A Butler man was spared a more severe sentence for his fifth drunken-driving conviction in part because only three of his five DUI convictions occurred during the past 10 years.

In DUI cases, the mandatory-minimum component of sentencing is governed by a 10-year look-back provision, although in some instances, depending on a defendant's prior-record score, DUIs from longer than 10 years can weigh on a sentence.

In the Butler man's case, the prior-record score didn't factor in to the sentence handed down after the man's guilty plea. According to District Attorney Richard Goldinger, the defendant's in-patient rehabilitation efforts related to his alcohol use was one of the considerations in the sentence he received.

However, anyone who has been the victim of a drunk driver, or who has had a relative or friend injured or killed by one, most likely disagrees with the look-back limitation and would advocate that all DUI cases — those within 10 years and those going back beyond 10 years — should weigh directly on subsequent DUI sentences.

Thus, it's safe to say that most people with the all-DUIs-count opinion are unhappy about the sentence meted out in Butler County Court to Randy R. Double, 51, of North Church Street, Butler, even though Double's sentence amounts to more than a slap on the wrist.

Double, who has had three DUI convictions in the past decade and five overall, was sentenced by Judge Timothy McCune to spend five years in the county's Intermediate Punishment Program. The judge ruled that Double's first three months in the program would be spent in the Butler County Prison, but then agreed to consider transferring the defendant from the prison to an in-house rehabilitation program as soon as a bed is available.

In addition, the judge directed, Double would be on house arrest with electronic monitoring for nine months following his release. He also was ordered to pay $3,500 in fines, log 60 hours of community service, spend time on a litter pickup crew, and sit in on at least one county-sponsored victim impact panel.

Proponents of tougher action against those who drive while drunk advocate longer stints in jail for multiple-DUI offenders like Double, in addition to the other kinds of punishment McCune ordered for him.

Stiffer-sentence advocates argue correctly that treatment is fine, but a signficant amount of time behind bars also is needed to awaken drunken drivers to the seriousness of their offense.

The number of DUI arrests reported in the Butler Eagle, as well as by other newspapers statewide, is indicative of a need for state lawmakers to again revisit the DUI sentencing issue with the intent of making life much more difficult for those convicted of more than one DUIoffense — let alone for people like Double who have multiple offenses.

Most right-thinking people would suspect that the hassle connected to a first-time DUI offense, even though not as tough as it could be, still would be a major deterrent to a repeat offense. Unfortunately, court dockets throughout the state bear witness to the fact that many drivers with one such conviction are often caught and charged with DUI again.

Some of those repeat offenders are fortunate to be charged as a result of a traffic stop; too many others are arrested as a result of an accident involving serious injury or death.

Double hasn't been involved in a drunken-driving incident that resulted in a fatality. It is to be hoped that what he learns from his latest brush with the law will keep him from becoming a six-time DUI offender, and possibly the cause of some innocent person's death.

Double's defense attorney told McCune that his client has had an alcohol problem throughout his life and "desperately needs" a treatment program. But it can legitimately be asked why previous sentencings and rehabilitation attempts failed to help Double overcome or control that alcohol problem — and, at least, to end his willingness to drive while intoxicated.

By the time of a third drunken-driving conviction, a person should be doomed by state mandate to a lengthy jail sentence, despite not being guilty of a violent crime. Many people would argue that three months in jail for Double, all considered, amounts to a slap on the wrist.

Some people might be critical of McCune and the district attorney for Double not receiving a stiffer sentence within the sentencing guidelines, and such criticism might be valid. But state lawmakers also need to put tougher teeth in the state's DUI law so that it becomes a much more formidable deterrent to that crime.

Double, with five convictions overall, is proof that the law, although having been toughened in some ways in recent years, remains too lenient.

The look-back limitation should be ended.

State law should dictate that, upon a second conviction, drunken drivers, without exception, must serve prison time that will be an incentive for them to avoid a third DUI offense.

Butler County's state lawmakers should make that thinking one of their objectives for this legislative session. DUI recidivism is too much a part of Butler County and the rest of Pennsylvania to be ignored.