It’s 2 a.m. and there’s a knock at the door.

Your stomach drops. You know before you open it that the news on the other side isn’t good.

A family member — generally a good person with a real problem — has been arrested for DUI.

Again.

And suddenly, the long-running debate over whether Pennsylvania should allow second-time DUI offenders into the Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition program isn’t abstract anymore.

It’s personal. It’s urgent. It’s real.

That emotional punch sits at the center of the fight that erupted in Harrisburg over House Bill 1615, a proposal designed to close a glaring loophole in state law — one that has allowed people who complete ARD to avoid tougher penalties for subsequent DUI offenses.

That loophole has now been addressed, and Gov. Josh Shapiro is expected to sign the measure into law.

The bill creates a new offense: “DUI Following Diversion.” It applies to anyone who drives under the influence within 10 years of completing ARD for a prior DUI.

In other words, the state is finally drawing a clear line: ARD is a second chance, not a shield for repeat behavior.

Since the early 1970s, ARD has been a valuable tool for keeping first-time offenders out of the criminal system and steering them toward treatment and education. It’s not a free ride. Participants lose their license, complete classes, and are pushed toward treatment.

The program keeps people working, keeps families intact, and — when it works — reduces the likelihood of another offense.

But ARD was never meant to be a revolving door.

Under the new law, ARD remains in place for those who genuinely turn their lives around and avoid another mistake. What changes is how the system responds when someone doesn’t.

The need for this fix became clear after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that treating ARD as a prior offense for sentencing was unconstitutional.

That ruling effectively erased the distinction between someone who made one mistake and someone who made two. HB 1615 restores that distinction.

The law keeps ARD intact but ensures that a second DUI within 10 years triggers tougher consequences. It also requires PennDOT to maintain ARD records for 12 years before automatic expungement — a practical step that ensures prosecutors and courts have the information they need.

The bill goes further by addressing gaps in the state’s homicide-by-vehicle statute. Under the new law, someone involved in a fatal crash while in the DUI Following Diversion category would face a first-degree felony.

A conviction carries a mandatory five-year sentence, with an additional five years for each death. That’s not excessive — it’s accountability.

The legislation also tightens procedural requirements for ARD. Before someone enters the program for a DUI, courts must conduct an inquiry to ensure the individual knowingly waives their constitutional rights. That’s a safeguard that should have existed all along.

State Attorney General Dave Sunday supports the measure, noting that many DUI offenders are at high risk to re-offend.

He’s right.

And he’s equally right to say he still supports ARD and similar programs for those who qualify. But as he put it, “there’s no such thing as a freebie when it comes to driving while intoxicated.”

That’s the heart of this issue.

ARD is a second chance — not a blank check. In the long run, HB 1615 sends a clear message to anyone who has completed ARD and is tempted to risk a second offense: the consequences will be real. It also gives prosecutors the clarity they’ve needed to treat repeat offenders as repeat offenders.

And it relieves courts from navigating a loophole that never should have existed in the first place.

Most importantly, it strengthens public safety.

Repeat DUI offenders pose a serious risk, and the law should reflect that reality.

HB 1615 does that.

Second chances matter. But so does protecting the public from those who squander them.

This law strikes the balance Pennsylvania has needed for far too long — and that’s good news for everyone.

ED SOCHA | TNeditor@tnonline.com

The foregoing opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or Times News LLC.