dislike many court decisions, our legal system needs to allow judges to exercise some discretion in meting out punishment.

[OrangenowBlue]

It also takes one distracted teenager texting on a cell phone to kill or maim somebody. Should they be dealt mandatory 10 day jail sentences the first time that they are pulled over? Drunks make sober, conscious, deliberate decisions to take their first couple of drinks but by the time they get behind the wheel their judgment is impaired. That does not excuse their behavior and it should not diminish their punishment but some people present a serious danger to other drivers (and pedestrians) everytime that they make a conscious decision to text or talk on a cell phone while driving. Others manage to talk (but not text) on cell phones and not weave in and out of traffic as if they are DUI.

My point is, there are varying degrees of danger presented by distracted or impaired drivers and I do not like seeing power taking away from juries and judges to determine appropriate sentences for the offense. We all know when stiff zero-tolerance laws with mandatory sentences are passed, those with money and political connections tend to have their cases dismissed entirely. As much as I dislike many court decisions, our legal system needs to allow judges to exercise some discretion in meting out punishment.

At this time, in Kentucky, there is NOT a MANDATORY 10 day jail sentences for first offense DUI's.

[Hoot Gibson]

At this time, in Kentucky, there is NOT a MANDATORY 10 day jail sentences for first offense DUI's.

Again, that 10-day reference is to a proposed law that is included in an article linked above. This thread is about the federal government pressuring Kentucky into passing tougher laws. I know what the current law is and it is also summarized in the link above. I am fine with the current law myself.

[Wildcatk23]

Again, that 10-day reference is to a proposed law that is included in an article linked above. This thread is about the federal government pressuring Kentucky into passing tougher laws. I know what the current law is and it is also summarized in the link above. I am fine with the current law myself.

You may be fine with it, but myself and many others are not. A slap on the wrist for breaking the law and endangering everyone around you is not good enough.

[Hoot Gibson]

You may be fine with it, but myself and many others are not. A slap on the wrist for breaking the law and endangering everyone around you is not good enough.

We disagree on what constitutes a slap on the wrist. Maybe the current law needs some fine tuning but the proposed Destiny's Law reads like something the Kremlin would have dreamed up in the Soviet era. As I said in an earlier post, our judicial branch should have some flexibility in sentencing those convicted of crimes, including DUIs. If they abuse their discretionary authority, then there are mechanisms to hold them accountable just like everybody else who does a bad job.

I lost an uncle who was in his early 20s many years ago to a drunk driver and it devastated my family. That driver escaped unpunished. That did not cause my family or me to lose all objectivity on the matter. Justice needs to be done in such cases but not every person who is found guilty of DUI is beyond redemption.

[Old School]

IMO our current system for the most part does not work. I know several people who have been caught DUI, and for a few of them it may have been a life changing experience. However for the most part they continue to drive while drinking, many have had their license revolked, but yet again this does not stop them from drinking/drugs and driving. I've know people who have driven for 5 years without license or insurance. IMO the laws need to be revised or at least enforce the current ones that will keep these people off the roads.

[Shady Grady]

I posted this on another thread, before I saw this one. I am hard core on drunk driving. Allowing people several DUI's is no different that allowing someone to walk around with a loaded gun with the hammer cocked back. People want to bring texting into this. Distractions are different than being impaired. Someone who is impaired should not be driving. One strike and you're out. Why wait for two or three offenses? Just because a person got by with it the first time? That's like saying someone who fires a loaded gun into a crowd should be given another chance if he doesn't hit anyone. Let him do it three times before they take his gun? Don't think so. It should be simple: Get caught once, don't drive again. Period. As for distractions, texting is a distraction, is as smoking (try lighting a cigarette while driving) and eating (spill food on yourself and see what you do). Those are different stories altogether. Not saying something shouldn't be done about them, just not in the same category as drunk driving (or under the influence of drugs).

[Hoot Gibson]

I posted this on another thread, before I saw this one. I am hard core on drunk driving. Allowing people several DUI's is no different that allowing someone to walk around with a loaded gun with the hammer cocked back. People want to bring texting into this. Distractions are different than being impaired. Someone who is impaired should not be driving. One strike and you're out. Why wait for two or three offenses? Just because a person got by with it the first time? That's like saying someone who fires a loaded gun into a crowd should be given another chance if he doesn't hit anyone. Let him do it three times before they take his gun? Don't think so. It should be simple: Get caught once, don't drive again. Period. As for distractions, texting is a distraction, is as smoking (try lighting a cigarette while driving) and eating (spill food on yourself and see what you do). Those are different stories altogether. Not saying something shouldn't be done about them, just not in the same category as drunk driving (or under the influence of drugs).

If you are texting while driving, then you are impaired. If you text, drive, and run over a pedestrian they will be just as dead as if you were DUI.

The only difference is that people who text while sober make the decision when their judgment is not impaired. Smoking and eating while driving can be distractions as well but there is no way to simultaneously text while your eyes are focused on the road. It is possible to eat and even light a cigarette without taking your eyes off the road, although many people are incapable of safely multi-tasking behind the wheel, no matter how simple the second task is.

There is no excuse for anybody ever reading or sending a text message while driving. People caught texting and driving should be banned for life from using a cell phone anywhere but they should get a second chance to prove themselves as drivers.

[Hoot Gibson]

IMO our current system for the most part does not work. I know several people who have been caught DUI, and for a few of them it may have been a life changing experience. However for the most part they continue to drive while drinking, many have had their license revolked, but yet again this does not stop them from drinking/drugs and driving. I've know people who have driven for 5 years without license or insurance. IMO the laws need to be revised or at least enforce the current ones that will keep these people off the roads.

People who drive without a license or insurance after having their licenses revoked (for any reason) deserve to lose their licenses for life. In fact, I would bar them from even riding as a passenger in a private vehicle or riding a bicycle on public roads. If they have no respect for the laws governing highways, then they need to learn to make use of public transportation and their feet.

[Shady Grady]

If you are texting while driving, then you are impaired. If you text, drive, and run over a pedestrian they will be just as dead as if you were DUI.

The only difference is that people who text while sober make the decision when their judgment is not impaired. Smoking and eating while driving can be distractions as well but there is no way to simultaneously text while your eyes are focused on the road. It is possible to eat and even light a cigarette without taking your eyes off the road, although many people are incapable of safely multi-tasking behind the wheel, no matter how simple the second task is.

There is no excuse for anybody ever reading or sending a text message while driving. People caught texting and driving should be banned for life from using a cell phone anywhere but they should get a second chance to prove themselves as drivers.

So I guess you're saying that people caught drinking and driving should be banned from drinking anywhere but should be allowed to get a second chance at driving? How well do you think that would work? I'm sure the Michelob police can enforce that one.

[Hoot Gibson]

So I guess you're saying that people caught drinking and driving should be banned from drinking anywhere but should be allowed to get a second chance at driving? How well do you think that would work? I'm sure the Michelob police can enforce that one.

No. People caught driving after having their licenses suspended should get no additional second chances. Such people show a deep contempt for the law and if they will drive sober with no license, then they will drive drunk with a license. My comment about banning those texting and driving from using a cell phone was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Enforcing such a law would be impossible, as would enforcing the zero tolerance law that you are proposing against DUI.

How well do you think banning people from driving for life would work? I don't think that such a law would be enforced fairly. Maybe you read my account of a murder case on which I sat on the jury in another thread. I had a very difficult time convincing several members of that jury that sentencing a man who shot his girlfriend in the head six times (including reloading his pistol) to 25 years was not a stiff enough sentence. Their reasoning? The murderer was only in his 20s and young enough to be reformed in the prison system. (He was eligible after 26 years in prison.)

Do you really think that many juries would vote 12-0 to strip a 17-year old defendant of the privilege of driving for life on a first offense DUI charge? Or do you think that many children of judges or prosecutors would ever even be charged under the law that you are proposing? It would rarely happen.

Too many privileged characters already escape the consequences of DUI. Passing a stiffer sentence would only make the difference between how those with political clout (and/or deep pockets) and those without are treated in DUI cases even bigger.

(I know of cases where the police caught the under-aged son of an eastern Kentucky judge driving without a license on multiple occasions and not a single charge was ever brought against him. In one case, the judge's son was involved in an accident with another car - no police report and no citation.)

Unreasonable laws are never enforced reasonably because there is a point at which judges and juries begin to look at those charged as victims instead of potential criminals.

[Shady Grady]

No. People caught driving after having their licenses suspended should get no additional second chances. Such people show a deep contempt for the law and if they will drive sober with no license, then they will drive drunk with a license. My comment about banning those texting and driving from using a cell phone was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Enforcing such a law would be impossible, as would enforcing the zero tolerance law that you are proposing against DUI.

How well do you think banning people from driving for life would work? I don't think that such a law would be enforced fairly. Maybe you read my account of a murder case on which I sat on the jury in another thread. I had a very difficult time convincing several members of that jury that sentencing a man who shot his girlfriend in the head six times (including reloading his pistol) to 25 years was not a stiff enough sentence. Their reasoning? The murderer was only in his 20s and young enough to be reformed in the prison system. (He was eligible after 26 years in prison.)

Do you really think that many juries would vote 12-0 to strip a 17-year old defendant of the privilege of driving for life on a first offense DUI charge? Or do you think that many children of judges or prosecutors would ever even be charged under the law that you are proposing? It would rarely happen.

Too many privileged characters already escape the consequences of DUI. Passing a stiffer sentence would only make the difference between how those with political clout (and/or deep pockets) and those without are treated in DUI cases even bigger.

(I know of cases where the police caught the under-aged son of an eastern Kentucky judge driving without a license on multiple occasions and not a single charge was ever brought against him. In one case, the judge's son was involved in an accident with another car - no police report and no citation.)

Unreasonable laws are never enforced reasonably because there is a point at which judges and juries begin to look at those charged as victims instead of potential criminals.

You are right, there will always be people who pull strings. But we need tougher laws, not more opportunities to do wrong. That's why it needs to be more absolute. One offense and you're done. One DUI and you can never get a license. If a person don't have a license, he or she can't get by forever. People who drive while drunk have absolutely no respect or value of another's life. If a drunk driver ever kills someone in my family, he better hopes he gets locked up. That will be better than what he will have coming from me. If one gets killed by a tragic accident, then as difficult as it might be, I would have to deal with it. If one is killed by someone who has no value for another's life, then I can be patient. By the time I got through with him, he would be begging for the court to deal with him. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just how I feel. I just hope I am never faced with that situation and I really feel for those who have been.

[Hoot Gibson]

You are right, there will always be people who pull strings. But we need tougher laws, not more opportunities to do wrong. That's why it needs to be more absolute. One offense and you're done. One DUI and you can never get a license. If a person don't have a license, he or she can't get by forever. People who drive while drunk have absolutely no respect or value of another's life. If a drunk driver ever kills someone in my family, he better hopes he gets locked up. That will be better than what he will have coming from me. If one gets killed by a tragic accident, then as difficult as it might be, I would have to deal with it. If one is killed by someone who has no value for another's life, then I can be patient. By the time I got through with him, he would be begging for the court to deal with him. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just how I feel. I just hope I am never faced with that situation and I really feel for those who have been.

I would be just as outraged if some teenager texting her boyfriend while driving killed a loved one in an accident as I would if she was DUI. People need to be in full control of their cars when they are behind the wheel. Some drunks will drive with or without a license if they are not behind bars. Millions of illegal aliens get by just fine without drivers licenses and many of them drive every day.

The people who would actually honor a lifetime driving ban are the people who deserve a second chance in life. The others would just drive until caught or pay for forged documents the way so many illegals do.

I agree that DUI is a serious problem in this country, but we will just have to disagree about how much a zero tolerance law would accomplish.

[RunItUpTheGut]

The penalty proposed for a first offense DUI is insane. I sympathize for the surviving family members of any drunk driving victim but mandatory jail sentences for all first time offenders is no answer.

However, I agree that serial offenders (more than 2 or 3 offenses) should lose their driving privileges for life. That is punishment enough. If people are caught DUI after having their license suspended or revoked, then I support very stiff sentences. Imprisoning alcoholics who have not maimed or killed anybody is not going to reform them.

I also oppose mandatory substance abuse programs for offenders, especially if the state would be footing the bill. People have to want to kick bad habits and forcing them into programs is a waste of time and money. Get them off the roads, YES, but do not throw more taxpayers' money down a rat hole on programs that do not work.

Above all, though, regulating driving is a state responsibility. Kentuckians are capable of deciding who should and who should not be allowed to drive on Kentucky highways.

I disagree. People are much more less likely to do things if theres a greater risk involved.
Would you be more likely to drive drunk if you know you were going to get a slap on the wrist the first time or if you were going to jail for a mandatory 3 months the first time.
It's just like people getting caught selling drugs, especially to kids. IMO, if you made the penalty mandatory jail time for a year people wouldnt do this. And nobody can argue for the guilty because they are the ones who put themselves in the situation to begin with. Repeat offenders would go away forever if i had my say. It would simply make America better.
People can argue that this would ruin the lives of people making a simple mistake that they may never make again, but why take the chance? How many lives will they ruin being out on the street?