There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Texas drunk drivers will now have to pay child support if they kill a parent, guardian

A new law in Texas requires convicted drunk drivers to pay child support if they kill a child’s parent or guardian, according to House Bill 393.

The law, which went into effect Friday, says those convicted of intoxication manslaughter must pay restitution. The offender will be expected to make those payments until the child is 18 or until the child graduates from high school, “whichever is later,” the legislation says.

Intoxication manslaughter is defined by state law as a person operating “a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.”

EmptySlime ,

I’m theory I like this idea, make the person that killed the parent and remove that support try to replace it. I just don’t know how well it’s going to work in practice. Like, I don’t know how many drunk drivers have a high enough income that any meaningful amount of child support would be derived from this. Not that a drunk driver being poor or not should get them out of consequences. But like my dad weaseled his child support payments down to $25 a month and it was just ridiculous. It didn’t help at all. But some nice karma on him was that all those years of working under the table to lower his child support meant that when the piece of shit got injured and needed to try to get disability he hadn’t gotten enough work credits in the previous ten years.

I feel like it would probably be better if the state established a fund that they could use to pay out to those kids that they could fund at least partially with fines brought against drivers convicted of DUI. That way we could guarantee some level of support for the kids that lost parents and still force the drunk drivers to at least partially fund it but a kid won’t get screwed just because the drunk driver that killed their parent particularly happened to be poor.

Blackmist ,

I suspect it will just end in a lot of “Well, the guy that killed your dad was poor, so you’re not getting any child support”.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

Not to mention…. Manslaughter. Vehicular homicide with a dui modifier. Not sure about Texas but some places that becomes a felony.

So most duis that lead to the death of someone else…. Are absolutely going to jail.

Which is very much not conducive to paying child support.

sederx ,

will it turn into a chinese model where the driver is now looking to run over the kids too?

phoenixz ,

There is that risk. However, they would have to stop, get out, get the victims wallet, find out where they live, drive there, and murder all the children.

I think the risk of that is pretty low, all considering

PersnickityPenguin ,

Plus it’s Texas, if they did that they’ll be facing the death penalty.

protput ,

Damn. You found the loophole.

thebrownhaze ,

The majority of posts here say this is a bad law and appear to be more sympathetic to the drink driver than the victim. I suspect because the law makers are on the incorrect team

twopi ,

Wow… 6 upvotes and 6 downvotes…

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

It’s good they’re trying something.

It’s bad in that it won’t have the stated effect of supporting the child. Personally, I suspect it has more to do with mireing the perp in more debt… which, they can then keep them in prison for longer. (Which is not about justice or helping people.)

crashoverride ,

This’ll never stand. What’ll be next? The price for dui is already too high and the person likely to do this won’t have the money to facilitate it anyway or even further financially ruining people. We may not like druck drivers but this is too much. If the State wants to help victims of drunk drives, then get a fund going that will help them. More punishment is not the answer

GladiusB ,
@GladiusB@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t get drunk driving. Uber is cheaper than a DUI. So is being drunk in public.

duffman ,

Not getting caught is cheaper than an Uber. Nobody expects to get caught, that’s why they do it.

Even if you think ride shares are cheap, they aren’t cheap enough. We need public transit level cheap, but has to feel safe for everyone, at night. This is one of the better use cases for self driving cars.

mclovin420 ,

It’s a bit more than just an uber though. It’s also an uber back to the bar in the morning to collect your car, but the City doesn’t allow overnight parking so they towed your car, and now you have to pay a couple hundred to get it released from the tow company. If they really want to curb drunk driving, then reduce the barrier to not driving home. Stop towing cars at night and don’t cite people for sleeping one off in their car.

Foofighter ,

Except you could take a cab to the bar and back, leaving your car at home in the first place.

GladiusB ,
@GladiusB@lemmy.world avatar

Those are just excuses to me. If people can’t have a plan to deal with that then they shouldn’t drink. Like that’s the responsibility of being an adult.

Smoogs ,

I don’t understand how in your eyes a drunk driver is a victim somehow. it’s the easiest thing to avoid doing. Out of all situations it’s entirely preventable. If you don’t think it is so it’s time to go find yourself a 12 program. Cuz your life is unmanageable if you’re measuring on taking a life with a death machine. Step 1. Do that at the very least before deciding on actions that may lead to killin a person.

Rusticus ,

How about just make financial penalties for traffic violation/vehicular homicide be based upon salary/net worth like Europe?

MalachaiConstant ,

This is where it needs to start.

what_is_a_name ,

See that is the opposite of the goal here. This will be a whip on poor people. Making the fine tied to your income would punish the people writing this bill they cannot have that !

Bourff ,

Some europeean countries do that, but it’s a minority.

profdc9 ,

Next we can bring back blood money. If you’re wealthy, avoid that inconvenient jail time by writing a check! We can make murder another one of those crimes for everyone but the rich.

reverendsteveii ,

This is just a debt trap. It won’t help any kids because the kids can’t get money from someone who is in prison, but it does make it harder for people who commit crimes to pay their debt and rejoin society. If the law specifically gave these support payments priority over fines payable to the state I’d feel differently, but the real point of this is to just pile debt on someone who can’t earn money.

PM_ME_FEET_PICS ,

This is what I was thinking as well. Or they are going to garnish the wage of prison pay so the child is only going to recieve very little.

what_is_a_name ,

Precisely. Nothing in Texas is supposed to work as advertised. This is to further hunt poor people. Ideally brown ones. Glad I left that rotten state.

Fedizen ,

This is not a terrible law but maybe we should design our infrastructure such that injuries are rare rather than the “Accidents are common and you have to pay more if some of the people are alive after the accident” model we currently use.

lntl ,

these crashes are not “accidents” if infrastructure is designed that way. the design/engineering element make these crashes “features” of the design.

ColeSloth ,

It might be a terrible law if it pushes the burden of paying for a child’s care onto a person going to prison for a while, coming out in debt and without transportation, while being expected to pay for child support while also paying for their time in prison and having to find work as a felon instead of social security and welfare helping.

Aside from that it also makes no sense. Different punishments for killing different people shouldn’t be a thing. This will 100% be a law that makes sure criminals and felons stay felons and continue to go in for profit prisons while the government ducks out of paying welfare and social security. What a farce.

phx ,

It’s not a punishment in this case, it’s a form of restitution to help provide financial security to families that have lost a caretaker/breadwinner.

ColeSloth ,

If you are having to pay out money to no benefit of your own you can try to spin it any way you want. It’s still a punishment.

Trainguyrom ,

Restitution is a financial punishment that follows the offender for years and often decades after the fact. Many times offenders on parole or probation are required to remain on probation until restitution is fully repaid, and while on probation/parole it’s extremely easy to have your probation/parole revoked (meaning you get sent straight back to prison, often on fresh charges), plus the requirements for the probation & parole can absolutely violate their rights because “it’s a privilege to be on probation/parole instead of prison”

This is all not mention the difficulty they have getting work after they leave the prison/jail with a felony conviction. There’s a reason so many ex-cons operate businesses, it’s because it’s often the most viable path to a living income

Rambi ,

I don’t really care in this case, I mean if you chose to risk other people’s lives by drunk driving then who cares if it’s difficult to afford. I honestly think drunk driving is way too tolerated. Also it could also be tied to income, so you pay more if you have a higher income.

The only issue I can see with this, is if you have killed someone while drunk driving isn’t there going to be a good chance the kid will already have reached adulthood by the time the drunk driver is released? That and this does just seem like a way for the state to avoid financially supporting those families. So for those two reasons the law is flawed I would say

crashoverride ,

You’re wrong it’s a terrible law, it gets filed under creul and unusual

NutWrench ,
@NutWrench@lemmy.world avatar

Punitive damages for killing a person have to be a hell of lot more than paying the cost of child support.

Jeanschyso ,

Turning jail time into spending money looks a lot like fines being a cost of business. A CEO of a big company could just kill a child’s parents and not even feel the sting, as long as he’s drunk and his weapon is his car.

LibertyLizard ,

It doesn’t seem like this is instead of other punishments, it’s in addition. So this criticism doesn’t really make sense.

mightyfoolish ,

lemmy.world/post/1685223

Already a thing.

utopianfiat ,

Bold of you to assume the CEO would be convicted

Jeanschyso ,

Fair

douglasg14b ,
@douglasg14b@lemmy.world avatar

Or any rich kid:

testified in court that the teen was a product of “affluenza” and was unable to link his actions with consequences because of his parents teaching him that wealth buys privilege

He only killed 4 people while drunk driving 乁⁠ ⁠˘⁠ ⁠o⁠ ⁠˘⁠ ⁠ㄏ

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch

He got a slap on the wrist with rehabilitation. He was only actually convicted for 2 years because he habitually broke his probation.

In Texas!

This is just an example, not really here to make outrage out of it, old news, but a typical example that money usually softens any blow.

MossyFeathers ,

Iirc most Texans were furious about that. As it turns out, his parents weren’t wrong, money does buy privilege! Sadly, Texas’ political system is so broken that even if every single person turned out to vote, the outcome likely wouldn’t change much.

sparr ,

In many parts of the US, not sure about Texas, child support is based on the parent(s)'(s) income/wealth. The same should apply here, but for the drunk driver’s income/wealth.

Jeanschyso ,

The spirit of the law would be to ensure that the change in the money available for the development of the child changes as little as possible after separation of the parents. Under that assumption, the killer would only have to provide as much as the victim would have if they had separated.

sparr ,

Why would that be the spirit of the law? If the parent suddenly started making more money, the kid would (probably) have more spent on raising them. Why would that same outcome not apply to the parent’s responsibility being suddenly replaced by person who makes more money?

lntl ,

cars the best weapon

chakan2 ,
@chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

This, unfortunately, makes hit and run the most viable strategy in Texas.

Dark_Arc ,
@Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

Why? A drink driver was already going to be in a world of trouble before, this just doesn’t leave children hanging for their bull shit.

chakan2 ,
@chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

Because this goes from a 10k-50k fine and a few years in jail to a million(s) dollar fine. Suicide is the only viable out unless you are uber rich.

fne8w2ah ,

Actually one of the few sane things that Texas has done.

Matriks404 ,

I mean sure, but they still should go for a long time to jail.

LufyCZ ,

I don’t know, being in jail means they won’t be able to pay for the child support.

I’d say the better option is a driving ban, with a hars punishment if broken. Making them live on the verge of poverty is IMO better as a punishment and it’s better for the child / society in general

Shou ,

Agreed. A drunk driver proved that he/she is a danger who takes no responsibility. Permanent revoked driver’s licence is the solution here.

Along with heavy child support should they kill someone’s parents/guardian.

Mamertine ,

revoked driver’s licence is the solution here.

A lot of people with revoked/cancelled/suspended licenses still drive. We don’t have a good mechanism to actually keep someone from driving.

The cops used to run plates and take action when the registered owner had one if those statuses and the driver had a vague appearance to the owner. In most places they’re not allowed to do that anymore.

urist ,
@urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I think, perhaps, this isn’t a problem the police can solve in America.

The justice system (IMHO. my opinion is not worth much) should focus on rehabilitation and restitution to the victim. It’s probably impossible to live in parts of Texas without a license, due to lack of alternative transportation.

I don’t feel bad for people who have DUI/DWIs, but I do think you should be able to recover from a mistake like that. Driving without a license can feel like a necessity, because having a car in America can feel like a necessity. Having no (or very few) opportunities makes mistakes unrecoverable.

I’m not saying these people deserve to be able to drive, it’s just, revoking their license doesn’t do anything and it’s obvious why.

Mamertine ,

I used to watch a YouTube motovlogger. He advocated after someone got a DUI they can only get a motorcycle license. His logic was they’d only kill themselves. I could get behind that.

dragonflyteaparty ,

That’s not necessarily true. Pedestrians are definitely a thing. And people would still drive illegally without a license to have passengers, children with them, groceries, larger items, ect. On top of that, being a motorcyclist is more dangerous and one could argue that it’s a cruel and unusual punishment to increase the danger selectively for certain people.

Sludgeyy ,

There’s nothing more scary than a person with nothing to lose

So, person that just screwed up their life. Who wants to hire a felon? How is a felon supposed to get to work in Texas without transportation? You’re going to now take a large chunk out of their paycheck?

People are struggling in Texas that aren’t a felon, can drive a car, and get to keep all their paycheck.

How is a person realistically supposed to overcome basically losing everything?

Driving without a license is this person’s last concern, and probably some alcohol will make them feel better…

Bly ,

Alright this will sound controversial af, wouldn’t that make it easier to choose if there is a scenario where the driver is about to hit a child and its parent, has the ability to swerve and avoid one of them, and choosing the child to avoid paying child support?

hyorvenn ,
@hyorvenn@lemmy.world avatar

Drunk drivers do not have the reaction and focus span to make that sort of choices when they are driving through people, you know. Generally you tend to avoid pedestrians until the end, because even without paying for child support it’s not a good outcome. And the trolley problem never happens in these cases, because there is almost always the option of trying to brake.

BRabbit ,

I think realistic nobody will actually think about this in the moment before hitting someone. And if they have enough time to think about this and they have enough control of their car to choose who they hit, then they have enough time and control to stop.

Snapz ,

Correction, this is Texas, so you’ll have to pay if you’re poor or not right wing politically connected. If you can afford proper counsel, you won’t.

mojofrododojo ,

Don’t mess with Texas.

Texas is too busy messing with Texas for anyone else to fit in.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •