State law says that you can’t get a teacher license if you’ve been convicted of a crime that can’t be expunged. That’s is a reasonable policy except that lawmakers — apparently not realizing the impact on licensing — added to the list of crimes that can’t be expunged convictions or diversion agreements for driving under the influence, a misdemeanor. As a result, a person who would be an excellent, badly needed teacher wouldn’t be able to get a license if he had a single DUI in his past. That’s dumb, and lawmakers need to fix it.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
113 Comments
Phillip,
Exactly how many people attempt to become a teacher, but can’t, because of a DUI?
It kind of scares me that you think it is enough to make a thread out of it.
I am not sure I am comfortable with that many people with DUI’s trying to be teachers.
How many of you who post here regularly have had a DUI arrest? I would bet some degree of cash that Nathan’s dad has had such an arrest. I am not trying to be snarky here, but just remember some of his posts suggesting the same.
I think Hank has many of the traits of an excellent teacher. He writes well, he has a good sense of humor, he explains things well, etc.
In sum, I think Phillip has a good point.
Thank you.
In my family and my circle of friends there is not one person who has been convicted of any crime – other than a moving violation (the key here is CONVICTED). How many people can we be talking about here? The margin has to be incredibly low? Does this even matter? Are there people with deviant pasts that want to teach – I don’t know.
Where would we draw the line though? A DWI? A drug conviction? Battery of a spouse or child? Conviction of a hate crime – in college? Stalking? It seems like a slippery slope.
Dumb law. So if a teacher enters into a diversion program, they should lose their license? Or is it just if they have entered into a diversion program before becoming a teacher. Should we apply the law to our elected officials and judges too? How about applying it to law enforcement, hell they carry weapons!
My record is clean as a whistle, no DUI’s and no arrests. :)
But I agree, if the teacher doesn’t have repeated or recent DUI’s, then it shouldn’t be allowed for consideration of licensing.
I had one DUI..about 18 years ago. Have been in AA for 15 years since then…but, according to this law, I am not fit to be a teacher?
Oh well. Wouldn’t want that thankless, low paying job anyway!
Let he or she who has Never consumed alcohol and driven cast the first stone; guess that would be Nathan?
Ah, yes! More and more laws–less and less responsibilty.
It’s con political correctness at its worst.
Thanks to radical outfits such as MADD, you can be arrested for DUI if you walk out of a bar and merely get in your car! No driving has to be involved. A college kid who gets caught with a joint is banned for life from being a teacher?!
The most egregious aspect of the law is the “crimes that can’t be expunged convictions or diversion agreements.” In other words, if you have the cash for a good lawyer, your record can be wiped clean.
Any teacher who doesn’t drink and smoke dope is so hopelessly out of step with the rest of the population, he/she is unfit to teach.
One DUI and diversion 11 years ago.
Cop pulled me over because I was “driving too carefully”.
The state squeezed 6 or 7 thousand dollars outta me for that one.
This is an incredibly stupid thing to do making even one DUI an unforgivable. Don’t we have enough problems attracting teachers as it is? And are we to become a state of ol’ biddy church ladies?
I had one DUI..about 18 years ago. Have been in AA for 15 years since then…but, according to this law, I am not fit to be a teacher?
Oh well. Wouldn’t want that thankless, low paying job anyway!
Posted by: Taz | December 03, 2007 at 07:05 AM
Hey Taz… it isn’t a thankless job, you don’t know what you are missing.
AMEN phillip I definelty agree 100% with you on this one. It is dumb… good one, made my day!
Nathan maybe Phillip posted it because he has “connections” with the teaching world… it isn’t a dumb thread, in fact this needs to be heard… here we have people complaining about not having enough teacher… well maybe somebody should look at the laws… no wait, maybe we should just get a new government.
We don’t need drunks in the classroom who made a decision to endanger lives on the road because they wouldn’t call a cab. I applaud Ks lawmakers.
It seems to me that if a person has served his time and paid his dues then, after some period of time, he should be allowed to resume his life.
Isn’t one of the tenents of Christianity supposed to be ‘forgiveness’?
Speaking of criminals involved in education, retired high-flying junk-bond trader Michael Milken, who went to federal prison for insider trading, a securities law felony, co-founded a for-profit school chain called Nobel Learning Communities. It offers an excellent academic and arts curriculum spanning elementary and middle school.
http://www.ingagepublication.com/publications/nobellearning/
Some of its schools have special ed programs.
http://www.nobellearning.com/default.asp?page=learning_support_paladin
NLC offers after school enrichment programs, residential summer camps, and voluntary summer home-based assignments to enable students to learn during vacation.
NLC has an experimental half-day (4.5 hrs) high school program in Houston.
All NLC schools are fully accredited by the regional Associations of Colleges and Schools, which are “the gold standard” in education accreditation. (e.g. KU, KSU, WSU et al are North Central States Association of Schools and Colleges accredited.)
NLC started on the West Coast, then jumped to the Eastern Seaboard states. It is now making its first Midwestern foray in Illinois.
Milken’s family foundation gives $25,000 awards to public and private school teachers.
Jo Ann Schuette won Wichita’s first Milken Educator award at Curtis MS in 1995.
Janice Crowley, arguably Wichita’s most illustrious science teacher, won in 1997 when she was teaching at Independent. Michael Milken personally guided Ms. Crowley into doing research, which has led to a research-oriented high school science program at Collegiate.
http://www.mff.org/mea/mea.taf?page=recipient&meaID=502
Other local Milken Educator Award winners are Stanley Bergkamp (Maize 2005) and Charles Jenny (Robinson MS 2003).
Mr. Milken has been successfully rehabilitated. I don’t know if his record has been expunged.
This law is very stupid, and possibly unlawful as well. I was convicted of a dui, not because I was drunk, but because I was under age at the time, and the cop decided to enforce a zero tolernce policy even though I passed the breathalyzer. So I got a dui conviction, but then later opted out to dish money for the diversion, part of the diversion program is so the DUI won’t be on your record, the diversion isn’t even supposed to show up on your record because that would be a indicator of a dui or drug conviction. I had to sit through AA meetings, and spend a weekend in a hotel diversion class, plus pay the city around 2500 dollars for the diversion, I’d expect that nothing from this incident would stay on my record, but apparently the diversion probably does. That was 8 years ago, so I’d expect that its off my record by now.
“We don’t need drunks in the classroom who made a decision to endanger lives on the road because they wouldn’t call a cab. I applaud Ks lawmakers.
Posted by: Angel | December 03, 2007 at 08:13 AM”
This is just ignorant thinking reflecting the lack of knwwledge and understanding of too many people.
Obviously no one wants ‘drunks’ in the classroom. But what is a drunk? I know several people that have had DUIs; the only thing that separates them from many, many other people that drink is luck.
Not all ‘drunks’ have DUIs; not all DUI offenders are ‘drunks.’
ANK – I am well aware that many liberals are Christian – I am married to one. (Well, she is probably better described as moderate than liberal).
As for your mis-application of my logic I would draw a bright-line distinction between someone who did something stupid decades ago and a habitual offender. Unfortunately, ” in your effort to slam ‘liberals’, you forget common sense. And that some liberals are Christian too.”
Kansas politicians get DUIs and stay in the legislature making laws for the rest of us, why shouldn’t teachers be able to stay in the classroom
Hey Kennedy was drunk, drove off a bridge, killed a woman, and he’s still a US Senator.
Let all the criminals teach!
This is all part of getting tough on crime.
You should look at the list of felony charges a kid will have for the rest of their life and underage drinking is one of them.
If it’s good enough for the kids then it is good enough for the teachers.
Make up your mind. Tough on crime or not.
Dumb law. But Topeka specializes, at times, in dumb laws.
To the writer above defending the law to keep teachers from “wander[ing] into the classroom, slurring the English language, wetting themselves, and generally presenting a back example,” the answer is simple. Drunk on the job; fire the teacher. Case closed.
But a mistake made years ago should not haunt you forever; making DUI’s non-expungable is dumb.
Once again, GMC posts that which I was preparing (perhaps using different terminology, but the same sentiment).
Thanks you counselors. And I doubt that either of you could be labeled “liberal”
Just think.
If this law had been in place for PRESIDENTS, George W. Bush couldn’t have run.
And we wouldn’t have had to endure eight long years of Worst. President. Ever.
“This law is very stupid, and possibly unlawful as well. I was convicted of a dui, not because I was drunk, but because I was under age at the time, and the cop decided to enforce a zero tolernce policy even though I passed the breathalyzer So I got a dui conviction”
Really? Instead of a minor in possesion, or minor in consumption, you were convicted of driving under the influence, even though you legally weren’t? And the district judge found you guilty? Interesting.
“You should look at the list of felony charges a kid will have for the rest of their life and underage drinking is one of them.”
Underage drinking is a felony?
Personally, I give no sympathy to a dui. They have endangered everyone on the road. They deserve jail time, the firt time. Period. Although I think perhaps the current 0.08 bac is too low a threshold. However, once they have paid the penalty, and do not have a pattern of this, I see nothing wrong with them teaching, or any other profession.
The problem this thread is stating is the Diversion. A diversion is available for first time dui, or drug offenders. The point of the diversion is so you won’t have a felony or misdemanor on your record. But if a diversion appears on your record, than its almost just as bad as a dui on your record, because a diversion would indicate that you got in trouble as a first time dui or drug offender, so anyone will know by looking at someones record, that if it says diversion on theirs, that person most likely was convicted of dui. Which I’m pissed off, I wasn’t able to fight of the dui in court, I passed the breathalyzer, I was just underage, 19 at the time. So they should of gave me a minor in possesion offense instead of a dui, but thanx to the rookie cop who was anxious to nab his first dui offender, and the zero tolerance policy, I got a dui from drinking three beers two hours before a cop found me with my cars wheels stuck in the snow, with 1 unopened bottle of Fosters in my back seat. I wasn’t even sitting in my car, but because my keys were in the ignition, I got a dui. Most cops I’ve met, have been very understanding and nice, but this cop was a rookie, and a dickhead on top of that, so he was anxious to bust my ass.
I’m still a little pissed off about that, and that was eight years ago. It felt like a roayaly unjustified dui conviction I got. I’m all about dropping the drinking age to 18 again, and raising the driving age to 18 as well. Anyways, this is about teachers being rejected from a teaching posistion because of a dui. First of all, if you get a dui, for you to be able to get a diversion, I think it has to be pretty minor, a first offense, no accidents involved, and you can’t be more than twice the legal limit. So people who get a diversion usually wern’t terribly drunk to begin with, and in my case I was wide eyed sober.
Question for the legal experts.
I paid a lot of money for diversion. Wouldn’t my diversion 11 years ago be grandfathered out of this? Not that I’d ever want the grief that teachers get. But I have paid for the right to have my record expunged. Do I still have it?
‘Cause if not, I want a refund.
I paid a lot of money for diversion. Wouldn’t my diversion 11 years ago be grandfathered out of this? Not that I’d ever want the grief that teachers get. But I have paid for the right to have my record expunged. Do I still have it?
‘Cause if not, I want a refund.
Posted by: J R | December 03, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Pay the Price to Government, and they will Forgive you!
If you do the crime:
FYI – getting a crime expunged does NOT remove it from your record for purposes of enhancement for future offenses, so an expungement would not have the effect you imagine. If that were the case, I’d agree with you. But it’s not.
Essentially, it permits you to not list the offense on job applications, and to answer truthfully “no” if you have ever been convicted of a crime (except for a fairly long list of exceptions, where expungement does no good). It does NOT remove the offense from your history for purposes of enhancement for a later offense. Further, a diversion for DUI counts the same as a conviction (even if expunged, sorry, JR) for criminal history purposes. And under current law, that history stays on forever; previously, convictions or expungements over 5 years prior to the offense decayed – that is, they did not count for criminal history. Now they do.
Whether your previously expunged incident is now still expunged – I’m not sure, JR. That’s a good question; off the top of my head, I don’t know that I have a good answer. Certainly, it would not be constitutionally barred to “unexpunge” your expungement, but I don’t know if the statute actually undos previous expungements.
Gee, with low pay, having to buy their own classroom supplies, everyone sniping at them, better jobs in the private sector and now this, it’s no wonder we have to go to other countries to recruit teachers! Before long, the only people who will accept work in a school system will be the illegal aliens whose last job was picking fruit.
If there is ONE person who can honestly say they have NEVER had a drink and then driven?
I will BUY them a drink. They need it. That and some time outta the belfry.
At a national conference hosted by the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas in November, Sherry Lansing, retired CEO of Paramount Pictures, raised the issue of enlisting well-educated retirees to teach in our classrooms. She pointed out that we will be having millions of Baby Boomers with time on their hands, just as teacher shortages are going to be very acute. They can bring real-world experience to schools. They can be hired to teach a class or two, at relatively low cost (their pensions and healthcare are already covered) and earn some retirement-supplementing income.
Actually this is something that private schools and a some prestigious public high schools have been doing for some time.
Ms. Lansing is a board member of Teach for America, a program that places outstanding college graduates in inner-city schools; she is also a member of the Board of Regents of the University of California, the nation’s (and world’s) leading public university, so she’s extremely well-informed about 21st century education issues.
it’s no wonder we have to go to other countries to recruit teachers! Before long, the only people who will accept work in a school system will be the illegal aliens whose last job was picking fruit.
Posted by: Jed
Just wait until we have socialized medicine! (It’s already happening. Not enough med school grads to replace retiring boomer doctors.)
Hablo espanol? Abra su boca y diga “Ahhh”!
Thunder!
Anyone see that lightning strike?
Jr-
I have had a drink and operated a motor vehicle. I have had way too many drinks and operated a vehicle when I was young. Thankfully, nobody ever got hurt. That has absolutely no bearing on my viewpoints about dui. While there maybe some wiggle room on those barely above the 0.08, I have no tolerance, and neither should you, for those that put all of us in danger by being intoxicated and driving a vehicle.
You can’t be a teacher with a DUI but you can still be President.
JR – Whatever the law for expungement or diversion was AT THE TIME is what will be followed. I myself had a DUI and subsequent diversion 14 years ago, and when they did a background check on me to get a job working with at risk kids, it did not show up. But I do remember the judge explaining to me that after 5 years, it would only show up if I had another DUI, which I have not.
“There are circles out there, where people just don’t do that. Yes. Ever.”
Damn I’m glad I don’t move in those circles. What a small unfun better than everybody group THAT must be. Wheeee.
” They say there’s heaven for those who will wait.
Some say it’s better but I say it aint.
I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.
The sinners are much more fun.
And only the good die young!”
Billy Joel
Thanks the info TDT. Looks like I skated.
I never had a DUI, but I do know people that have had one. They all were punished for it enough that they didn’t want to do it again. Getting a DUI is a fairly easy thing to do. Losing a driver’s license is bad enough on its own. The teacher’s license has nothing to do with driving. Quit picking on teachers. They already have a hard enough job to do for relatively little pay.
Does our legislature ever make a good law? Mark Twain once said “everytime the government is joking they make a law, every time they make a law its a joke” What are the other misdemeanor crime that aren’t expugnable.
TDT/JR:
RE: expungements -
I wouldn’t bet on that outcome. You may well be right, but it’s not at all a sure thing, at least to me. Because that was the law at the time does not necessarily mean the it will stay that way.
The real question is whether the state will honor the previous expungement and keep those records closed, even though it is for an offense which could now not be expunged. Again, I don’t know. If you really want to know, you might call the AG’s office and see what answer you get.
Tom Paine, another misdemeanor that is not subject to expungment is sexual battery with a person under age 18; I’m not sure of any others.
Tom:
The expungement statute is KSA 21-4619. There’s a fairly long list of unexpungeables; most you would expect, some are a surprise. Good hunting.
So misdemeanor drug use is OK but a DUI isn’t? Can one get a medical license with a criminal record?
It seems to me that there should be some sort of ’statute of limitations’ even for a conviction. How long that might be should depend on the offense – pedophilia would be forever. Then the person – who has paid his dues and keep his nose clean – should be able to resume his life.
Either that or we should be prepared to effectively have life sentences for these offenses.
Maybe if the teaching position was Drivers Ed. I could see this law applying, other than that, it is just the handiwork of the RR. My but they do love to look down their noses!
Wouldn’t not honoring previous expungements be a violation of ex post facto?
I actually know a couple of people who have never drank and driven.
When you see or hear of someone who gets a DUI, just rember to say, “there but for the grace of God go I”.
I’ve been pretty much a non-drinker for over 30 years. Before that…it’s a good thing my car knew it’s way home.
What if you get a pardon rather than an expugment? A pardon restores most civil rights lost with a criminal conviction.
XXX – I know where you are coming from. And, with 30 years ‘clean’ there seems to be no reason that, had you been caught, it should condemn you forever.
And, for those who are still ‘chancing it’ without consequences so far: YET. You’re Eligible Too”
Pedophilia is not a crime; acting on it is.
“Personally, I give no sympathy to a dui. They have endangered everyone on the road. They deserve jail time, the firt time. Period.”
Seriously, most of the anger about DUI was and is generated by MADD. This is because they were and are emotionally involved with the issue. I don’t think much rational thought was ever brought to bear about the laws and sentencing involved with DUI.
Having a few drinks and then driving, for most people, is not really something that ‘endangers’ everyone on the road nor is it something that should ruin that driver’s life.
NOTE: I said a few drinks and most people. Yes I know some have Way too much before driving, there are accidents because people were too drunk to drive, and innocent people have been killed.
For driving, there is a big difference between someone that is very drunk and someone that has drank three or four drinks.
To show how public perception is biased against drinking lets look at risk.
From a ‘endangering everyone on the road’ perspective, studies have shown that a driver’s tiredness can have as much or more influence on their ability to drive safely as alcohol consumption. This means that a driver that is sleepy puts other drivers in as much danger as a driver that is drunk.
Have you ever heard of DWOS laws? (Driving WithOut Sleep) How about MASD? (Mothers Against Sleepy Drivers)
Would any of you support a law that says a person could not become a teacher because they decided to drive home at 1am one night 5 years ago and were really tired? Even though they chose to put you and other drivers in the exact same dangerous situation that a drinking driver did?
Obviously, the Drinking part of drinking and driving is the bigger factor than public safety. Most likely, this is a carryover from are prudent past of temperance.
“…society should have zero tolerance.
Posted by: A. N. Keny | December 03, 2007 at 12:09 PM”
Ironically, zero tolerance laws are never a good idea. Never.
So, “Posted by: Just asking”
Does your response mean that you are more concerned that kids will have a ‘bad example’ than with safe driving conditions?
Tom Paine:
No, I don’t think it’s an ex post facto law; the change in expungement does not punish you for a previous crime, or enhance your punishment for the prior crime. What is does is enhance punishment for later offenses. So no, it’s not ex post facto.
If you can get a DUI pardoned, good luck. But yes, as I understand it, a full pardon can, in effect, wipe the slate clean, as if the offense never happened. There are also lesser degrees of pardon, of course; commutation, for example.
But go for that full pardon, Tom!!
“Everybody gets sleepy. Not everybody drinks alcohol and not everybody drinks alchol and drives a motor vehicle.
Drinking and driving is not the same as falling asleep at the wheel.
Posted by: Just asking | December 03, 2007 at 12:17 PM”
Everyone gets sleepy, and if they are driving and are sleepy, they are as dangerous as they would be if they had been drinking.
You point out that “Drinking and driving is not the same as falling asleep at the wheel.” Duh. If they were the same there would not be different words for them. While not the same, they are equally dangerous.
Don’t forget cell phones … text messages … computers …
this is a carryover from are prudent past of temperance.
Posted by: brian
Then you admit the current laws against DUI are not a carryover from prudent past of temperance.
It’s a response to a dangerous condition which can be prevented if we do not tolerate drinking and driving.
brian:
That’s called “rationalization.” Sound to me like you’re making excuses, and in the attempt, you’ve written one of the dumber posts here.
Yes, people can do all kinds of things which effect their driving; the list is endless. How one legislates on that, I don’t know; try as some meddlesome liberals might, I don’t think you can outlaw stupidity.
But we know the correlation between alcohol and traffic accidents, and the resulting death. I, for one, am tired of seeing people maimed or killed so that you can tie one on without the incovenience of arranging for your ride home.
“Then you admit the current laws against DUI are not a carryover from prudent past of temperance.
It’s a response to a dangerous condition which can be prevented if we do not tolerate drinking and driving.
Posted by: Just asking | December 03, 2007 at 12:33 PM ”
Um, i don’t know where you are getting this
“You can’t be a teacher with a DUI but you can still be President.”Posted by: Doug
Yeah, but you can’t be president if you elicit anonymous gay sex in a public restroom, however you could be a senator.
That’s called “rationalization.” Sound to me like you’re making excuses, and in the attempt, you’ve written one of the dumber posts here.
Posted by: GMC70 | December 03, 2007 at 12:40 PM”
1. Rationalization is finding ‘good reason’ for things that we really know are wrong. I did not condone or rationalize driving under the influence in any of my posts. Apparently you misunderstood what I wrote.
2. “the attempt, you’ve written one of the dumber posts here” Where does this BS come from? Your inability to understand the meaning behind what I wrote would be a better reflection of your intellectual ability than mine.
For those that like numbers:
2006 DUI arrests (adult only):
Kansas – 15,487Wichita PD – 1,213
From http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/stats.shtml
brian:
You post was an apparant attempt to say that DUI was no different than, and no worse than, lots of other dumb things people do behind the wheel of a car, and the only reason it’s illegal is that a bunch of prudes want to take your fun away.
That’s pretty much the textbook definition of “rationalization.”
Pedophilia is not a crime; acting on it is.
Posted by: Door King | December 03, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Appears to be a lot of people reported in the news arrested for having child porn or related materials who have never acted out pedophilia.
My point was that many people who get up in arms about DUI do so for misleading reasons.
If you read the posts prior to mine, no one wrote about DUI as a moral issue – they wrote about it as a safety issue. If safety were the real reason, those people writing about the dangers of DUI would support laws against driving while tired because it is just as dangerous.
I am not advocating removing DUI from criminal status, nor am I advocating making driving without 8 hours of sleep a crime. I only want people that do like to advocate and speak out about things like this to do so truthfully and with full disclosure of their reasoning.
“Appears to be a lot of people reported in the news arrested for having child porn or related materials who have never acted out pedophilia.
Posted by: Kansas | December 03, 2007 at 01:11 PM”
I think the point still stands – those people are not arrested for pedophilia, which is not illegal. They were arrested for possession of child pornography, which is a crime.
I think the point still stands – those people are not arrested for pedophilia, which is not illegal. They were arrested for possession of child pornography, which is a crime.
Posted by: brian | December 03, 2007 at 01:15 PM
By that logic, a person who burglarizes residences and never caught has never committed a crime.
No Kansas, by that logic, a person who burglarizes whether caught or not has committed burglary.
A better analogy would be that a person who plans a robbery but does not carry it out is not guilty of burglary.
A better analogy would be that a person who plans a robbery but does not carry it out is not guilty of burglary.
Posted by: brian | December 03, 2007 at 01:35 PM
Conspiracy to rob a bank I know is a crime. I’m not so sure about a residence, perhaps the legals can advice.
Anyone who sits around think about pedophilia is a sick person and those who have invested these thoughts in their minds needs help before they act out.
Personally, I would slap the dog squeeze out of someone even talking about sick pedophile acts. It is totally disgusting.
“…perhaps the legals can advice….Posted by: Kansas | December 03, 2007 at 01:39 PM ”
I don’t really care, do you?
One person sitting around thinking of robbing someone does not a conspiracy make. Conspiracy, BTW, is a separate offense. A robbery is separate from a burglary, as burglary traditionally doesn’t require theft as an element, and if GMC is inclined, he might post the appropriate statutory citations (as I am disinclined at the moment to research the same).
Fortunately for most humans, it is not yet illegal to think things that would be illegal to act upon.
“…perhaps the legals can advice….Posted by: Kansas | December 03, 2007 at 01:39 PM ”
I don’t really care, do you?
Posted by: brian | December 03, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Yes I do care.
If it is not a crime, the there would be no intellectual property issues (Internet) about Pedophiles wanting to transmit materials.
There are no thought police, however the idea of a pedophile who invokes thoughts of despicable acts against a child is totally disgusting.
Seriously, most of the anger about DUI was and is generated by MADD. This is because they were and are emotionally involved with the issue. I don’t think much rational thought was ever brought to bear about the laws and sentencing involved with DUI.
Having a few drinks and then driving, for most people, is not really something that ‘endangers’ everyone on the road nor is it something that should ruin that driver’s life.
NOTE: I said a few drinks and most people. Yes I know some have Way too much before driving, there are accidents because people were too drunk to drive, and innocent people have been killed.
For driving, there is a big difference between someone that is very drunk and someone that has drank three or four drinks.”
Seriously, Madd has nothing to do with my anger or drunk driving. Scraping people off the highway after some drunk, and including the driver, has killed them does. Seriously, three of four drinks, consumed fairly quickly, impairs your driving and judgement enough to be a danger to others.
Seriously, most people who are social drinkers have no clue about how impaired they are. Those who drink less frequently are possibly more aware than others.
Seriouosly, if you have a high blood alchohol content, and kill or maim someone, you need to be tried for murder. Drunk drivers get a slap on the wrist far too many times. Many of them, get multiple slaps on the wrist.
I have little tolerance for a one time, absolutely none for a repeat offender.
Seriously. go to the mom of a kid killed by a druk driver and tell them their kid has died in an automobile accident. Them come and talk to me.
littlehohn, it sounds as if we have some shared experiences. That’s why if I go to a social event and if I’m driving, I MAY have one alcoholic beverage and then no more, assuming there to be a sufficient time to absorb the alcohol before driving; most times, I don’t. Personal choice, based upon experiences from another time. Others disagree with this, but your suggestion, lj, to scrape remains off a highway is a good one, IMHO. I understand the source of your anger, been there myself (probably under different circumstances, me not being an EMT, but analogous enough to understand).
Drifting a bit … in some parts of the country bars provide free non-alcohol drings to designated drivers. AND, they have some concoctions beyond the usual iced tea or pop.
Once upon a time, I relied on tables that allowed you to figure your rate of absorption and offloading of alcohol and would drink one drink per 1 1/2 hours, with at least two hours before driving, and a cumulative drinking of three or less. All in the sense of justifying that I knew I was under 0.08, and not a problem. However, while intellectually honest, I decided it was unethical for me personally. Hence, If I am driving, I do not consume alcohol. I do not think everyone should come to the same conclusion, but if you are over the legally defined limit, I have no sympathy for you. You having a good time is no excuse for probiding an unnecessary and completely preventable danger to the public.
VT- thanks for understanding my position, and I am truly sorry if you have had to experience, under any circustamces, the net result of this, or other similar scenario.
Well, littlejohn, I helped work my way through the last three years of undergrad and year one of law school by working in a mortuary, so that should give you a clue….
I believe a DUI can be expunged after a certain period of time. I think.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to keep people convicted of DUI out of the classroom, after so much time has gone by without other offenses.
Cold sober reality hit me when I went to a wedding of a friend. At the Wedding, the bride’s out of state family had come to attend the wedding.
About two hours after the Wedding festivities ended, we had learned that four of the five relatives in the car had been killed by a drunk driver in a head on collision. The drunk walked away uninjured.
I was deeply affected and influenced by that event. It was sobering in terms of reality and the effects of drunk driving.
One possible solution would be for punitive damages (triple, at least) to be paid by the insurance company in all wrecks involving drunk or impaired driving. I’ll bet the insurance companies would come up with a campaign that would be effective!
Vaughn Toll,
I get the picture.
LJ
p-mom:
DUI’s are unexpungable, after any time. Check the statute; the cite’s upthread.
Is the issue here increasing highway safety due to actions taken by drivers that impair their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle?
I am for increasing highway safety across the board. I would choose not to focus solely on drunk driving, rather on anything that impairs one’s ability to safely operate a vehicle. This would include lack of sleep, prescription and OTC medicines, use of cell phones, and other in-vehicle distractions like dvd players.
A driver who kills thru recklessness wether thru drinking, or not sleeping, talking on a cellphone should suffer the harshest penalty, however our current legal system doesn’t view drunk driving or other related deaths that seriously. My best friend died as a result of a DD, her family sued for a large punitive damage after the perp got off with probation, me our friends her brothers took it upon ourselves to make sure he was punished,putting liens on all his property, calls to his employer to get him fired, passing out leaflets in his neighborhood warning them about the murderer, after accosting me about the leaflets, rather than beat him like I wanted to I had him arrested for assault( and filed a suit myself) which in turn violated his probation, instead of going to jail he shot himself, my friends parents got a house and a car the perps bitchy wife couldn’t even collect the assholes insurance money, and the icing on the cake, my friends brother called in a bomb threat at the assholes wake. Certainly more justice than we got from the justice system.
prescription and OTC medicines, use of cell phones, and other in-vehicle distractions like dvd players.
Posted by: brian | December 03, 2007 at 02:40 PM
You can already be conviced of impaired driving with prescription and OTC medications. And If I recall correctly, television monitors and dvd players are not to be visible to the driver. That has recently been modified to allow for navigation devices and rear camera monitors.
“You don’t do that by providing the one or two teachers this applies to a “pass” and change the law.
Posted by: A N Keny | December 03, 2007 at 03:30 PM”
What do a past conviction or diversion for drunk driving (which could have been 50 years ago) have to do with one’s ability to teach?
What do a past conviction or diversion for drunk driving (which could have been 50 years ago) have to do with one’s ability to teach?
Posted by: brian | December 03, 2007 at 04:17 PM
Probably not much, but I wonder how many applicants have lied about it.
How many those who have changed their name by marriage or other means or perhaps have a DUI in other states and lied on their application?
Probably the same number that lie on their applications to be lawyers, accountants, salespeople, doctors, janitors, burger flippers, etc…
Just another unneeded law. What public policy purpose does adding DUI to a list of crimes that cannot be expunged?
Expunged or not, a past DUI conviction or diversion affects sentencing for any subsequent DUI conviction, so that reason would not hold water.
I don’t think anyone has addressed the question of why it would be fair to apply this law to only one profession and not all that may interact with children.We have gotten off on a tangent about drunk driving, but that really isn’t the same as someone who has a beer or two and gets pulled over. In many cases the person probably wouldn’t even be demonstrating signs of impairment.
Unfortunately, I do not think there is anyone in Topeka with enough balls to publiclly say the effect of this law is wrong then act to change it.
This is a little off the topic. But if the City government really wanted to cut down on drunk drivers, they would pass a city wide ordinance mandating that any establishment that serves alcohol must remain open two hours after they stop serving. So after 2am every morning when all the places that close in Old town, kick all the drunks out in the street, they would have to remain open until 4am, giving people two hours to sober up before they drive home. I can’t understand for the life of me, why any place would close down after last call and kick everybody out into the street, drunk or sober, it dosen’t matter to them, they aren’t making enough money to stay open when they quit serving alcohol in their eyes. But most people I know would hang out and eat some food for an hour or two and sober up. That is as about of big as preventive measure the city can take, but nooooooooo, every place at 2am closes and old town turns into a ghost town, with drunk people scurrying home. Wow, wheres the logic in that.
Who do I talk to, to get an ordinace like this pushed through. If an establishment is going to serve something as debilitating as alcohol, then that place needs to let people stay there and sober up after they quit serving. You can say its up to the individuals responsibility, but everyone knows that not every person is going to stop drinking at 11 pm, so they can be sober by 2am when the place closes down. Everyone knows at least 4 out of 10 people there will keep drinking to last call, and their last gulp will be right before their kicked out of the bar, with no place to go, except into their car.
Again, given the shortage of people eager to be teachers, this is stupid.
I predict it will not stand.
Hey Tom Paine?
Is your nic a coincidence?
It is quite clear you are in terrible pain. But to be gleeful about a man’s suicide? To gloat about calling in bomb threats? The overall tone of your post?
I’ll never read you quite the same again. I think you should consider some counseling.
Well the closest I ever came to a bad accident had nothing to do with alcohol. Like I say, I got pulled over for driving TOO carefully.
Road trip. New Mexico coming home. Non stop after a sleepless night. Hour 12 on the road I was approaching some little burg out in Western Ks.
When I woke up, that little town was over the horizon behind me. I figure I nodded off for about 4 minutes traveling at 60 miles an hour. That’s about 4 miles asleep at the wheel. I hadn’t had a drink at all.
Thanks for once for flat Kansas and straight roads.
People do stupid things. Ya don’t hold it against them for the rest of their life. There are those drunk on religion I definitely would not want teaching my kid. Somebody who made a mistake? I got no issue. I aint perfect either.
W.E.,Good idea. I can see where that would be beneficial.
You did not take into account that DUIs are a good revenue stream for the city, however. I do not think the government would like to lose a million or so from their fine revenues.
Brian, you got that right. When it comes down to money, no one will change for the better if it means losing some revenue.
Is the law applicable to teaching license renewals or to initial licensing?
If so I can see where there will be a lot of openings, or the cost will go way up.
Went to the article, it’s just the new teachers.
Which brings up an interesting issue. If 1 dui gets a teacher fired / not hired, will the government next want to take away your CC license?
…. if you get a DUI. Is that already in the CC law?
Oh boy… look at all the poor saps on here sticking up for drunk teachers… the same saps that want to lock up pot smokers for 10 to life. So the next time a drunk teacher runs your little susie over in the school parking lot that you advocated it!
Hi, I really apreciated this website! Thanks
I really like the layout and colors that you chose for this website! It certainly is incredible! :)
This is a one super duper site